The Utility Of War : Is War Rare? Or Is It Part Of Human Nature?

John Lynn, on the other hand, tries to conceptualize the relationship between practical dimensions of war and cultural factors. Although he tries to undermine Victor Hanson?s idea of war, he discusses the realities of combat and discourse of war based on social and political

In his writing, he stated that war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance” (p.135)

“The Cause of War” is a book written by Australian author Geoffrey Blainey. The book is a collection of studies from wars since 1700’s and it analysis the relation of rivaling nations. The book is divided in four parts it starts discussing the weakness behind the current theories of peace, it then moves to talk the “ingredients” which are key for a nation to determine whether they will go to war or not. Third part of the group is about some misleading theories of war, and the last part just deals with the variety of war.

The conflict of war and its effects have been debated throughout history. Some argue that there are other peaceful alternatives besides war that would lead to a better outcome, but in reality this is not the case. War is a natural part of human interactions, and even though it brings death and destruction, war will not cease to exist. Wars are the human way of getting one group to look superior than the other. The idea of a passive approach is ideal, but it is almost nearly impossible and may not always lead to the same outcome as if a war had taken place.

Dating to the beginning of civilization, war continues to be a repeating occurrence in the world whether it be with oneself, society, or the outside influences in the world. In terms of war between countries, there is the growing controversy over its utilization and purpose when a country is predisposed to a situation foreboding unavoidable conflict. War is the only solution to certain situations but cannot be considered a panacea to all the issues prevalent in the world. The reasoning behind this is that war produces consequences some of which that are permanent. War has always spawn more conflict, gives disfigurement to human bodies, death and occasionally affects the state of one’s mind in areas such as mentality, emotions, rationality

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

Throughout human history, war has stood as a universal reaction to various conflicts between diverse peoples. War can embed itself into a culture over generations of fighting. It can generate cultures that base themselves around the concept of war, creating hostile and bellicose peoples. At times, war may not even have grounds, but the aggressive nature of the people often cause it to proceed without justification. These wars often proceed due to perceptions conceived within the depths of peoples’ imaginations. Irrational assumptions, fears of the unknown, and the development of nonexistent threats allow the justification of these wars within the individuals. In A Separate Peace, wars such as these are seen between the characters and

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

Hanson’s overarching fundamental point from his essays is that war is something that’s happened since the ancient times and has continued on into present times without much change. Even though technology and strategies have changed, war is still a human enterprise. Hanson highlights this point by telling the metaphor that his father told him about the changing technology of irrigation; back in his day he had to pump so many times to get a little amount of water, nowadays you can press a button and get tons of gallons of water in seconds, however it’s still water that flows out. So even though the mechanics have changed, at its core war is still something undertaken by humans. He contends that people’s attitude towards war is what has evolved; with the

Under the moral pressures created by the threat of nuclear war, our attention focused almost exclusively on "war-conduct" questions in the decades after World War II. This, in turn, led to what can only be described as an inversion of the just-war tradition: the claim, frequently encountered in both official and scholarly commentary today, that the just-war tradition "begins with a presumption against violence."

The concept of “just war” is built on the assumption that war is bad and should be avoided, but there also may be times when warfare is justified. Just war theories usually address two main areas: First, under what conditions is it right to go to war? Second, is there a moral way to conduct a war?

We all have our own views regarding to war but there is one that nobody can deny, although honourable, war is purely nothing but futile suffering and a never-ending road of pain. Yet from all these past struggles, we may ask ourselves why is war still present in our society today?

Internally and externally, past and present, individually and societally, throughout history one thing is constant: war. Originally intended as means by which to obtain a desired resource, war morphed through hundreds of years to the brutal affliction we are familiar with today. However, a few hundred years ago, even until just after 1900, war in Europe was almost just a game of nobility. As kings and dynasties moved their pawns around the map, conquering here, and losing there, valor and glory remained at the forefront of the professionally trained career soldiers that dominated the European regular armies. From various sources it is now seen that the whole concept of war was forever altered around the First World War

As Heinrich von Treitschke wrote in “The Greatness of War,” “war is for an afflicted people the only remedy.” (43) International conflict stimulated the economy with the

Famous Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." which supports the idea of war as a culturally influenced situation that is determined by the political power in control. War is a tool in the arsenal of a successful power to use when debating and non-violent persuasion fail to achieve the goals of the power. War is always waged for a reason, war is not a random act of slaughter. It is consequential to both the attacking and defending parties and no matter the amount of casualties, war comes with a heavy price. The financial cost of war is astronomical and the effects of war can be damaging to the political power. This is why war is usually a secondary resort instead of an impulsive decision coming from instinctive biology and not rationale. Biology has shown us that we do have reflexive, self defense mechanisms built in that serve the purpose of defending us from predators. But instead of fighting for a cause initiated out of respect for our self defense, we find these mechanisms being manipulated by the political power in order to gain public support for a war waged for entirely calculated reasons and not based on emotional expression. Denis Diderot, a French philosopher, elaborates on war as a