The theoretical framework I develop rests on the assumption that individuals are rational actors

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

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

I really like your thorough explanation regarding the bargaining theory of war. It is true that winning comes at a price, and usually the casualty of citizens are numerous. When weighing between going to war and to not, there is always a strong reason against. However, due to the reasons you mentioned, war ends up happening. For instance, credible commitment is a huge problem because the incentive to default always stand. Take the Russian-American conflict on nuclear weapons. There have been many treaties to safe guard this weapon from being utilized and triggering massive destruction. However, the incentive to attack can rise as simple as the reason to “attack first”. First strike advantages mere means that the party who attacks

Throughout history, neighbor has been fighting neighbor over land. Some of these wars have gone down in history as the most violent or largest of all wars. The study of war must include all aspects of the struggle, including historical, financial, and political ramifications. Insight into the strategy used by military troops, the rational of the military leaders, how the economy was affected, provide an understanding of society during that time. Wars are studied for years after they cease. Studying the causes, results, the economics, the destruction and reconstruction, and other particulars of war offers insight and, hopefully, the wisdom to prevent future ones.

The American Persona is basically the average person or personality of America; what they say, think, and how they act. Rational choice theory is an assumption that people always make prudent and logical decisions that usually benefit or satisfy them to their own personal interest. In my opinion, being American is eating a lot and gaining weight. It is also having freedom of speech, of religion, of expression, etc. and having rights to bare arms, equal justice, etc. But do we really?

to characteristics of the local actor, and I label the deliberate lowering of demands on more aggressive local actors “anticipatory appeasement+” I show that in all equilibria in which local actors pay the transfer demanded, the maximum level of this transfer is lower for actors for whom fighting is

By looking at the political history of major world powers, we are clearly aware of the events of legitimation crises: the House of Medici was confronted by the people under the influence of religious Savonarola; American Civil War emerged from a conflict of ideologies of the North and the South; Southeast Asian countries went through unsuccessful and even destructive decolonization; Communist China was challenged by large-scale protests after the East European upheaval. It is definitely a serious task for rulers to maintain a good standing as not to be overthrown, but various sources of crises made it hard for the authority to predict outcomes and plot countermeasures. The Prince discusses the charm of pure princely power, without the addition of morality; Huntington introduces the “political gap” caused by modernization; Nisbet warns the public of an increasingly more centralized authority; De Jasay investigates the nature of repression and consent. The research findings of the aforementioned authors elicit me to better comprehend potential priorities of governments.

Lastly, another factor to consider is the American public’s opinion on the conflict. Samantha Power writes in her article that “...public opinion is rarely if ever aroused by foreign crises, even genocidal ones, in the absence of political leadership…” However, she also writes that political leadership often credit their passiveness to a lack of strong public opinion. It would be interesting to see if there are any trends in US conflict involvement and public opinion. It is difficult to compare two different conflicts to each other. However, my hope is that by averaging the above factors for all of the conflicts that have occurred in the past few decades, significant trends will emerge from the data.

Wars are expensive (in money and other resources), destructive (of capital and human capital), and disruptive (of trade, resource availability, labor management). Large wars make up severe shocks to the economies of participating countries. Despite some positive aspects of short-term stimulation and long-term destruction and rebuilding, war generally impedes economic

The role of the executive has always remained a controversial issue. In some countries, the executive may champion conservative beliefs, pushing his country towards free-market economies, privatization and military spending. In another country, the executive might have been a populist leader who came to power by mobilizing the masses, championing labor rights and engaging in land redistribution. As Fukyuyama references to in his piece, “Do Institutions Really Matter”, nevertheless, in developed democracies, the role of institutions, such as low levels of corruption and accountable government, have ensured these executives will exercise their power within limit. Another institution such as regular elections provides the people with a “fair” process of choosing representation. Consequently, it is assumed that institutions are of the utmost importance to a society, as they often dictate the political, economic and social ramifications for that country. Therefore, if institutions do indeed matter, is executive leadership helpful or detrimental to their role and effectiveness? We will examine presidential democracies, in particular the United States, a prime example where the Chief of State has much more executive influence than in any other form of democracy, to determine whether this leadership strengthens or mitigates the effects of institutions. It is important to understand that not only does the president have significant power in this system, but also that this nation

2009, Jadhav and Barua 2012, Barua et al. 2013). Hence, the effectiveness of these uncompensated costs and hidden impacts in lessening the conflict in the long term are questionable as they do not address the underlying cause and merely transfer the risk from one spatial location to the next (Sukumar 1989, 1991).

Rational choice theory is actually more than one theory per se, but the basic similarities among its variants mean that they can be intelligibly amalgamated for the purposes of critiquing its implementation in political science. Therefore public choice theory, positive political science, rational actor models, and the economic approach to politics, among others, refer to what we may call rational choice theory for the purposes of this essay. (See Green and Shapiro 1994, xi.

For as long back as we all have known, Wars have been inevitable. In the mist of destruction, most aren’t thinking about the long term and short term effects that will reflect upon us for years to come, both negatively and positively. War has a profound influence on our countries economic history. Unfortunately, there must always be a winner and a loser. The victors have shifted economic and trade patterns forever. All while the losers leave with disgruntled markets, unstable economic growth, and their pockets of wealth turned inside out. After extensive research, I will tell you the many effects war has on our economy, the effect on International Business, who or what companies may thrive, which it destroys, and the overall everlasting

To date, though, notably few studies have investigated whether democratic publics are more hesitant to attack democracies than autocracies.Moreover, the small body of actual work has not computed for variables that could confound the relationship bounded by shared democracy and public support for war, nor has it explored the mechanisms by which the regime nature of the adversary affects the public mood. Despite decades of inquisition on the democratic peace, we still lack convincing documentation about whether and how public opinion contributes to the absence of war among democracies. The leaders who make the ultimate decisions about war and peace in democracies have powerful impetus to respect the opinions of citizens. Public opinion matters for several reasons. First, leaders who disappoint or antagonize their constituents risk being removed from office. While early research believe that public opinion on foreign policy was incoherent (Almond 1960) and that politics “stopped at the water’s edge” (Wildavsky 1966), this interpretation has been supplanted by many other studies showing that mass opinion is logical and influential. Leaders know that citizens care about foreign policy, which foreign policy regularly plays a role in electoral campaigns, and that foreign policy mistakes can hurt leaders at the ballot box (Aldrich 1989; Gronke 2003; Gelpi 2007).

The Wrath of God vs. Big Brother: Observational Effects of Cooperation in the Dictator Game (2000 words)