Vasquez's The War Puzzle

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)

As Cierco(Source A) said to his son, “physical force… is characteristic of man.” Peace may last for some time, but differing views on complicated issues means fighting for what you believe is right. For example, the Cold War clearly supports this message because the US strongly believed in democratic values and they were fighting against the Soviet Union who desired to spread communism. The Cold War strengthened US politically because they maintained their democratic values and contained communism by helping out countries that were devastated after World War II. The US was strictly against communism because it harmed their democratic views and because this could not be solved through discussion, the Cold War was bound to happen. The US and USSR wanted to gain more allies through the spread of their own ideologies but, the Soviet Union clearly had a negative intent of spreading their power on the world. The US policy of containment weakened the Soviet Union because they were not able to spread communism and therefore led to the fall of their empire. This shows that war can either strengthen countries or weaken countries who abuse their use of power. Action must be taken against countries who have a negative purpose of spreading their power and if not resolved through discussion, this means going to

War can be defined as “an active struggle between competing entities. It’s truly hard to tell who is right or wrong during a war. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in and what is true to their heart. In the end there is always two things promised – destruction and death. These two objects can explain the result in every facet of war from the physical to emotional.

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

According to the hegemonic stability theory, “a hegemonic power is necessary to support a highly integrated world economy.” (Nau 2007, 280) Nau explains that as long as there is a relative distribution of power, no one power can affect the system as a whole (280). When there are several equally competitive countries, the global economy reaches the model of a perfect market. Each state acts according to their self-interest, and such behavior leads to higher gains for everyone because “competition maximizes efficiency” (Nau 2007, 280) in a perfect market. However, there is no place for violence in a perfect market because a hegemon assures security by deploying a police force (Nau 2007, 280). Since there is usually no such force in the international system, many competitive nations have to fear violence. This is what the realists meant when they stated that in the multipolar world, nations cannot be sure about alliances. In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two great powers after World War II; thus, they developed an example of a bipolar world, in which there are separate and self-governing “half-world” economies that includes very little trade with each other (Nau 2007, 280).

War: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. War is inevitable. Especially in the cases in which one country has a desire to break free from another country and/or its influences. This, at least, was the basic reason as to why the Vietnam war and the Revolutionary war started. As a matter of fact, these two wars are strangely similar. The Revolutionary war and the Vietnam war are alike because, they had similar war strategies, they had similar characteristics, and most importantly, they had the same reasons for going to war. Moreover, these two wars are strangely alike.

‘War’ as defined by Webster’s Dictionary is a state of open and declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations. Voltaire—the human personification of the Enlightenment period—says the following: “Famine, plague, and war are the three most famous ingredients of this wretched world…All animals are perpetually at war with each other…Air, earth and water are arenas of destruction. Defining war has been a political issue for centuries, and it poses a philosophical problem. Most philosophers will agree on war being a clash of arms, or a state of mutual tension between nations or states, distinguishing it from open rebellions, riots, and personal violence.

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

War has been going on just about as long as people have been alive. Whether it is just some cavemen fighting over a fire, or multiple countries going to war for justice, there has always been some scale of war. I am going to be analyzing way through functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives.

War is a conflict carried out by force of arms, between nations, states or between parties within a nation which can be on land, sea or in the air, always caused by something. It’s a clash of interests which results in violent armed struggles and can affect

Classical realist theory is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently bad and selfish, the international system is anarchic, and the state is the most important actor in international affairs. Basing policy decisions on human nature, the state looks to maximize it’s power and security within its geographic location. Realist theory sees all conflict deriving from power struggles between states, though it is not about fostering wars; rather the opposite.

When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.