War Is An Inevitable Feature Of International Politics

In human history, war has killed countless people, spent untold amounts of money and destroyed the great cities to be ruined. During the Cold War both sides of superpower used their belief that war was extremely likely to warrant the manufacture and deployment of more and more nuclear weapons. Although the Cold War is now ended, old wars continue and new ones have been taken up in many parts of the world: many see waging war as an inevitable consequence of human nature. This attitude is not only dangerous in encouraging the view that war is the method of choice for settling disputes, it is also wrong. (Prof John Finney Chair, British Pugwash Group, 2014) Now a day it becomes clearer that people must choose either the “security” of a peaceful society or the “insecurity” of militarism. However, the long list of conflicts from ancient times to modern day, psychologists still say that “war is not inevitable”. (DeCapua, 2013)

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

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

Factors like social grievances, economic woes and other similarities, give rise to violent extremist groups. Areas with lawlessness and desperation cause people to argue and bring terror (Does Terrorism,178). Extremist groups are often welcomed in such places because they may offer more of basic securities than the state itself. On the other hand, terrorism could be a weapon of the strong, not for the weak. Stronger states are able to disguise it as a legitimate violence

News media is supposed to serve the purpose of informing their listeners of current and upcoming events that affect the audience. Very few viewers actually take into account how valid these news reports actually are. More or less, the news is accept. The same could be said about any news releases on war. However, in the documentary, “War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” the narrator speaks to the audience about how the media such as news reporters and presidential speeches influenced Americans to become advocates for the war. Presidents play a large role in propaganda because they showed means of justification for their immoral military actions during these wars. The film discuss several wars in which America contributed in unethical acts.

Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five is a satire on the behaviors of man. Often characterized as an anti-war novel, Slaughterhouse-Five tries to show that war and destruction are a part of the human life cycle. Humanity is highly conflict prone; conflict resolution often manifests itself in the terms of war. Vonnegut attempts to show that war results in widespread death and destruction; therefore, war and death are inevitable. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut explores the inevitability of war, shown through the examination of color usage - such as blue and ivory - in order to symbolize the interminable presence of war.

Demising the reality of war may be a method for many Americans to ease the harsh realism of the past. Jon Hooten, an administrator at the University of Denver, draws out the fact that “our everyday language is liberally sprinkled with the language of war…” (Hooten 437). While these words appear common in the everyday English language, it is possible that they have become too much of the norm. Additionally, Hooten states, “In our lack of true wartime experience, American culture has learned to deploy the images of war rather casually” (Hooten, 438, 6). Furthermore, Hooten is introducing that many Americans today have never seen nor been affected by a war, therefore using war terms loosely has no significance to them. In addition, when

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has been viewed as the single hegemonic power, dominating the world economically, militarily and culturally. However, it is clear that power relations in the global system have been severely tested after the events of September 11, 2001. It was a crucial event, which significantly changed the trajectory of the global balance of power and has an immediate effect on the United States, its Western Allies and other regions around the world.. As a matter of national security strategy, the main priority of the U.S. becomes the demonstration of its global primacy to all challengers and overthrowing of the status quo of the powers in the hostile regions, while the terror emerges as a widespread power utilization method of the weak in asymmetrical power balance. Although, before the terrorist attacks the process of globalization has already challenged the notion of sovereignty, however, 9/11 attacks has become a game changer in terms of national security across the world. It also brought the need for the powerful states to cooperate more on intelligence, threat assessment and implementation of regulatory and management strategies. At the same time, the strong emphasis of the foreign policy of the United States on counter terrorism in the Islamic regions has challenged the status quo of some states in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. This paper represents an analysis of the impact of the sustained U.S.

‘War. War never changes.’ The tagline from the popular video game series, Fallout, suggesting that although the weapons used and how wars are fought my change, conflict in human nature never changes. Is war an inevitable part of global politics? According to Immanuel Kant the answer is no. Kant would have us believe that a perpetual peace is possible. In this essay I will discuss whether war is an inevitable part of global politics, and whether or not perpetual peace is possible, with reference to the work of Immanuel Kant. The body of my essay will consist of four main sections. What is meant by war and peace, in the global political perspective, Immanuel Kant’s position on the questions, and other theories and ideologies that would seek to

Terrorism has continuously played a brutal role in frightening societies across the world. There are many nations that have faced horrible issues and continue to try to find a solution but to no avail, because terrorism still exists around the world. There are many questions that have still gone unanswered and many governments are finding some relief “with considerable assistance from anti-terrorism organizations (Fischer, 2002).”

War is controversial, unfortunate, and certainly misunderstood; it is a transforming agent, a catalyst for change. Nonetheless, many people focus on war's negative consequences, while positive effects are downplayed. War is a necessary evil in the sense that it stabilizes population, encourages technological advances, and has a very high economic value. Without war, the overpopulation of the human race is inevitable. It is this reason that war is a useful tool by not only Mother Nature, but also humans themselves to institute population control.

Using Bush’s administration view on terrorism, “A world less marked by conflict - including terrorism -is one where regimes are characterized by individual liberty, free markets, democracy and the rule of law.” The article aims to find a relation between transnational terrorism and political and economic freedom through data and statics. It also explores the effects that other factors, such as government size and its political regime, have on transnational terrorism. However, the authors’ argument is lost due to a couple of reasons such as: introducing new arguments that the authors didn’t introduce in the thesis, like geography’s effect on transnational terrorism. Making contradicting statements about poverty, wealth and transnational terrorism.

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

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 altered the environment of international relations, as the world saw first hand the damage a non-state actor can inflict on a regional hegemon. While non-state actors have always existed, for example maritime pirates or private mercenaries, the events of 9/11 provided non-state actors, in the form of terrorist organizations, the platform needed to expand their influence. Despite the urgency posed by the rise of non-state actors, the field of international relations continues to use an interstate framework to analyze conflict. This is the natural result of a long history of state-centered analysis that came to formal fruition post-WWI and dominated through the Cold War. Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, this discipline remained intact. However, as most conflicts today involve non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations in the mountains of Afghanistan and pirates off the coast of Somalia, this state-centric framework is deteriorating.