Why We Go To War Research Paper

Conflict will always exist in the modern world. One of the biggest motivators in the approach to conflict is fear. Conflict shapes the formation and intensity of fear. Fear can bring about ideas or actions that one normally would not ever think or implement.As fear builds up people will often go to extremes to try as much as possible to mitigate their fear. Eventually fear grows so large that it may consume all of one’s thoughts. This will motivate someone to resort to desperate plans to try and assuage their fear. The fear caused by war can do many things to the human body mentally and physically. In “ All The Light We Cannot See”, Anthony Doerr proves in times of conflict, fear becomes one of the motivating factors.

2. A Schema is a system that helps us organize and make sense of information. you may have developed a schema that all homeless people are rude and distasteful. Because of this schema, you organize your actions around it you may find the small number of them that are rude and because of this every time you see a homeless person you think they are rude and distasteful.

In 1814 and 1815 President Andrew Jackson became famous for when he demolished the British Army in the war of Battle of New Orleans. What most people do not know is that Jackson suspended the court order of habeas corpus and the declaration of war. Well habeas corpus is a court order requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. So Jackson suspended this law so that he could bring in people he needed to win the war with New Orleans, which brings us to the declaration of war. Declaration of war is a formal act which one state goes to war against another. The declaration is a speech acting by an authorized party of a national government, to create a state of war between two states. Now you are probably wondering

Clausewitz who was convinced that no theory of war could be taken seriously unless it included the psychology of commanders and soldiers and their relations to one another (Peter Paret, Napoleon and the Revolution in War, pg. 134). The human factor within the nature of war is the most complex and difficult to predict a sure outcome without addressing psychological state of the enemy and environment in with you are about to conduct operations. Boyd integrates the key ideas of two primary theorists, Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz, and hypothesizes that making sense of one’s environment, making military decisions, and acting on those decisions is a respective, competitive process (OODA loop) in which one seeks to make faster and better decisions than one’s adversary, overwhelming his ability to make sense of his environment and cope with change. (Module 3, John Boyd and A Discourse on Winning and Losing, pg. 6). This thought process is relevant today through our military war games, operation plans, and TDG’s providing an opportunity for multiple levels of outcome based scenarios fundamentally rooted in understanding the

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

It was interesting to read your post, Nicole.However, I would like to argue about a couple of things.

While America was at war in Vietnam in the late twentieth century, there was a backlash of rebellion from the American people against the war. One particular group of people who protested were the students and these protests often escalated which leads to the investigation of the question, through opposing viewpoints,: To what extent did the National Guard overreact to anti-war protests at Kent State on May 4, 1970? The following sources were analyzed due to their crucial value of providing alternate viewpoints to the investigation. This event contains modern relevance due to the fact it questions to protection of United State citizens and freedom of expression. However, despite the violence portrayed by protesters, the National Guard escalated to counter violence too swiftly against the minute threat of the unarmed students.

Perspective is a powerful conflict; the approach one has about war is an important factor that helps fabricate whether it is essential to use violence or not in order to voice opinions. “..we must resort to force only in case we may not avail of ourselves of discussion” (Source A). Conflicting views are detrimental to the society, the discussion that one has within each other is a conversation in which conflicts arise and therefore war seems to be inescapable. War is consistently an upbringing element, in which society cannot avoid. The emotions behind opinions is ultimately associated with war, it is often impossible to express yourself for others to have an actual understatement therefore perspective is influential.

A schema according to Henry Gleitman (2007) is a mental representation that summarises what we know about a certain event or situation. Schemas reflect the fact that many aspects of our experience are redundant and schemas seek to provide a summary of this redundancy.

There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

This meaning is interrelated to prior knowledge and/or experience. “Without a schema to which an event can be assimilated, learning is slow and uncertain” (Anderson, 1984, pg. 5). Knowledge that does is not easily connected with previous schemata may undergo a form of schema evolution or be discarded (Rumelhart & Norman, 1980). Thus, development of new schemata or expanding of existing schemata relies heavily on a learner’s prior knowledge.

Charles Darwin’s idea of survival of the fittest can be applied to war: the best-fit and more powerful antagonist will survive. It is the victors who gain status, resources, and/or territory from their win. Thus, war is an inevitable element of human existence due to social influences, global progress, and disagreement among countries.

This essay intends to define and give an overview of the ‘Principles of War', the philosophers that coined these principles and with examples from the various countries that used and have their own perspectives on the ‘Principles of War'.