Furthermore, we have tried to briefly show how it is possible to compare the two wars to each other without declaring that one is more total than the other, but rather using the concept of ‘total war’ to define similarities and differences between the two wars for historical background. Also, this essay has been attempting to bring in interpretations from the interwar period and after to indicate the way the term have varied trough the 20th century, this to show how the concept can be used quite widely. It is evident that the concept of ‘total war’ is a large one where different interpretations make it intricate to use as an analytic tool. The Conclusion would be that the concept of ‘total war’ is a wide and open term, which can if seen as nothing more than an ideal, be used to get an understanding of the history of the two wars, however, it also argues that the ideology of ‘total war’ can be widely different depending on the Historian using the term, that it may cause more confusion than presenting us with a helpful tool to comprehend the background of the two
Several people from different walks of life have extended their own opinions on just and unjust wars. Defencists argue the need to engage in war as an act of defense when there is a threat, such as facing a country what initiated a violent war, overthrowing a cruel and oppressive government, and protecting its people against an invader; the Realists’ belief is similar to those of the Defencists, but that war is said to be just when your moral standards call for it (Orend, 2009). For instance, fighting against the US government after it overthrew your previous dictator, but then proceeded to use Phosphorus shells on civilian targets. As a Realist soldier ordered by the US government to participate in this war, you would call for the right to
War. However, the question still remains to this day, was the US justified in going to war with Mexico? Justified means to have good reason or be right about a decision. Did the US have good reason to start a war with Mexico? As far as the US-Mexican War is concerned the Americans did have appropriate causes for war.
But this was not the only cause of the First World War. The factors that led to this conflict were nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and Mutual Defense alliances. One of the causes of World War I was Mutual Defense Alliances. “The Great Powers had arranged themselves into two rival alliances, producing a balance of power that, it was hoped, would prevent war (How Stuff Works)”. This plan that was promised to bring peace actually brought the world
The aim of this research design is to deduce the outbreak of the conflict with three theories to understand war, such as: human nature theory, democratic peace theory, and neorealism. After that, I will describe why neorealist theory is the more suitable theory for my case study selection. Theories To begin with, the main question is what caused the Cenepa War? In order to explain the question, I will start with Human Nature theory. This theory points out an interest in the individual, specifically in the behavior of man.
He wanted to gain access of an old disputed territory, Kuwait. The United States, Europe and Japan saw such a potential monopoly as a danger. This war is important because it puts forward a perfect example of Realism being practiced in real life. The war shows us the need of an International Peacekeeping Organization but also warns us that they might not always be useful and this is when the use of ‘Power’ comes in which is the essence of Realism. In this case the ‘Power’ we are referring to is the United States which intervened in this war to help Kuwait defeat Iraq.
The question whether war is ever justified, and if so under what circumstances, is one which has been forcing itself upon the attention of all thoughtful individuals in looking at the utilitarian and deontological view on the ethics of war I found that both schools of ethics lead to difficulties when considering the rights and wrongs of warfare. To analyze the ethics involve I started with researching what is war and the history surrounding my topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War is considered an armed conflict by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad. August 6th and August 9th 1945, were days that brought an enormous change to the history of the world. On these days in Hiroshima
Clausewitz would have a problem with this, because he would say, that war is only a continuation of peace or policy with other means. Would RANH have any comprehension of peace terms during warfighting? This may be the conflict of unmanned warfare. However, we are accelerating at such a pace in technology and capability, it is impossible to tell what this would look like before letting the first RANH spar with human and non human opponents. If RANH are focused on the ultimate distillation of war, destruction of an opponent through speed and force, holding relentlessly to the laws of war on the battlefield, like their predecessors on the chessboard, than we will see a purer form of war
Why was WW1 a “total war“ ? In this essay, I am going to analyze why War One (28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918) was a total war by emphasizing the economical, military and political and social characteristics of the First World War. These characteristics are part of the definition of a “total war“. A total war is defined as “A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded“ . A total war consists of a large part of a nation being part of a war and civilians being integrated in the war.
As mentioned in ‘War, the American State, and Politics since 1898’, with regards to the Korean War being distinct to the Cold War, “the U.S. Army’s integration … had a galvanizing influence on the extension of new rights for a marginalized minority group that served honorably in an armed conflict”. The Korean War was also seen as an internal conflict as it began with Kim and Rhee. There were plans to unite Korea during the Moscow Conference. Rhee strongly opposed but Kim was in favor as he had the support of USSR. The subsequent forming of 2 separate governments of different ideology within the same country was indication of a civil war.
But the big question that he has to answer is "what does it mean to be neutral?" And the path to America, entering the Frist World War, is a path in which that definition of neutrality changes, and finally changes to the point where it provokes a between the United States and Germany. so the first definition of neutrality that Woodrow Wilson tries is the
Though I agree with what the act it trying to accomplish because Congress in trying to stay in control of the power to declare war and limit the President’s power to declare war. I honestly feel that power is too much power for one person such as the President to control. I would hope in the future that Congress passes a more effective War Powers Act that the President will have to follow. One of the Presidents that has violated the War Powers Act was President Bill Clinton when he got our military involved in Kosovo. President Clinton didn’t receive Congress’s approval to get involved in the conflict in Kosovo, in fact they voted against it several times.
Another “weapon”, the Soviet Union had was also the United States fear of nuclear weapons because they were in an arm race. Which in document 7, describes it as the “... buildup to a “balance of terror”, which some saw as a deterrent to war”. Both nations feared the others use of the nuclear weapons and who had more or whose were more
A famous Prevention example is the 2003 invasion of Iraq, though claimed to be a preemptive war by former President George W Bush it is hard to determine which to classify the attack under. The United States of America “could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq posed an imminent threat, or that its motives in deposing Saddam Hussein were just”(Andrew 2011). This means that the United States attacked the Iraqi’s without authorization from the United Nations. However this does not include the threat of terrorism. Whether or not this attack is classified as a Prevention or Preemption attack is still being debated.