Is War A Major Obsolete? Discussion On War And Conflict

War being Obsolote

Discuss about the War and Conflict A Major Obsolete.

The war is a state of an armed conflict that is found normally between societies. This is generally characterized by destruction, aggression and mortality that have been used in irregular and regular forces of military. There is also a basic difference between the conflict and war as the former is the fight is between the armed troops and the latter is a state of hostility between the different parties by official means of a Government. The conflict is generally in a smaller scale whereas the war is in a large scale that involves nations and not necessarily all conflicts are connected to wars. In this essay, the topic that has been chosen is the war and conflict and the essay question that will be answered is whether the war a major obsolete. This question comes to mind whenever there is a revisiting of the WWI and WWII. It has been argued by many researchers that any major war today is just a bad policy option due to the sharp growth in the costs and the poor recompenses for victory. It has been observed that the appropriate angles of human nature are making them turn away from violence.

There are major arguments on war that deals with the nuclear weapons that has become largely irrelevant ever since the World War II. There is also a need for speculation about the future of the war especially in the era of the post cold war[1]. There is also a wrong notion that the war is somehow of a natural fate in the human race. There is also a suggestion that Hitler had a necessary condition for the world war in Europe. After the end of the cold war it was suggested that the polarity concept was about forms like neo realism and realism[2]. Specific terms like anarchy and power have become unhelpful in matters like international affairs that stress on notions which have functional importance of variables. There is a need for ideas that are like war aversions and has set in notions about how the ideas can be marked. There is also an argument between the war and the democracy aversion that may be spurious historically[3].

Major war has been waged by some of the most powerful countries when they have drawn their resources while using their weapons for a long period of time that has some of the revolutionary political consequences can be considered obsolete. In the late 20^th century, the fighting costs have eventually soared up while perceiving the benefits of the winning one that has been shriveled. War being out of fashion is something that is not possible ever[4]. Considering the two powerful nations China and Russia, there is no scope for these two powerful nations being affected by the social forces that has once reduced the incentives of war that once begun it.

Attitude Towards War in Europe

Europe at one point was viewed as a warfare that has something very natural and normal as suggested by Dannreuther (2014). He also stated that the war was universally considered as an inevitable one that had desirable ways to set in the international differences. Fierke (2015) contradicted it and said that the message of the war is divine and the foundation had higher virtues and faculties for the men. Baylis et al. (2017) concluded saying that the war always enlarges the mind of the people and eventually raises its character. Atkinson (2017) considered the war as the life itself and also believed that the war was a necessarily for the progress of the humans[5].

From a partial consequence it can be suggested that Europe is a cauldron of both the civil and the international conflicts and the continent was more warlike. Hughes (2015) with a mixture of disgust and amazement called it the arena of the gladiators where the war is seen as the natural state of man.

Attitude towards war have changed in a profound way in the twentieth century in Europe. In no way can it quantify that the change that could be accepted through a rough sort of content analysis as it might find it easy to find some of the serious writers, politicians and analysts in US and Europe. As per Janowitz (2017) England hailed war that is not merely an unpleasant necessity but has been suggested to observe the spiritual salvation and the hope of their generation. These views have eventually become much rare. It may not be quite evident but has to be a systematic evident way that demonstrates the belief that the war is obsolete as per the Europeans. This also suggests that the appeal of the war has both desirable exercise and a sensible method that needs to be resolved in the sectors of the international disagreements that has been diminished remarkably on the war racked continent[6].

The death and the suffering that is caused due to war do not end here but when the last bullet whizzes by. Culmination ofc the war takes more than stopping the active hostility. Peace can be considered as the lack of conflicting behavior or violence or the threats of the violence. Returning to the state of peace actually takes more time like decades. Jarvis et al., (2017) viewed it as the freedom from the disturbances that is present on the social economic prosperity and the political orders that needs to serve on true interests of the people. The faces of peace sprung from the different frames of reference that needs to be viewed upon that will imply peace on the beholder. Peace is an entity that has one universal identity on holding it within the qualities of the whole constitute[7]. A major popular thought about the absence of war is peace which is defective and myopic. The though is very analogous that is primarily due to the absence of the diseases in the health. Peace can be counted as a positive state that has existence of the brotherhood and the social justices that enables the environment in the absence of war[8].

What Happens When There is No War?

The existence of the negative peace cannot be overstated but would be unreasonable or naive and hence tension would remain forever. Wars have been fought and won but peace prevails and sinks deep into the abyss. Without the help of any appropriate addressing the tensions, anger layers, pain, mistrust, hatred resentment of the powerful army needs to deliver peace that will become the greatest misnomer[9]. The tensions brew up the conflicts around Africa that has factors like selfishness and pride of the different leaders. The leaders cannot change in the face of the blatant reality that has been caused by wars.

It can be elaborately stated that the peace is just not in the absence of war but can be regarded as the virtue that springs up from the state of mind that has a disposition for the benevolence, justice and confidence. This quote has been stated by Jervis (2017) which means there is along us of them in the Social Media that has eventually changed or tied up a bit. A presentation has been made in a full form that might have different variants floating around them. it can be stated that after the first World War, peace prevailed but however in the absence of war there was no benevolence and had less justice to those who were losing on both the sides. This however became resentment and eventually led to the World War 2[10].

Peace is more than just the absence of war. Once the last gun is shot there is an enormous amount of work that can be done. As a citizen of a country there is a need to come over together and support their community that has been ravaged by war. There is a need for a long attention span that will generate the post conflict solutions that will help to pass down through a generation of people[11]. The solutions need to address the shattered people and the broken infrastructures that includes for the economic help, medical and the psychiatric support and the spiritual heating. There are many solutions that are long terms and multi-faceted and is much tougher to endure the quick fixes that is essential to be reduced in the long term concerns of war.

Theoretical planners acquainted with their corrective history would understand that the concern of whether major war is outdated recovered an unmistakable coverage in Survival magazine in the late 1990s. To save perusers the bother of tunneling through their reports, one contributor, John Mueller, fought that it was superseded—gone the technique for oppression and battling—while others wrestled mostly completed how to describe desuetude and extensively more completed how to portray major war. Was the Vietnam War "major"? Was the Cold War a "war"? It's fascinating that the request concerning the obsolescence of war is ordinarily capable by the descriptor "major." No one has all the earmarks of being particularly fast to ensure that appalling little wars—particularly, awful little wars in faraway spots—are obsolete, perhaps in light of the way that they doubtlessly aren't. From memory, Mueller might not want to call those disputes 'wars', in any case; he saw those more as spearheading predation.

Peace is More Than Just the Absence of War

9/11 came and sideswiped that complete verbal showdown. The horrendous little wars of the 1990s didn't stay in distant spots. A superpower got up and strolled off to war—however a war against Al Qaeda, its followers, and each one of its works. Some place along the line the undertaking advanced toward getting to be conflated with an extensive gathering of various issues, and Washington ended up focusing on the Global War on Terror for longer than it possibly should have done. Nonetheless, Washington's direct in any occasion tended to one request related to the Big One: did unimaginable powers still go to war? To be sure. By and by, the request still unreciprocated—unrequited since 1945 if you figure major war must be hot; unanswered since 1991, in case you figure major war can be cold—is paying little respect to whether major powers still go to war with each other.

Since the complete of the Second World War, facilitate conflict among the monstrous powers has been evidently non-existent, signifying the longest nonattendance of major war since the seasons of the Roman Empire. Given the scale and repeat of major war in prior several years, this nonattendance may be without a doubt the most key brokenness that the history of warfare has ever watched. Notwithstanding the way that not without strain, phenomenal power relations are by and by generally depicted by a sentiment peace, with states bringing out hatreds through political or money related, rather than military, infers. Indeed, as the risk of major war has declined, most unbelievable powers have put less resources in working up a strong military, encountering a remarkable downsizing in both the degree of their armed forces and the measure of weapons accessible to them since 1945.

The centrality of the present nonattendance of major war can't be centered around enough. However, while basic, observe that the years following the Second World War have not been separate by add up to peace, not despite for the goliath powers. Not long after the complete of the Second World War, the Cold War broke out, a test between the Soviet Union and the United States that would describe the accompanying couple of numerous times of history. Though a vast bit of the wars combat in the midst of this period happened in the Global South, the Soviet Union, the United States, and their different accomplices every now and again shared in these battles, giving key help or even their own specific military forces. These go-between wars, wherein powerful countries utilized normal conflicts in the making scene to do their enmities and extend their effect, achieved circumlocutory engagement among fantastic power forces. Along these lines, regardless of the way that the most recent 50 years or so has not seen a major war in the most ideal sense, the colossal powers have involved with circumlocutory battles against each other.

Unfathomably, as weapons technologies have improved and ended up being logically additionally harming, the likelihood of major war has declined by and large. Extending as far back as the fourteenth century to when gun powder was brought into Britain, presumably the scale and harming capacity of war has recently extended, the pinnacle of which was World War II, the most perilous war in humankind's history. Absolutely, World War I was in like manner a repulsive war, and, clearly, World War III would be substantially more horrible, paying little mind to the likelihood that nuclear weapons were not utilized. Since magnificent powers have colossal supplies of exceedingly harming weapons and have straightforwardly felt their staggering potential in past wars, such technologies would seem to go about as a snag to the erupt of major war. The major pivotal turning point the extent that the obviously harming utmost of warfare went with the Industrial Revolution, which began in Europe in the eighteenth century. Finally, the costs related with major war have extended. Regardless, while gigantic, this reality alone can't speak to the changing profitability figuring including major war. One ought to in like manner review the points of interest to be gotten. If the favorable circumstances have declined in conjunction with expanding costs, by then it is farfetched that major war isn't any more beneficial and, thus, obsolescent.

The U.S military is much more technologically and sophistically superior than that of the other forces in the world. The strength of the U.S economy lies in the immense capability of the defense industry over the last sixty-five years. The ability of the economy is to invest in the forces that will be productive for the country in the long run. For an example the U.S military must be able to accomplish its primary mission of winning and fighting in the war of the nations that may be in the land domain, sea and air and the disruptive innovations must be ignored. The military people of the country tend to focus on the different incremental improvements that is based on the disruptive innovations. There is also a tendency for the military people to focus on the existing and the sustaining technology and innovations that is because it supports the primary doctrines and missions that requires the greatest commitment of the resources that in this case is the weapons. This tendency is more pronounced in the peace time and however being more précised the U.S is considered as the global leader is all terms be it sea, land, air and even adversaries and weapons that might threaten it in ways so that they could easily seek for circumvent advantages that may be in some way challenging.

The theory regarding the disruptive innovations is a complete framework that enables them to understand that from where the threats are supposedly likely to emerge. Suggestions have been made on the requirement development and the management of the acquisitions that is solely within the conventional system that is unlikely to be anticipated in the threats. There are various disruptive inventions and utility of the weapons that has been viewed in a challenging radical way in the existing technologies[12]. There is also a misleading factor that has a disruptive technology that can be defined not only by the nature of the innovation but also by the way it dominates the organizations of the nations. There is also mismanagement of the technology that has become a moral threat of the nation. The disruptive ones fail to meet the requirements that is necessary to be met in the context of the war[13]. The result is that the dominant paradigm lies in the under investment of the use of the different forces in this new advanced world of technology. The disruption model predicts that nations might fail to become properly managed in the disruptive technologies. These technologies are to some extent ignored by the military people of US that even have a constrained resource environment.

Conclusion

In this above report, a vivid analysis of the international security has been made. Based on the topic war and conflicts, the major question was resolved keeping their basic based on the U.S country. In this essay, the topic that has been chosen is the war and conflict and the essay question that was answered is whether the war a major obsolete. This question comes to mind whenever there is a revisiting of the WWI and WWII. It has been argued by many researchers that any major war today is just a poor policy option due to the steep rise in the costs and the poor rewards for success. It has been observed that the appropriate angles of human nature are making them turn away from violence.  Overall at the end of this paper, one got an overview of all the topics and the obsolesce of the war in terms of the international security.

References

Atkinson, Colin. "Western foreign fighters: the threat to homeland and international security." (2017): 1-2.

Baylis, John, Patricia Owens, and Steve Smith, eds. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Betts, Richard K., ed. Conflict after the Cold War: arguments on causes of war and peace. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

Bulutgil, H. Zeynep. "Ethnic Cleansing and Its Alternatives in Wartime: A Comparison of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires." International Security (2017).

Croft, Stuart, and Nick Vaughan-Williams. "Fit for purpose? Fitting ontological security studies ‘into’the discipline of International Relations: Towards a vernacular turn." Cooperation and Conflict 52.1 (2017): 12-30.

Dannreuther, Roland. International security: The contemporary agenda. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Fierke, Karin M. Critical approaches to international security. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

Hughes, Llewelyn, and Austin Long. "Is there an oil weapon?: Security implications of changes in the structure of the international oil market." International Security 39.3 (2015): 152-189.

Janowitz, Morris. The professional soldier: A social and political portrait. Simon and Schuster, 2017.

Jarvis, Lee, Stuart Macdonald, and Andrew Whiting. "Unpacking cyberterrorism discourse: Specificity, status, and scale in news media constructions of threat." European Journal of International Security 2.1 (2017): 64-87.

Jervis, Robert. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton University Press, 2017.

Lieber, Keir A., and Daryl G. Press. "The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence." International Security (2017).

Louie, Ryan K. "The Psychiatry of Entrepreneurship as a Pathway to International Security." (2017).

MICHAEL, E. SMITH. INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, 2017.

Michalos, Alex C. "The impact of trust on business, international security and the quality of life." How Good Policies and Business Ethics Enhance Good Quality of Life. Springer International Publishing, 2017. 127-153.

Nye Jr, Joseph S. "Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace." International Security 41.3 (2017): 44-71.

Nye Jr, Joseph S., and David A. Welch. Understanding global conflict and cooperation: an introduction to theory and history. Pearson, 2016.

Ortmeier, Patrick J. Introduction to Security. Pearson, 2017.

Panke, Diana. "Studying small states in international security affairs: a quantitative analysis." Cambridge Review of International Affairs (2017): 1-21.

Pollack, Jonathan D. No exit: North Korea, nuclear weapons, and international security. Routledge, 2017.

Russett, Bruce, ed. International security and conflict. Routledge, 2017.

Smith, Michael E. International security: politics, policy, prospects. Springer, 2017.