Limited warfare is defined as “armed conflict short of general war, exclusive of incidents, involving the overt engagement of the military forces of two or more nations.” But why would one nation want to enter into a limited engagement and not totally eliminate the nation they perceive as a threat to their national interests. The most important factors leading to a limited war is the state or nations economic restrictions, manpower restrictions, and political objectives. How much can a nation afford to spend in resources and capital to develop and sustain their army? The economic and financial restrictions a nation faces can dramatically affect the size and capabilities of its army. Early Armies relied on mercenaries to fill their …show more content…
Trade between nations is critical to ensure access to resources not found in a nation’s specific region. Trade is extremely crucial to nations with limited natural resources. By affecting trade, war degrades a nation’s ability to raise capital. Additionally, it can limit the nation’s ability to receive critical resources which affect the nation’s ability to engage in prolonged warfare. A nation could seize land or regions that possess the critical resources they require, however, it would require sustainment of an occupation force in the seized area to ensure continued access to those resources. Although the seized land might give them resources, the increased cost of sustaining the occupation army might outweigh the benefits received from the resources. It could more cost effective and practical to trade with the nation rather than take it …show more content…
The time it takes to train a Soldier depends on his duties and responsibilities. The more technical or the greater the responsibilities the Soldier faces require a greater amount of training. Years are invested in the professional development of Soldiers to ensure their discipline and proficiency in war. Once Soldiers are lost, they would take years to replace. Because of the time required to properly train an army, nations have to be careful on how they employ it. If a nation suffers significant losses it is susceptible to attack from other nations during the time it takes to rebuild their
History is full of people fighting against one another and going to war for all types of different reasons. For the most part countries go to war to either protect their way of life, or for a better way of living. We want to preserve certain aspects of life like our rights, as well as helping others gain or maintain them, we also want to be able to prosper as a country. When one or some of these things are threatened a country will go to war. Some wars that fallow this trend include the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War. Besides protecting or bettering life, war can also make or break a countries economy.
Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that region to acquire fantastic levels of wealth, many of these powerful figures have denied these claims, Zinn,in reaction to these claims uses paradigm example, WW1, as a means for discrediting the upper class who incessantly deny profits during war.
War powers refers to the powers exercised by Congress or the president during times of war or other crises affecting national security. Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution declares that the president is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He may direct the military after an official declaration of war from Congress. There is a lot of disagreement and confusion about what exactly the president has the power to do under the Constitution. The purpose of this paper is to determine what war powers the constitution and Congress give the president, domestically and abroad during times of war, and what the scope of those powers is.
Almost every state on Earth desires peace, so why do countries go to war so often? Between World War I and World War II alone, there were an estimated 81 million casualties (Primary Megadeaths). Each state has different values and desires and many are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure those values remain in their state as well as spread to others. War results in a failure of states to successfully bargain with one another. The most common reason for wars to occur is territorial control. Of the 155 wars in the past three centuries, 83 of them dealt with territory (Holsti). Adding more territory will often add more wealth to the state. One way it can do that is by providing goods, resources, or industries that a state needs, such as oil or minerals. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-1988 partially because Iraq sought to take control of Iran’s southern oil fields, according to World Politics. Military strategy can also play a role in why states seek new territories. Finally, states can be interested in territory for ethnic, cultural, or historical reasons. A prime ex...
Yanak, Ted, and Pam Cornelison. "War Powers Act." The Great American History Fact-Finder. Dec. 1 1993: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
Some americans say that nations hinge on each other, while others say they also compete with one another. This gives rise to rivalry, which sometimes leads to war. Some wars emerge from differentiation in race, religion and culture. Due to the evolution of technology in an accelerated pace, highly sophisticated weapons are now available for use in wars. Wars also bring about widespread destruction, disrupt communication and hamper commerce. Thus, they cause heavy financial loss and great suffering to people. The effects of wars often affect countries that are not involved in the conflict. The threat of war can pressure a nation to waste immense amounts of money on defense instead of spending on developmental works like creating roads, hospitals, schools, and much more. War can halt a countries development. Some countries try to achieve political desires by using terrorism as a weapon against other countries. Terrorism spreads fear in civilians through acts of violence like killings and hostages. This intimidation has transformed into worldwide threat.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
The war strategies of Carl von Clausewitz and Antoine Henri de Jomini are not mutually exclusive philosophies. Clausewitz’s “Trinity of War”, “war as an extension of politics”, and the “unpredictability of war” speak more so to the upper, strategic and political ranges of war. Jomini addresses the operational and tactical levels in the lower ranges of war with his definition of strategy and his “Fundamental Principle of War”. So if one views their work collectively rather than as competitors, the two philosophies complement each other by addressing different segments of the spectrum of war.
Maxwell, Hilary. “Warfare Plans of Countries.” Monta Vista High School, Cupertino. 26 Jan. 2014. Lecture.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
Militarism refers to all the group sponsored activities involved in preparing for war. This would include training and preparing fighters, also weapons and other resources as stated in our textbook, Social Problems of the Modern World “promulgating cultural beliefs and values justifying warfare”. War is defined to group sponsored violence against another group. War is the act while militarism is the preparing stage. War and militarism are not modern developments; they have been around for a while. They have both caused social problems in the world. Many believe that the social roots of war and militarism comes from violence that lies deep within us. In some areas, wars promoting the nations interest are seen as essential. Beliefs
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging
When comparing and contrasting U. S. military operations and capabilities with regard to regular versus irregular warfare it is important to understand the definition of irregular and the spectrum of conflict. In recent history, the term “irregular warfare” has been used interchangeably with or alongside insurgency and counterinsurgency warfare. This usage and comparison is too narrow. ...
Along with the hostile divisions in Europe came the expansion of armies and navies thus leading to an arms race. This arms race was also precipitated by the increase in war budgets after 1900. Attempts to restrict the arms race, like The Hague conference in 1899 and 1907 failed due to mutual suspicion. The great powers also elaborated plans for mass mobilisation. It was thought that a war would be decided in the opening phases and therefore who ever got into the field first and assembled the largest army in the sh...
To explain the necessity of war, we must explain what it means for something to be necessary. For something to be necessary it has to be “unable to be changed or avoided.” Well at least