Causes of war

War is a strategic activity of attacking using
weapons and new technologies for resolving
internal and/or international disputes or conflicts
between two or more nations; between ethnic,
social, and religious (organized) groups; etc., to
cope with environmental threats and take advantage
of important opportunities, generating at the
same time a reduction of the freedom of other
societies/groups and causing deaths, injured people,
and/or social, economic, cultural, and/or ethnic
damages.

Topics include the changing character of war, destructive capabilities of weapons, nuclear weapons, human consequences of war, soldiers after was, children and war, child soldiers, civilian casualties (collateral and targeted), Guatemala, Columbia, Cambodia, people displaced by war, land mines, material and human costs of preparedness, and US responsibility.

The cause of war should not be viewed as something singular, but as a nexus of several interrelated factors such as behavioral, psychological, intellectual, physical environment, and geographical. Most importantly, the causes of war stem from the psyche of human behavior. Its motivation and determination lead to a passionate desire to subdue others either by protecting one’s state and property, or by saving one’s empire from threats or dangers. Fears, survival, the state ‘system of governance itself, self-interests, and military defenses all contribute to the breeding ground for potential wars or conflicts with another state in return. Political thinkers and philosophers in international relations have been exerting energy into uncovering the real sources of what cause war to happen. What are the motivational and deterministic constituents behind the causes of war? In these following pages, I will examine the nature of war not only in its human aspect, but also in its inner nature as the formation of societies or states. The behavior of men and the nature of states are indeed both indirectly and directly related. Existential question: Is it that societies are shaped by the behavior of men? Or is it that the behavior of men are shaped by societies? Lastly, promoting peace in the world lies, in part, on the great understanding of the causes of war.

War is a strategic activity of attacking using weapons and new technologies for resolving internal and/or international disputes or conflicts between two or more nations; between ethnic, social, and religious (organized) groups; etc., to cope with environmental threats and take advantage of important opportunities, generating at the same time a reduction of the freedom of other societies/groups and causing deaths, injured people, and/or social, economic, cultural, and/or ethnic damages.

War is a strategic activity of attacking using weapons and new technologies for resolving internal and/or international disputes or conflicts between two or more nations; between ethnic, social, and religious (organized) groups; etc., to cope with environmental threats and take advantage of important opportunities, generating at the same time a reduction of the freedom of other societies/groups and causing deaths, injured people, and/or social, economic, cultural, and/or ethnic damages.

Thus far, the fact that, in a sufficient number of cases, human discourse ceases to play the role of a dominant medium of interacting between some political/diplomatic parties, which motivates such parties to engage in violent interaction, including primarily war, was not described in more detail, let alone theorized or explained in satisfactory terms – this book fills the gap by proposing, on discourse-ethical premises, a discourse-theoretical analysis of communication patterns as actually displayed by political/diplomatic actors.
Hence, this book's key contention is that the attitude to language should be theorized as one of the major causes of war. Perhaps the easiest way to put it is to quote a famous Canadian fiction writer, Margaret Atwood, one of whose characters stated that war is what happens when language fails.

War is a strategic activity of attacking using weapons and new technologies for resolving internal and/or international disputes or conflicts between two or more nations; between ethnic, social, and religious (organized) groups; etc., to cope with environmental threats and take advantage of important opportunities, generating at the same time a reduction of the freedom of other societies/groups and causing deaths, injured people, and/or social, economic, cultural, and/or ethnic damages.

War is a strategic activity of attacking using weapons and new technologies for resolving internal and/or international disputes or conflicts between two or more nations; between ethnic, social, and religious (organized) groups; etc., to cope with environmental threats and take advantage of important opportunities, generating at the same time a reduction of the freedom of other societies/groups and causing deaths, injured people, and/or social, economic, cultural, and/or ethnic damages.

The establishment and maintenance of order—that is, of settled rules and arrangements that regulate actors’ behavior—is central to politics at all levels, including the international level. Political order, after all, is a requisite for modern human existence. Given the priority of the problem of order, the most important questions that can be addressed in an introductory International Relations (IR) course are those that concern the sources, nature, and historical evolution of international order. But a survey of conventional introductory IR textbooks reveals that these questions are typically dealt with glancingly or ignored altogether. Thus a strong case can be made that conventional IR textbooks overlook a vital aspect of the subject they are intended to cover. This failure appears to arise from an effort by IR textbook authors to explain international politics in terms of timeless dynamics that exist apart from history. But excluding history as a source of explanation comes at a high cost. In effect, it prevents textbooks from adequately weighing the significance of the historically specific bargains that have provided the foundation for international order in modern times.

An article in The National Interest in July 2016, anticipating the Chilcot Inquiry and arguing that the main warning is not about deception or illegality, but about dogma, unexamined ideological beliefs sincerely held by the architects of the war.

This paper will attempt to showcase how complex web of alliances under certain epochal contingencies contributed towards the formation of the Great War. The scope of my analysis will be around the German/Austro-Hungarian and Russian/French ties. In order to explain the realities that shaped the decision-making process of above listed states I will view their patterns of behavior by combining several neo-realist schools of perception. According to them, geopolitical entities operate in the domain of universal anarchy where lack of inter-state arbitration facilitates the development of specific behavioral configurations. Such behavioral configurations are greatly shaped by the chronic presence of universal insecurity. The notion of insecurity forces states to dive into power political practices; achieving which can potentially shrink panic associated with the unpredictability’s of the anarchy. One such self-preserving phenomenon is the formation and securement of alliances, whose primary principle is to increase the level of security by creating a self-enforcing bond between states. For this paper I showcases how complex web of alliances failed to retain the geopolitical balance thus causing the mutation of the dyadic conflict into the Great War. The sufficient cause for my assumption is linked to the specific contingencies of the era that forced alliance patterns of Germany/Austro-Hungary and Russia/France into the chain gang process.