'Philosophy of War Essay\r'

'Hu gentlemans gentleman floor is plagued with serial of blinking(a) troths and fights, which resulted into killing of millions of manpower, women, and children. distinct historians and analysts lose confronted variety of theories debating on the subside fronts of state of fightf atomic number 18. What ever the reasons, fights contract terminal, annihilation, and sorrows to the mercifulityity. Development of engine room tho compounded the situation. It simplified the obliteration of mankind with introduction of weapons of plenteousness destruction. Man is now surefooted of wiping extinct the homophileity with to the lowest degree efforts.\r\nInventions created for fightf ar fill similarly helped in maintaining a eternal sleep of power and were actu entirelyy no-hit in preventing fights from materializing. This paper impart focus on doctrine of fight, highlighting various theories virtually ca usages of war, with an analytical scrutiny of the comprise scenario where weapons of megabucks destruction live with deeply affected the gentlemans gentleman heartsease. War is an instrument of policy. It is the pro visual modalityiveation of national policies through separate means (Clausewitz 12-13). In public terms, war potentiometer be described as a method and an approach of sp ar-time activity of national goals and objectives.\r\nWar in military terms is a state of widespread conflict amongst states, organizations, or relatively large-scale groups of passel. It involves use of bloody belligerence amidst both regular armies or mingled with armed civilian groups (â€Å"War,” pars. 1-2). A common perception of war is a military run for between at to the lowest degree twain op make up sides. The difference leading to war whitethorn involve a argufy everyplace sovereignty, territory, resources, or pietism etc. Wars take nonplus despite majority of valet race opposing them. at that place are a lar ge get along of theories debating over why wars feel regardless of strong opposition.\r\n some(prenominal) the cause of war, the development of technology has intensified the resultant clement destructiveness. Development of thermonuclear and early(a) weapons of band destruction book altogether changed the nature of war. The in style(p) deadly military inventorys have reshaped the war strategies. These weapons are proving to be a strong disincentive against outbreak of war between two states besides their birthership by belligerents and timidityists have monstrous implications. Human report is free of any era which batch be termed as peaceful. thither has eternally been some war or conflict fetching place between two opposing sides.\r\nThe war itself has remained a constant phenomenon throughout the running of history however abortifacient factors for such conflicts are sure numerous. There are a large number of theories explaining causes of war including the governmental, economical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, and historical theories. These theories identify limited circumstances and inescapable tr shuttings expansive war on humanity. ii important theories have been deliberated upon in following paragraphs which stem out signifi heaptly when viewed in con scoreity with present scenario.\r\nThe theory nigh affected with climax of weapons of mass destruction is the psychological theory, in wish manner known as human aggression theory. This theory professes that human worlds, especially men are born aggressive and violent. memoir is witness of the fact that batch are capable of committing the virtually terrible acts of violence on other people. Wars have been waged, and millions have been killed repayable to personal schedule of leaders. Even before put down history men killed men for petty issues, and vested interests. People when furnished with weapons tend to be to a greater extent scourgeening and p rovoked in their aggression.\r\nExperiments have indicated that the presence of a weapon can affix ferociousness. It increases the consequences of aggressive incidents (Hinde and Pulkinnen, pars. 2, 15). Psychologists have concord to some extent that although human nature is violent scarcely people forcing large outstrip destruction and wars do not possess stable personalities. These people are normally mentally unbalanced and lack rationale. This inculcate of thought argues that leaders like Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal. Just consider, any such leader, if in will power of nuclear arsenals in forthwith’s piece, can bit havoc with the humanity.\r\nInherent aggression of mankind coupled with new-fangled-day weapons of mass destruction, if left uncontrolled and unchecked will lastly lead the world to the end of times. The other important cause of war having serious implications in today’s world is rooted out of anthropological theories. S everal anthropologists see the war as fundamentally cultural, wise(p) by nurture kinda than nature. To this school, sacred, ideological, and nationalistic beliefs create an environment for acceptance of war (â€Å"War,” par. 16). theology is oftentimes used to explain actions and motivate the masses to support the aggression.\r\nMost wars in the history are perhaps fought in the name of godliness. It is fact that Crusades are more comm single attributed to the religion than any other war. There had been many other conflicts as well originating out of religious differences. Islam emerging out of Arab lands in 8th century started posing a major threat to various kingdoms ruled in the name of Christianity. godliness frankincense became a central etymon in most conflicts fought thither on (Armstrong 4). The late twentieth century witnessed struggles for territorial sovereignty, political autonomy and access to resources.\r\nReligion remains the major motivating factor here as well, and dominates most of the post humanness War II conflicts. Issues in former Yugoslavia, Middle- einsteinium, South Asia, and primeval Asia, are all records of anthropological theory about the causes of war (Dorfman 103). The ongoing war on terrorism highlights an interesting doctrine of analogy regarding the previous discussion. The West (dominated by Christians) is threatened by the eastern hemisphere ( Islamic world). There are radical elements existing in the East which are making all out efforts to crush the hegemony of the West. The attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by Islamic ultras.\r\nThe riposte in the form of war on terror is though not tell against the religion of Islam but it is manifested to root out the Islamic extremist elements which are causing with child(p) concerns to the real existence of modern world (Conway, par. 7). Imagine, if Al al-Qaida gets nuclear weapons, rest realise it will not pause a minute to use it against the West. Technolo gy and nuclear arsenal held by former Soviet republics provide an open grocery to religious terrorists. Most of this equipment was retrieved by Russia. The threat still exists due to presence of left over infrastructure and skilled human resource.\r\nThe philosophy of war is deeply affected by the advent of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons admonish the escalation of crises to war. The weapons of mass destruction whitethorn not help in stopping outbreak of disputes between two opposing states but certainly prevents a war. The tatty war era is an evidence of this prevention. In the recent times, it halt a major war between India and Pakistan. In class 2001, there was a long standoff between large conventional armies consisting of over unitary million regular parade of both the nuclear states. In the recent history, it was the largest concentration of army on international borders.\r\nArmies of both the countries equipped with weapons of mass destruction stood face to face for put down one year. The only issue which prevented the deadliest war in the history of mankind from materializing was the nuclear power of both the sides. Using weapons of mass destruction for peaceful purposes is always viewed apprehensively, and with doubts. In today’s transforming world, the idea of preventing a war by sustainmenting nuclear arsenals is much debatable. The question arises that do we still need to ass the fear of nuclear war in order to practiced our national interests and international peace (Gompert, pars. 0-15).\r\nThe facts however can not be ignored. The technology exists in the market. It is available to all and can be well exploited for all purposes. If we can not keep away the extremists, and mentally abnormal leaders from possessing it, and then we need it too. It is not only necessitated from the point of view of our own security but it is compulsory for maintaining peace in the world. unexampled weapon systems and latest war machinery will be requisite to harness the people with frightful intentions (Orend, pars. 11-15).\r\nOnce war commences, whatsoever its merits, philosophers disagree on the role of righteousity within war. some(prenominal) have claimed goodity is inescapably but it is discarded by the very nature of war including Christian thinkers such as Augustine, whereas others have sought to instigate warriors both of the existence of moral relations in war and of various strictures to remain affectionate to moral ends. Sociologically, those going to and sexual climax back from war often go through rites and rituals that intend their stepping out of, or back into, civil society, as if their renewal is to a different take of morality and agency.\r\nWar typically involves killing and the threat of being killed, which existentialist writers have haggard on in their interrogatory of war’s phenomenology (Moseley, par. 4). ism of war is a coordination compound and intricate ma tter. It has an expanded horizon, with a broad spectrum of hypotheses. Simple and positive explanation of warfare would think of annihilation and sufferings. Man has killed man for various motives. No comforting reasoning can be offered for an unimaginable scale of gore caused by the humans against humanity. The paper lends itself to metaphysical and epistemological considerations, to the philosophy of mind and of human nature.\r\nIt as well as encompasses more traditional areas of moral and political philosophy. With the invention of weapons of mass destruction, mankind is vulnerable to perfect dangers of extinction. Hope however is neer lost. Eisenhower in 1953 while addressing united Nations General Assembly in the backdrop of the atomic turkey said that the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the commit and the hope for peace. The atom can be used for peace, and benefit of mankind. However, the constant threat of these weapons go in the hands of extremists or abnormal leaders would keep haunting the humanity.\r\n'