Talk:War

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Not only does war involve weapons that kill and maim, but there is a very powerful tool often used by warring parties which usually is disseminating Information in the form of propaganda. I would like to hear about the historical perspictive on propaganda and how it has shaped wars and civilisation.

Ok who put this paragraph in? (although it's hilarious) "Another common perception of war is that it is the answer. We know that it is not the answer but many people believe it is the answer. See War Is Not The Answer for more information."

I quote the page: "Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. This school argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal and thus if some sort of screening process, such as elections, could prevent these types from coming to power war would end."

Hindenburg was elected to the presidency and then appointed hitler chancellor, that was in his power just like the president appoints a cabinet, the nazi party, which hitler was leader of, was also voted in with a controlling majority in the Reichstag, they then passed the enabling act giving hitler dictator type powers, hindenburg died, hitler combined the office of chancellor etc etc, my big beef is where it asks for a screening process such as elections, basically they were elected, so that should be taken out.

I can only point out that (as far as I know) every President of the USA (but you can check out with all the leaders of all the nations of this planet) "had" a War. Be very carefull with phrases like: "when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation", or are you saying that almost all leaders of nations were and are "mentally unbalanced"?

These "other psychologist" are talking of things (in this case politics) of which they have simply no idea, because they never never had "such power and responsability". It kind of reminds me of something like this: "What is a specialist?" "It is somebody, who can explain you today, why the stuff he told you yesterday was wrong." or "Those who know how to do, do. The others, teach. Flamarande 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Warfare

u guys have done a gud job in writing bout the history. but u can make it more attractive by improving its technical parts.:) --Davy Jones 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone publish a HOW-TO on how to start a war? We shouldn't keep this all historic and theoretic.

The three easiest ways to start a war seem to be: question someone's parentage/legitimacy, question their religion, or just think you personally are better suited to lead a particular country. Sure, there are some purely political wars...

The first sentence excludes Civil War. Is civil war considered a type of war?

I think so. Civil war is just like one country dividing into two countries and whoever wins the war keeps all the land. furthermore, I think that wars can also be started by one country bugging another country, so that the other country declares war in revenge. bigman 17:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(on head page) "It has been said that war is the continuation of politics and diplomacy? by other means". Sounds like Klauswitz to me. --drj.

Clausewitz said: "War is an extension of politics by other means". Lenin said "politics is concentrated economics". So you could add the two premises, perform a deduction, and conclude that war is an extension of economics. But that might be a bit crude. Adhib 17:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article says: After the Geneva convention, a war must fulfill a number of formal criteria. Activities that most people would label a war should in that nomenclature in actuality be an armed conflict.

Two questions: (1) which Geneva convention? There are actually several Geneva conventions relating to the rules of law, so we normally say "Geneva conventions", not "Geneva convention". Could you please quote the full title of the convention(s) in question?

(2) what are the "formal criteria" that determine what is a "war" and what is an "armed conflict"? Is it a question of whether it is of international character (wars between states) or an internal war (civil wars, rebellions, etc.)? -- SJK

I'm bit hazy on all of this, someone with better info really should have a go at this important article...Alas the actual dates and formal name I have no idea about. One of the formal requirements are alt least that both states declare war on each other. For example: During WWII, England ad Germany were at war, USA and Germany were not, as the US never formally declared war on Germany. And so on and so forth. Furthermore, should we include information on the rules of war (for example restrictions on shotguns, laser weapons for blinding and like questions)? On alla accounts, proper names of the treaties and the dates of their signing should be here. International warcrimes tribunal also needs mentioning. Much to be done, i'm afraid... --Anders Torlind

US declared war on Germany -Dec 11, 1941 after they declared war with us. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/77-1-148/77-1-148.html ---rmhermen

Bad example then. Anything to add perhaps? --Anders Törlind.

War is the health of the state. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense . . . In a nation at war, every citizen identifies himself with the whole, and feels immensely strengthened in that identification . . . He achieves a superb self-assurance, an intuition of the rightness of all his ideas and emotions, so that in the suppression of opponents or heretics he is invincibly strong; he feels behind him all the power of the collective community. - Randolph Bourne

While the Toledo war is an interesting bit of historical trivia, I don't think I would count it as a "significant" war in world history.

How are significant wars defined? I noticed that there are mostly western wars, included some which i don't consider important from my, central european perspective. On another hand, what about ealier ones: Hussite Wars, Great War with Teuton Order, 13years war, Northern wars, Polish-Soviet war... Which were significant and which weren't and why? Could i add any war i consider significant?

I should think a "significant" war is one which had long lasting and far reaching consequences. The rise or fall of an empire would count, and one that introduced new methods of warfare would count. One very wide in scope would count also. Beyond that it seems like a matter of judgement really. As to whether you should add any particular war, I would say that if you are in doubt, be sure to write a justification for it being there. Wikipedia is not paper, so having a rather large list doesn't seem problematic to me, as long as it is well organized and a reason is given for its significance. --Dmerrill

"War," by definition is any large-scale conflict between nations which utilizes weapons (whether formally declared or not). I tend to agree with Dmerrill concerning what constitutes a "significant" war in history. Recent history is a bit more difficult to judge. Some military historians lump the Korean Conflict, the War in Vietnam, the military actions in the Dominican Republic, the incursion into Cuba, the conflict in Panama, and several other "minor" altercations under either "a continuation of World War II," or as part of the "Cold War." I rather suspect that many more recent conflicts, such as Bosnia, Chechnya, and perhaps the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (as prelude), will qualify as "geopolitcal realignment" shortly before and after the collapse of the USSR. The Gulf War and the current military actions in Afghanistan will probably be seen as part of a continuing, long-term conflict between the West and extremist Islamic geopolitical/georeligious aspirations. F. Lee Horn, CPT, INF, USA (Retired/Disabled)

http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/amsci/issues/comsci02/Compsci2002-01.html

I got a "404 Not Found" error with this link. Anyone? Tzartzam 19:34 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

I'd like to float an idea. We need as a group (the military writers for Wikipedia) to discuss an overall structure, so we can weave in the vast amount of information on this subject throughout the Military portion of Wikispace at least. I've been searching throughout Wikispace for individual military knowledge, and I've found that it is impossible to find anything easily.

Most things are bizzarely referenced. For example, placing military under "see also:" on this page seems rather strange. A description of how War operates without using a reference to organized militaries in the description seems very weird to me. I think that this entire section (War, Military, Strategy, etc.) needs an overall strategy, operations plan, and plan of attack itself.

I was thinking that the group could discuss things like - "I'm writing on AAAA. I'm including references to XX, YY, and ZZ. Anyone think I should add other links, or include more detail about XX and it's relationship to AAAA?" Or conversely "Hey, your article on XX is great. I'm gonna add references to it in my articles AAAA, YY, and ZZ". That way, as new things are expanded or added, we can keep the space pointing toward root concepts that form the body of knowledge. The goal is to have a coherent work that can be referenced throughout Wikispace (via any entrance) that will flow toward the root concepts. In this way, someone can educate themselves about military matters and be able to apply that knowledge to the specific (usually non-military) question they asked of the 'pedia.

I don't mean to imply ownership and exclusivity towards anything - I love Wikipedia for its application of applied anarchy. But to take the military motif to its logical end..... <GRIN> If we create a general staff, then give various staff officers a piece of the overall plan, than I think we could get a much more organized and coherent overall body of work up in no time at all. Well, at least stuff with logical references to the core threads of knowledge.

Thoughts?

Related thoughts on ideas above:

A how to on war is a great idea. Various postulated reasons for starting wars is a great idea as well. (I for one, don't think wars start for any other reason than economics - the pomp and circumstance of religion, succession, etc. is all window dressing to me. I don't believe in World War I and World II being separate wars, I think of them as the 20th century 30 years war..... etc. - all these ideas and more should be discussed.) References to Clausewitz are useless for normal people, we need to summarize and clarify information resources such as these - that's why people read encyclopedias, after all.

The Geneva conventions need to be discussed, what they are and how they apply, and a discussion of relevant examples - Guantanamo Bay, for example. I have an article (an opinion piece) on that specific question that I could use as a start, but this overall is a really big area, more than one person can handle. What were the excesses of the original 30 years war? Why did that lead to a basic formulation of the concepts for a law of war? Why did all combatants in the second 30 years war reject the lessons of the first? (Take allied strategic bombing in WWII, was that a war crime? And is the law written by the winners (as in WWII) for their benefit only - that melds into questions of law in general.....)

Again, a overall plan would be nice..... Dobbs 16:48 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

Regarding the Clausewitz quote: I have changed the German text to the original (heading of Paragraph 24, Chapter 1, Book 1). The text is available at the German Gutenberg project at http://projekt.gutenberg.de/clausewz/krieg/buch01.htm. I have also changed the English translation to become more literal. (Note on this: in today´s usage, eine bloße means a mere but in Clausewitz´s use it seems more appropriate to render this as merely a) Kosebamse 08:04 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Why this sentence which is the best definition of war was destroyed with no justification? War does not determine who is Right, Only who is Left!

It is POV. Sam Spade 04:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To indicate that it's by Bertrand Russell isn't enough?

I wasn't aware that you gave a citation of who wrote it. If you do that, and its in the right place in the article, it should be fine. To me it looked like you randomly stuck it in, w no citation. Sam Spade 02:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edit warfare sidebar at Mediawiki:warfare -SV(talk) 08:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why are Violence - Total war Genocide - Democide - Ethnic cleansing - Population transfer Murder - Terrorism - Assassination - Execution Coersion - Torture - Intimidation - Rape including under a listing of warfare? These things are objects that belong to violence and intimidation rather than war. Armies do not rape or murder, individuals do. Warfare does not involve these things, rather they are crimes; something that war technically is not. This is very POV and should be reworked or removed. Stargoat 22:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dobbs (above) about the need for structure. I wanted to add a number of elements regarding war and presidential powers, what is and what is not a traditional military activity. (For non-US readers, this has important relevance to how the US forces and the US President can initiate and report on wars).

Would it be better if the war page was a mainly summary page, linking to the other aspects? I am worried this will make it too fragmentary, but it has other advantages. Maybe the article needs a complete rewrite? Magicmike 31 Mar 2004.

--- In describing the Hitler quote, it seems erroreous to say he was "...avowing any belligerent aims...." I think it more likely that he was "disavowing" any belligerent aims, or, avowing "no" belligerent aims. Don't know the source of the quote, so let the original contributor make corrections to the description.

I think attempting to coordinate a staff to organize all warfare related topics is a little overly ambitious. It might be a better idea just to create a special index page (consisting of primarly links and very little content) to serve as a jumping-off point for those interested in warfare. That way one can see the macroscopic picture at a glance and then delve into more specific content as they need to. This might actually be a good idea for wikipedia at large. We could create two tiers of pages, one tier for the articles themselves and another tier for content/index direction pages. Does this sound like a good idea to anyone else? Digitalwarrior 19 Jun 2004.

I got rid of the Orwell quote. Wikiquote lists it as a misquotation, and I think most Orwell scholars agree. --Max power 11:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the second half of the third sentence here (" . . . the continued existence of a losing group as an entity is in doubt.") The problem is that the phrase is ambiguous. A casual reader might conclude that war usually ends with the extermination of one side or the other. I think the author means that war often ends with one side being conquered, losing its sovereignty or the like. During the time for which there are written records there have been only a handful of wars of extermination. Third Punic War, American-Indian Wars, some others. Most wars end with some change in the political relationship of the combatants. Perhaps someone could suggest a wording change that would make this clearer. WardHayesWilson 13:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article:

Typically, warfare is mortal and lives of combatants are deliberately taken by enemy forces and the continued existence of a losing group as an entity is in doubt. In view of this, rules for the conduct of war are unenforceable during active conflict. A person faced with death, or an organisation faced with extinction, both have little incentive to obey rules that contribute to that result. If they can survive by breaking the rules they are likely to do so, and some would argue justifiably.

The above 4 sentences sound like a contributor's personal opinion. I do not consider the passage to be factual (except for the phrase which I placed in bold). I suggest these ideas belong in a code of conduct or rules of warfare article.

People differ over whether war is necessarily utterly immoral (or amoral, if there's a difference). Some armies have had no scruples at all: just kill anyone who gets in your way, take all the land and property you can grab, etc. Other armies have held themselves to various standards of conduct (shoot only at "combatants", negotiating terms of surrender, etc.).

I studied quite a bit about this during my 5 years in the US Army, before ultimately deciding NOT to make a career as a military officer. I found many admirable, principled elements in the US military, but not enough to devote my life to it. (Maybe I'm biased; if so, please help me to write about war in an un-biased way.) --Uncle Ed 18:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "Edit warfare sidebar at Mediawiki:warfare -SV(talk) 08:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)" I suggess to add more to the sidebar. If you look at the whole picture of many wars, you would see posititution, sexually-transmitted deseases, anxiety, nerveous break-down, looting, hunger, moral-deppravion, medicine/matterial shortages ... on and on, and many other side-products. So many illnesses and areas there are not covered. Those areas probably require more information provided here to be sensible whether a government should support a war or how to manage a war. If these micro-facets are not eveluated as importance, the result of war would always be good. There should be no bad wars, except you lost it. You know? Historians need all these to his work for his a job. Historians should not be post for a reincarnated politician or columnist.

War without weapons

The definition is good, but war requires weapons. Try imganining war just fought with fists. Barbara Ehrenreich said in a book review in Foreign Affairs "War is not a barroom brawl writ large." There is an important lethality element to war. There has never been a bare-handed war. Wars are always fought with weapons. WardHayesWilson 12:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense, Ward, of course. I put or left (I don't recall which) the "usually" in there simply because I couldn't be sure there were no counterexamples. But the requrement is so compelling it makes sense to leave it in until presented with such. Fists could be viewed as weapons, for that matter. With "usually" dropped, though, the sentence needs some rearrangement to read optimally. --NathanHawking 20:37, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

The definition is again without weapons. This is a serious deficiency.

Weapons are at the center of war. Better weapons can be decisive in war. Empires (Mongols - reflex bow, Assyrians - iron weapons) have risen on the basis of better weapons. The centrality of weapons is demonstrated by the constant attention to technology throughout the history of war.

Weapons are conceptually necessary. They are the means for separating civilian from soldier. Weapons are key in one of the crucial acts of war: surrender. (How do you surrender? You lay down your weapons. How would someone surrender in a bare-handed war?) Weapons make some of the crucial distinctions in war possible and are, therefore, central to war.

The lack of weapons in Clausewitz' definition is one of its greatest short-comings. Do you know of any other important definition that includes a euphemism for one of its important terms? "War is policy carried on by other means"? What other means? Voodoo? Economic sanction? Mob violence? Yes, yes. I've read the rest of the book. I know what he says about war. But the point is the definition - which is widely cited - has an unnecessarily vague part to it. Definitions are supposed to be about clarity, no? So our definition should be careful and clear.

Can anyone find a dictionary definition that doesn't mention weapons in its definition of war? The dictionaries I've consulted say "armed" conflict or the like.

Without objection I will re-insert weapons into the main definition.

WardHayesWilson 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Costs and benefits of war" section

I'd appreciate other eyes on this section, checking for neutral POV, etc. --NathanHawking 00:52, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

I think the neutrality is fine. I would insert quotations rather than pose questions. I appreciate the urge to put some sort of "cap" on the subject - a summation. Perhaps move the section on the morality of war to the end to serve this function? WardHayesWilson 00:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your thoughtful feedback, Ward. I'll have a look with fresh eyes, by now, when I get a little extra time. I think your idea of moving the morality section to the end is excellent, a denouement of sorts. I'll put it on my to-do list, but don't hesitate to jump in if the urge strikes.--NathanHawking 06:22, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Benefits are a values based judgement/comparison and is POV. I've removed it but you can revert if you want to discuss it. It's a fine topic for an essay, and you have written it fairly for the most part, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. For example, I could also write "some benefits include gaining control of natural resources, strategic positioning for future warfare, and power over the citizens of Iraq.. I mean.. the defeated country" which should give you an idea of my POV. --Ben 03:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Information theory

I just added a paragraph of criticism to this section. I don't think I explained it very clearly, but I didn't want to leave it as it was. This theory is completely wrong as an explanation for war, for a number of reasons.

First off, it makes the dubious assumption that each nation is a rational player. That's wrong for two reasons. First, war is sometimes about cold, rational calculations, but it's also about irrational things like national pride, militarism, etc. Second, a nation is not an individual, and the burden of war on a nation will not be the same as the burden on it's leaders. A tin-pot dictator may not care about the costs to his people, as long as a war increases his odds of staying in power.

Not only that, but here's the killer: even perfectly rational nations (each treated as a single united entity) can fight wars. It only takes one side to decide that there will be a war. The only choice the other defender has is to fight or give up and lose by default. The war itself will be costly, but the benefits of even a small chance of winning (and thus not losing independence, or losing territory, or whatever it is that the aggressor is after) can be much higher. Few people would suggest, for example, that a rational Poland should have just surrendered to Nazi Germany just because the Germans were almost certain to win. Considering what happened afterward, even the tiniest chance of victory made fighting worthwhile.

After some consideration, I think that the best thing might be to remove the section. I don't know how popular the theory really is; if it's widespread enough, it might be worth debunking, but I feel like it would clutter the article. The explanation above is lengthy, and this is a general article. Comments anyone? Isomorphic 14:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The information theory is an important, if not the most important, current theory of why war occurs. See works by Geoffrey Blainy, T.C.W. Blanning, and others for example. You seem to misunderstand some of the ideas behind this theory so perhaps I did not do a good enough job explaining it. - SimonP 16:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the rewrite, but I'm still not satisfied. Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear either. The statement "In theory to have enough information to prevent all wars [capability and intent] need to be fully known." is false. Even in theory, war could still occur with two sides that had complete and perfect knowledge of both the capabilities and intent of their opponents. The current article seems to be saying something more like "war wouldn't happen if both sides could see the future", which may or may not be true but is irrelevant to the real world. Isomorphic 18:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples? Game theory tends to break down when both sides know exactly the behaviour of the other person and also have the time and ability to negotiate and compromise before any decision is made. The allegation that "knowing the future" and thus preventing all wars is impossible is correct, but it does not rule out that it is possible to better predict the future and by doing so make wars less likely. - SimonP 18:47, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Game theory doesn't break down when you have time to negotiate, it just becomes cooperative game theory. I don't know what you mean about knowing the behavior of the other person; if you can accurately predict the behavior of your opponent, then you don't face a game, just an optimization problem. I'll try to give an example or two below. Isomorphic 19:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that's sad. No article on cooperative game theory. I should correct that when I've got sources handy. Isomorphic 19:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Information theory is moderately widely discussed. Popular in part because of the dominance in the US of game theory and rational choice schools in securities studies. I disagree with the theory, but I vote for its place in the pantheon. I don't follow what is going on in paragraphs two and three. Perhaps someone who knows more about this could distill them down to one shorter paragraph? This section does seem a little longer than others. WardHayesWilson 14:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another example than the Danish one should be chosen. Denmark sadly did NOT resist the occupation by the nazi troops. Denmark rolled over and cooperated in almost every way, both before and during its occupation. There was a small resistance movement in Denmark during the occupation, but more danes fell on the eastern front helping the germans than fell resisting them. JOhan Bressendorff(student of history Denmark)

Information examples

OK, here's an example of what I'm talking about.

Let's imagine two countries deciding to go to war or not over a disputed, resource-rich territory. The available strategies for each nation are just "war" and "no war". If each nation chooses peace, the land/resources will be split 50/50. If one nation chooses war and the other peace, the aggressor takes 100%. If both choose war, then winner takes all.

Now, continuing our simplification, let's assume there are only two kinds of militaries, strong and weak. A strong military beats a weak military 2/3 of the time, equally matched opponents have 50/50 odds. Now, we'll assume both players know which type they are and which type their potential opponent is.

In our game, equally matched opponents will see that they are equally matched, and will prefer a certainty of 50% of the resources rather than a 50% chance of all the resources and a certainty that the war will be costly.

However, in the case of a mis-match, the outcome depends on the expected cost of the war. If weak calculates that a losing war will inexpensive enough, it may be worth it to fight and have a chance taking everything, even though it's more likely to be a waste. Formally, weak will choose war if (1/3)V - W > 0 where V is the value of the resources, and W is the cost of the war.

The above situation will result in war no matter how you work it. I've already given each side a perfect knowledge of the others' capabilities, so there isn't any more information to give. Negotiation won't help; strong is better off going to war no matter what weak decides, and weak is better off fighting than submitting to strong's aggression. Formally, peace/peace is not an equilibrium because strong will deviate, and war/peace is unstable because weak will deviate. If you forbid negotiation or add the possibility of surprise attack, you switch to non-cooperative game theory and you will get war even between equally matched opponents.

Apologies for going on and on about this. Does the above example make sense? I realize it's vastly oversimplified, and I ignored risk aversion and some other points, but it's just a proof-of-concept.

I'm not claiming that having more information wouldn't prevent some wars. If, for example, strong believes that their opponent is weak, but the opponent is actually another strong, then there is an information failure and the war could potentially be prevented. However, it's false to state that having all nations share all information will necessarilly lead to a peaceful outcome, even in theory. Isomorphic 20:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The flaw in this reasoning is "a strong military beats a weak military 2/3 of the time, equally matched opponents have 50/50 odds." Historians would argue that the nation better prepared for war, either with a better army, stronger economy, or more intelligent leadership, will beat the weaker side 100% of the time. Almost completely random factors like storms, human error, or the right person dying at the right time may effect the result of a battle or slightly change the outcome of a conflict, but whether a war results in victory or defeat is dependent on fundamentals. - SimonP 21:48, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. That's an important assumption to state in the article, then. I was assuming that war has an important random element even if relative strengths are known. Whether that's true or not would be very hard to decide. After all it's hard to guage the relative fighting strength of two nations on anything other than which one wins when they fight. Isomorphic 01:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I think historians and social scientists tend to see major historic events as predetermined, since if they were random it would make to whole task of trying to explain them rather pointless, and thus negate our entire profession. - SimonP 02:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

The reasons presented for war seem to ignore the obvious: some wars start because of precieved injustice: One of the sides in the conflict sees the status-quo as unbearable and prefers war to it's continuation.

This simple interpretation may well be thought to be wrong, to be solely excuses for the war made by leaders to rally the people behind the war etc, but it should at least be presented....

My backgroud allows me to offer these examples to clarify my point: Egypt started a war against Israel in 1973 because they considered Israel holding the Sinai pininsuala an unaccpetable situation. The Palestinians support the intifada (war according to the def. here), and often in their rehtorics a total war, because of the injustice they procceve in the Israeli occupation. Saddam invaded Quwait claiming that it is injust for a small, oil-rich territory to be enclosed as a separate nation, making them extreemly rich on account of other people who remain poor.

I don't quite know how this should be added to the article. I think that there's probobly a notable scholar who published these ideas, and should be linked. The examples shouldn't be added, as they're quite specific and might be considered POV.

Cederal 16:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

intervention != war

the example that war may be 'cost-effective' in case of an intervention to ethnic cleansing etc. seems faulty to me. because, if you intervene in such a case, this means there is already a (civil) war, and you're only helping to end it. You may argue it can be cost-effective to throw more money and effort at an already ongoing war, in order to end it, but not that it can be cost-effective to start a war. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lexical Integrity as the Cause of Social Unrest

We can theorize that basis of much political turmoil is a lexical one. This analysis is based on votes and money, but the analysis of other words would also be sufficient to explain other causes of political unrest.

Votes are intended to equal among all people, and money is intended not to be. Both are "markers" that seek to account for the value of people in society. Political unrest can occur when, from a social perspective, these words lose their expected meaning.

Examples:

There is a pervasive social expectation that it's wrong to "blur the distinction" between money and votes. Citizens get angry when politics affect their personal income, and vice versa, when money is used to influence their politicians.

Likewise, political upset also occurs when the words otherwise lose their original meaning. When one person's vote counts significantly more than another's, these votes would no longer serve the purpose of recognizing our sameness.

Finally, when money is handed out liberally by a government, without requiring effort on the part of the recipient, money loses its expected social definition as a measure of effort and achievement. In economic theory, confidence in money is the very basis of it's value.

The key here is that "lexical integrity" can be viewed as a fundamental cause of social unrest, and not any given political party or theory.

SimonP

Why did you revert me? George W. Bush is a current example of a leader who sought war. EventHorizon talk 07:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With no response, I am reincluding Bush. EventHorizon talk 20:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Why include Bush, of all people, and not include, say, Putin, Bismarck, Caesar, Charlemagne, Hirohito, ... Granted, Bush sought war, but is the Iraq war really on equal footing with the wars of Napoleon or Hitler? In 50-200 years, will we look back on Bush and say "yes, the fact that he started the 2003 Iraq war truly changed the world, like Hitler did." saturnight 00:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a citiation showing that some psychologists haved used Bush in this argument? Otherwise it is original research. - SimonP 23:46, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

SimonP... Again...

Why did you remove my section on the United Nations and war. That was a large well researched section that was written very neutrally. It mentioned instances where the UN was involved in War, the relationship between war and the founding of the UN and the current historic position between the right to wage war and international law. It was a very relevant section dealing with issues not dealt with elsewhere. How can you have an article about War without at least mentioning the United Nations. Respond or I will revert to my changes which were unjustly modified without so much as a comment. StrifeZ 20:50, June 28, 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why it should go. The section was about the United Nations far more than it was about war. If it is worthwhile content it should go into a page on the UN, not this one. However, I don't think it is worthwhile content. It is riddled with POV, phrases like "historical irony, "Coalition of the Willing", and "discontinuity in stance on the issue" all reflect a particular bias.

It also seems very much like original research. There are no references and it makes basic errors of fact that would not occur if it were based on a reliable source. For instance the statement that "Canada and Germany, and organizations such as Amnesty International, the UN Secretariat and the Non-Aligned Movement maintain that the United Nations must approve all wars for them to be legitimate" is false. Canada, for one, believes all wars must be legal under international law, UN approval is important, but not essential, for such legality. Also almost all nations, with only a few exception such as Japan, maintain the right to go to war without international approval. Other sentences just don't seem to make sense. e.g. "Even coalitions of countries waging wars typically dodge UNSC approval in pursuit of higher objectives." - SimonP June 29, 2005 02:28 (UTC)

the phrase "coalition of the willing" is not a point of view... its a semi-official name (in leiu of an official title) to the informal military alliance that invaded Iraq. Wikipedia has a section called coalition of the willing. True, the name was originally used in a POV context by president Bush, but since then, and as I used it in the article, it was more in terms of refering to the military coalition that included everyone from the US and UK down to Micronesia. Consider it a historical term, not a POV.

the phrase "historical irony" is a POV, admittedly and could have been changed in wording (although it really doesnt warrant a deletion of the subject entirely). Is it not ironic and worth pointing out that an organization that was founded to end war has ended up overseeing a period of history that has seen more large scale conflict than any other? It isnt really opinion - since the UN Charter was established, over 700 wars have occured. In dealwith with the broader subject of war, more than just the rationale and types of war, some history of how wide spread war has become over the last 60 years is probably worth including if you are going to have an intellectually honest article. Unfortunatley you deleted it rather than modified it.

I have a difficult time with you called the "discontinuity of stance" of France, Germany and Canada a POV. Its very simple - these nations had no objection, and indeed sent military support to the unilateral (from the POV of NATO, as one body even though it is a group of countries) strikes against Serbia in Operation Allied Force without UN approval, yet all were against Operation Iraqi Freedom for it being waged without UN approval a few years later. How is that not "discontinuity"? You may think it is a pejorative remark about what (some would see) as the two faced nature of these countries... but it isn't. Nations hold different stances on different issues all for their own, usually selfish ends. It is the way the international system works. The word to best highlight that is the word "discontinuity".

The section about Canada that you point out was to address the fact that all parties that are part of the UN, to the letter of international law (a phrase I used multiple times) in the UN Charter that their respective national assemblies (or other government group) ratified and agreed to , do have to seek UNSC approval for non-defensive warfare. Now many countries reserve the right right implicitly to go to war if they feel it is in their interest... as I noted, you don't see the parties in the Second Congo War filing UN resolutions. But only a few countries, such as the United States, explicitly say that they are not bound by UNSC approval to wage war. That section as I recall was an attempt to balance out, what I guess could be called "the international law" side, the "grey area" (where most nations fall as, as you stated, they i reserve the right, if only implicitly), and the "independent right" side as advocated by the United States. In truth, I realized I needed more supporting information and was adding it when your reverted the document, so the changes didnt go through.

"Even coalitions of countries waging wars typically dodge UNSC approval in pursuit of higher objectives." refered to groups such as NATO, the Coalition of the Willing, the Arab Alliance in 1967 and 1973 that, even though they are multilateral alliances of nations, work towards what could be described as Unilateral bodies because they do not necessarily seek UNSC approval or disproval. For instance, NATO went to war against Serbia, and really didn't care about any other nation's opinion on the issue except for Russia. The Coalition of the Willing led to President Bush famously being decried around the world for his Unilateralism, despite the fact that it included dozens of countries. The term "in pursuit of higher objectives" refers to the goals of the coalition in question - with NATO it was to present a united front to saythat ethnic cleansing was unacceptable in Europe; in Iraq it was disarmnament and the removal of Saddam Hussein; the Arab Alliance was the element of surprise in their offensive against Israel. Basically, it refers to why these organizations went to war without UNSC approval. They each did it because not going to it was in someway complimented their effort and otherwise would have hindered it. If NATO sought approval, Russia would have voted or it would have gotten into a "what is genocide, really?" debate. If the Coalition sought approval, it would have likley lost the vote. If the Arab Alliance sought approval, it would have been voted or resulted in a veto.

The point is, the 20th (and so far the 21st century) has been a period of great international up heaval, and hundreds of wars, yet only two have been authorized in 60 years. Why this is so is essential to understanding the nature of war since 1945, and especially modern wars, in the age of internet and cable TV beaming images around the world in near real time. The existance of the United Nations, created to avoid war because of the largest war in history, not even being mentioned in an article about it is simply rediculous and something I have attempted and will continue to address. The two are not seperable, especially because it was war that gave birth to the UN in the first place, and more than Unicef or climate change or feeding the poor in Africa, the UN's principal purpose is to prevent war on the scale of the one that brought it into existance. Simply put, you can't say it was more about the UN than about war, because the UN itself, from its charter to its structure, is mostly about war. StrifeZ 15:509, June 29, 2005 (UTC)

As you said the UN has, despite its best intentions, had very little effect on warfare. I thus don't see why it should take up a significant portion of our war article. Could you please give me some citations for where you are getting your information, because you continue to make claims not grounded in fact. Nations do not "have to seek UNSC approval for non-defensive warfare." . Many international law scholars believe that Kosovo was perfectly legal, for instance. A good summary of this particular issue can be found here. UN approval is only one of many factors in assessing whether a war is legal, not the only one. Kosovo was justified on the grounds that it is legal to intervene to prevent a humanitarian crisis or genocide, which the coalition alleged was taking place in Kosovo at the time. Those supporting the Iraq war never claimed there was a humanitarian crisis underway prior to the invasion. The central legal justification was that nations have the right to act preemptively against imminent threats and that prior UN resolutions provided sufficient justification. The Kosovo justification was very different from the Iraq one, so there is no "discontinuity" if one accepts one and rejects the other. You are right that most belligerents choose to not pursue UN approval, but this is rarely if ever in pursuit of a "higher purpose" it is almost always because they are well aware that the war will not be approved. They also skip going through the UN because a war can be perfectly legal without UN approval. Also please see our article on the Coalition of the Willing, it makes clear that the phrase reflects a very definite POV. - SimonP June 29, 2005 23:31 (UTC)

"just war"

The final phrase of the Morality of war section is: "Today, some see only just wars as legitimate, and it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars of unjust aggression."

This seems to take for granted that "Just Wars" are a kind of war that has been proven to exist while it's only a theory (a doctrine) as following the link teaches us. I'd rather we put in something like:

"Today, some see only some specific wars, which they call "Just Wars" as legitimate, and it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars that do not fit these criteria."

At the very least, I'm going to capitalize "Just War" to emphasize that it's only a theory and not a common noun, if nobody objects or does it before me. Jules LT 18:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Mention of Warfare in the Animal Kingdom

Humans are not unique among the animal kingdom in waging warfare - Jane Goodall has observed chimpanzees wage warfare and it is also a phenomonen observed among several species of ants. Would it be proper to place these examples in this article? One danger is obviously anthromorphism but it is possible that warfare, in certain cases, can be supported by natural selection. Simfish 01:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional Warfare?

This article's definition of unconventional warfare and the definition at Unconventional Warfare don't match up.

A couple of points on POV wording

A few things stick out immediately to me reading this, such as "the unquestioned horror of nuclear war", which is not necessarily true, as some people believe that nuclear war can be useful and/or effective. For example, I forget which discussion page thios was but one person made a reference to the fact that Japan surrendered in WW2 earlier than they otherwise might have, thus saving many lives that would otherwise hae been lost to battles and strategic bombing. Therefore, in this particular case, using nuclear strategy could be viewed as effective, and for the greater good. But I agree, a lot of evil does come about accidentally in war, and the best Generals are usually those who reduce it as much as possible.

On another quotation, "Many now believe that wars should only be fought as a last resort." This, I would say is not true. I can back this up with a recent local opinion poll which actually showed that the vast majority of the people in the area were actually for war against certain regimes that were viewed as not worthy of diplomacy, for example, if someone attacks without declaring war then they do not deserve the chance to discuss peace soon after, as this is perhaps dishonourable (though undoubtedly effective). Can anyone prove that many people are against war? --The1exile 00:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A week with no responses prompts me to change the wording. Any comments would be preferred before reversion. --The1exile 01:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I can only say that what ppl say, is sometimes a lie.Flamarande 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

proposed rewrite

The introduction to this article currently reads:

"War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organisations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of lethal violence between combatants or upon civilians. Other terms for war, which often serve as euphemisms, include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action (note). War is contrasted with peace, which is usually defined as the absence of war.

"A common perception of war is a series of military campaigns between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or a host of other issues. A war to liberate an occupied country is sometimes characterised as a "war of liberation", while a war between internal elements of the same state may constitute a civil war."

I see several problems with this. First, "conflict" includes non-warlike conflicts such as economic conflict. "Organizations" is unnecessarily vague, as is "relatively large". I suggest the following, which I put here for comment:

War is a state of deadly conflict in which human beings organize for their mutual defense and the slaughter of their enemies. If the warring groups are families, then the term used is feud, with war being reserved for deadly conflict between larger groups such as tribes, gangs, cities, states, coallitions of states, religions, or empires. Other terms for war, which often serve as euphemisms, include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action (note). If the slaughter is one-sided, the terms conquest or genocide may be used.

War is contrasted with peace, which is usually defined as the absence of war or the period between wars. Until the modern times, war was universal, and no human society was at peace for more than a generation. The only recorded exception was the Pax Romana, when the Roman Empire was free of internal war from 27 BC to 180 AD.

A wide variety of reasons have been given for fighting wars, including disputes over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion, race, ideology, broken agreements, and insults. When a government wants to start a war, a reason can always be found.

Information Warfare

There is a particular portion of the information warfare section that discusses the choices of invasion and resistance made by states. In one particular line the article notes that the Argentinians "knew that Britain had the ability to defeat them" but were failed by intelligence that failed to predict that this would, in fact, come to pass.

This statement is not borne out by facts. In fact most military strategists of the time were almost certain that Argentina, possessing not only a division-sized occupation force on the islands but also significant local air superiority and anti-ship capability (cf. French-built Exocet missile), would totally wipe out any attempt the Royal Navy made to retake the islands. This was part of the reason, for example, that American support for the British was so late-in-coming and ineffectual, and that American efforts to seek settlement beforehand were so frenzied — Reagan and his Secretary of State, Casper Weinberger, were worried that a massive defeat suffered by a Western European NATO ally would display weakness to the Soviet Union at a diplomatically-critical moment and encourage an invasion of West Germany. We will never know if this would have occurred — however the opposite did, indeed, occur, and Britain returned to the first rank of powers as a direct result.

Thus, there was not in fact a deficit of information leading up to the Argentine invasion — or, if there was, it was that the Argentines, far from knowing whether the British would counter-attack (though that is a fair enough supposition), did not believe the British could defeat them militarily, given their massive material advantages. This was a view shared by many within the British Foreign Office, which led partly to its failure to predict the outbreak of war and the resignation of the Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington. Wally 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]