Free Essays on War

Peace: it’s wonderful. Everyone likes it as much as the next man, and have none wish to be willfully gloomy at a moment when optimism about the future shape of the world abounds. My thesis in this essay is that we will soon regret the passing of the Cold War. I intend to show that it will not be the by-products of the Cold War - such as the Korean and Vietnam - that we will miss, but the order that it brought to the area of international relations. To be sure, no one will want to replay the U-2 affair, the Cuban missile crisis, or the building of the Berlin Wall. And no one will want to revisit the domestic Cold War, with its purges and loyalty oaths, its xenophobia and stifling of dissent. We will not wake up one day to discover fresh wisdom in the collected fulminations of John Foster Dulles. We may, however, wake up one day lamenting the loss of the order that the Cold War gave to the anarchy of international relations. For untamed anarchy is what Europe knew in the forty -five years of this century before the Cold War, and untamed anarchy- Hobbes’ war of all against all - is a prime cause of armed conflict. Those who think that armed conflicts among the European states are now out of the question, that the two world wars burned all the war out of Europe, are projecting unwarranted optimism onto the future. The theories of peace that implicitly undergird this optimism are notably shallow constructs. They stand up to neither logical nor historical analysis. One would not want to bet the farm on their prophetic accuracy. The world is about to conduct a vast test of the theories of war and peace put forward by social scientists, who never dreamed that their ideas would be tested by the world-historic events announced almost daily in newspaper headlines. This social scientist is willing to put his theoretical cards on the table as he ventures predictions about the future of Europe. In the process, alternative theories of war an... Free Essays on War Free Essays on War After reading the article â€Å"Lessons From Yesterday’s Frontier Wars for Tomorrows Asymmetric Conflicts,† one thing was left unclear to me. Are we finding ways to practice asymmetric combat or are we training for ways to counter the opposing force? As I began reading, it seemed like we were learning ways from the Indians on the most effective ways to attack or defend. However, as I continued reading it appeared as if the writer is concerned that we one day be the culprit of asymmetric warfare. We are studying ways to respond to asymmetric tactics under the impression that our enemies will use this type of warfare in their defense because they will most likely be on familiar land and not have the technology that could match up to a dominating military such as our own. While talking to my best friend Pat who is in the Marines told me a story to give me a little better understanding of the concept of asymmetric warfare: Two countries are at war. One decides to attack the other. Its tanks, in regular columns, cross the border between the two combatants. However, its approach to war and its approach to the border have been constantly and comprehensively monitored by the defending side. Suddenly, without warning, small missiles silently attack the invading tanks. Each missile hovers momentarily above the tanks, selects one and attacks it by firing a high-speed projectile at the weakest part-the turret and engine cover. The deadly accurate missiles are very selective: they don't attack any tank that has been selected for attack by another missile. These missiles are fired from 30 to 40 kilometers away, far beyond the range of the tank's guns. Few survivors crawl out of the burning wrecks, since red-hot pieces of metal ricochet around inside and hot, suffocating gases spread rapidly throughout. Only three of the tanks survive. Their morale shattered, the crews decide to retreat. â€Å"Asymmetric warfare,'' referrers to an enemy who ... Free Essays on War What exactly is history? The dictionary defines it as â€Å"A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events†. If this is all that history is, why does it always seem to arouse so much controversy? Also, who decides on the point of view that goes into these historical documents that are written everyday? Unless you’ve witnessed the event first hand, you’re relying on someone else to get the story to you. These views can sometimes be partially biased or distorted. History is told through the mouths of many, but a person only knows the one hundred percent truth if they’ve witnessed the event themselves. This is where the problems occur, especially when people evaluate wartime history and events. One of the most controversial issues involving wartime history and events would have to be the Smithsonian Institutions push to display the Enola Gay to mark the 50th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The exhibit stirred great controversy because many felt that it was biased and benefitted the Japanese. People believed that it would distort history by making the U.S. look like the aggressor, or the bad guy, during the war while Japan would be depicted as the victims who unknowingly had two bombs dropped upon them. As of now, history states that on December 7, 1941 the U.S. without warning was attacked by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. To retaliate, the U.S. dropped a bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and then on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 without warning as well. These views on history could have very easily been altered if they had gone on and displayed the exhibit the way it was supposed to be displayed, which they did not . As history will tell you, the Smithsonian revamped the whole exhibit and left nothing more but just the Enola Gay cockpit and brief videotape for al... Free Essays on War Peace: it’s wonderful. Everyone likes it as much as the next man, and have none wish to be willfully gloomy at a moment when optimism about the future shape of the world abounds. My thesis in this essay is that we will soon regret the passing of the Cold War. I intend to show that it will not be the by-products of the Cold War - such as the Korean and Vietnam - that we will miss, but the order that it brought to the area of international relations. To be sure, no one will want to replay the U-2 affair, the Cuban missile crisis, or the building of the Berlin Wall. And no one will want to revisit the domestic Cold War, with its purges and loyalty oaths, its xenophobia and stifling of dissent. We will not wake up one day to discover fresh wisdom in the collected fulminations of John Foster Dulles. We may, however, wake up one day lamenting the loss of the order that the Cold War gave to the anarchy of international relations. For untamed anarchy is what Europe knew in the forty -five years of this century before the Cold War, and untamed anarchy- Hobbes’ war of all against all - is a prime cause of armed conflict. Those who think that armed conflicts among the European states are now out of the question, that the two world wars burned all the war out of Europe, are projecting unwarranted optimism onto the future. The theories of peace that implicitly undergird this optimism are notably shallow constructs. They stand up to neither logical nor historical analysis. One would not want to bet the farm on their prophetic accuracy. The world is about to conduct a vast test of the theories of war and peace put forward by social scientists, who never dreamed that their ideas would be tested by the world-historic events announced almost daily in newspaper headlines. This social scientist is willing to put his theoretical cards on the table as he ventures predictions about the future of Europe. In the process, alternative theories of war an... Free Essays on War Keeley’s is attempting to prove that primitive warfare throughout history has been effective and occasionally more successful than civilized methods. Throughout Chapter five of â€Å"War Before Civilization†, evidence is displayed showing the different success rates of primitive warfare compared to its civilized counterpart. Two examples that offer proof to Keeley’s theory are: 1. Julius Caesar’s Roman legion was incapable of conquering England, which was defended by the undisciplined, barbarian hosts of Celts and Germans. Raids and ambush tactics demonstrated by the barbarians deferred a Roman triumph for a century. (A.D.9.) (Pg.72) 2. During the Battle of Little Big Horn, two hundred U.S. soldiers led by Colonel Custer were ambushed and defeated by one thousand and eight hundred Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. (1866) (Pg.73) Certainly, aspects of primitive warfare have had high success rates throughout war and history, yet the majority of Keely’s examples are only of individual battles. The majority of Primitive societies lack the required population, food, and artillery to win the war. Attempting to differentiate the success rate of primitive and civilized warfare is an unattainable task. While particular historical battles have proved the effectiveness of uncivilized warfare, economic and social resources should be considered in every individual case. Keely’s illustrations and examples of past war patterns disprove the myth that primitive societies will always be defeated by civilized armies in time of war. Proving primitive effectiveness is clearly Keely’s aspiration in Chapter Five. (Pg.71) Keely’s various examples from different centuries demonstrate that primitive warfare has occasionally been victorious in opposition to civilized societies....