Why States Go to War, History_Other, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - History Other

Why States Go to War

Why States Go to War Scholars, psychologists and historians have studied many ideas and theories to determine why states go to war, why conflicts exist between nations. The causes of war have been broken down into three different perspectives: the international system, the nation-state, and the individual as a decision-maker. Each perspective provides a different view of why nations go to war. To have a better understanding of each view, we will examine the Vietnam War. We will also learn why Vietnam occurred, and why Americans decided to escalate the war. Conflicts exist because two states or countries feel threatened by another state. Before providing an explanation of the different views, lets grasp a better understanding of the word “state”. Often states are interchanged with the word nation. Nation can have two meanings, that as a community with its own territory and government, and those people who share common characteristics, such as a common language, a common custom, and a common tradition. “It was believed that each nation should have its own state, each state should comprise one and only one nation.” (Ziegler, 107) But many states today do not resemble the ideal nation-state, for they contain many nationalities. But still this does not define the word “state”. States, what can be classified as a state? A state must meet three criteria. First it must be an association of people. Second the state must demonstrate organization. It must be politically stable, effective in decision-making, and have the support of the citizens of that state. A government is a prime example of states acting as a whole. Thirdly, the most important criteria, boundaries of a state must be defined. In 1952 sovereignty was invented and it stated that laws established within the boundaries of that state could not be used to govern within the boundaries of another state. The rights of people in the state would be protected, but only within that state. Because laws of states could not govern those of other states, no world sovereign was defined, no world government for the international system. “Self-Help” can best describe the international system. The international system is an anarchy. No world authority has been established. Through sovereignty, each state has the right to govern its’ own nation. A government is established to protect the whole of the state through legislative, executive and the judicial system. But the protection stops there. Sovereignty does not transcend through boundaries of countries or states. The intentions and capabilities of each country, or state, to escalate into war become unknown. The uneasiness of the unknown develops a security dilemma. The security dilemma occurs when relationships between states become uncertain. Military intelligence, scholars of war, and government officials studies the goals and the plans of their enemies to ease the uncertainty of war. The means or ability of individual states to engage into war. The size and the location of the country help determine the amount of troops and the amount of raw materials available if war occurs. Spies are sent to threatening countries to determine technological advances, nuclear warfare, and the arms build up. Historians study economy of the state, and domestic repression, how other states treat their own people. Government officials listen to the leaders and how they see diplomacy. But the uncertainty that war could escalate is still lurking in the background. Through all of the spies, scholars and historians, no solid answer is found. Of course, the evaluation of the hard facts, military size and nuclear warfare proves a more reliable source, but it is still difficult to distinguish between offense and defense precautions. How does one determine if a country is building up arms is to defend themselves in case of attack or to rise as a stronger power? The knowledge obtained from scholars is determined through the best of their perception; how they observe the threat of the nuclear arms, the strength of the economy, or the thoughts of the leaders. Each country needs to take its own security measures. But the building of security can be a cause of war, thus creating a situation known as the “spiral theory.” “The “spiral theory of war” states that a conflicting situation develops between countries that did not originally see each other as a threat, but now do because of the build up of arm forces.” (Lecture notes) “If one state remains unarmed, it may be preyed upon by an armed neighbor, but if it arms it may only provoke its neighbor to arm more.” (Ziegler, 117) Because of no international police or world authority,” troublemakers: power groups, merchants of death, and wicked states” transpire. (Ziegler, 129) Theodore Abel, a psychologist, wrote, “Throughout recorded human history, the initiators of wars were individuals and groups who held power.” (Ziegler, 130) Arms manufacturers, better known as the “Merchants of Death”, was blamed for U.S. involvement during World War I. The Merchants of Death were the subject of many books and congressional hearings. Such a commotion was made of this that the “head of du Pont Company resigned themselves from the making ammunition so not to be blamed for any subsequent wars.” (Ziegler, 130) Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany, was blamed for his initiative into foreign policy during World War II. Entire states, such as Japan, were seen as “aggressive forces”. Joseph Grew, former U.S. ambassador to Japan, believed “Japan is the one enemy, and the only enemy…. That if destroyed, peace in the Pacific is certain, for there in no other challenging power.” (Ziegler, 130) But the troublemakers’ theory does have its flaws. Hitler, a powerful leader, should not solely be to blame for World War II. Leaders rise in power because of their followers. The du Pont Company manufactured the guns and the ammunition, but military leaders deployed the weapons to their soldiers. The decision of soldiers to use the weapons or the supporters to enable leaders to rise into power reveals the human nature of the individual decision-maker. Everybody is an individual and each individual has instincts, whether learned or inherited. Instincts can evolve over time, such as technology evolves. When the light bulb was invented, the candle was not thought as the ideal source of light. The ability to fight and kill our own species is considered to be an inherited instinct. According to Konrad Lorenz, who published On Aggression in 1962, each individual has the instinct to fight, known as the aggressive instinct. Backed scientifically, “many physiological changes take place when one becomes angry. Blood pressure and sugar levels rise and the pulses quickens.” (Ziegler, 127) Konrad also states that animals have similar instincts as humans. Their instinct to fight is demonstrated when prey threatens their clubs or territory which they live. But he suggests that animals’ aggression instinct has evolved and the “inhibiting mechanism” developed. Animals challenge their enemy and fight, but Konrad noticed that the weaker opponent will surrender, or make an “appeasement gesture”, signaling the fight is over. Individuals seem to lack the ‘inhibiting mechanism” and thus the instinct to kill results in more deaths. Similar to the aggressive instinct, the “inhibiting mechanism” is an inherited trait that may take decades to evolve. “Only when individuals change will states change” and then the decision to escalate into war may be examined more cautiously. (Ziegler, 127) The Vietnam War can help us better understand why wars occur. First let’s review Vietnam as a state. The boundaries of the state are obviously defined and association of people is established. Many groups of people, or nationalities, reside within the state. But Vietnam seemed to be lacking in the third criteria, organization through efficient decision-making and political stability. The government of South Vietnam was unorganized and unstable. The citizens of the state gave little support. The military forces lacked in strength and in substance. Thus a security dilemma had formed and threat from a power group, the communists, was inevitable. During the early 1960s, “a movement known as the National Liberation Front, Vietnamese Communists or Viet Cong, fought to overthrow the government of South Vietnam.” (Ziegler, 89) United States, a democratic ally of Vietnam, was concerned with this threat of communist take over. Government officials felt the take over of Vietnam would create a domino effect and Southeast Asia would tumble behind it, thus creating a rise of another major world power. Such rise would threaten the safety of the United Stated international position and perhaps cause an another world war. In the beginning the United States only aided South Vietnam’s unstable military and government financially and through advisors. But the Viet Cong seemed more organized and determined to defend their cause. South Vietnam was losing and the United States, feeling threatened by the communists’ rebellion, had to step in. The U.S. committed 20,000 troops to aid the South Vietnamese military. The American troops were well trained for combat, but nothing could prepare them for the fighting they experienced in Vietnam. Vietnam was made of rice paddies and jungle; very different from the terrain used to train troops in America. The battle seemed to be moving rapidly in the wrong direction, that of communist North Vietnam. The decision to commit troops into the war was quick and unorganized; too many hands were in the pot. Government officials did not allow the military leaders do their jobs. Linden Johnson was blamed for strategically planning target points in the basement of the White House. Combined with the determination of North Vietnam, the chaos of South Vietnam government and the disorganization of American involvement, the Viet Cong were rapidly winning the war. During the summer of 1965, the United States needed to reevaluate their position in Vietnam. The American resources were draining rapidly, thousand of American troops were being killed everyday, and the South Vietnamese citizens doubted the ability of American troops to win the war. Political officials were faced with a decision of a lifetime. Citizens in the United States began to resent the war and peace movements to end the war popped up overnight. Many asked the question of why United States became involved in the first place. Why defend a state whose government is not backed by its own people? Young men were dying in the hundreds every day and for whose cause. America should pull out of the war and spare the hundreds of lives already stationed in Vietnam. Or should they? United States had committed to aiding the Vietnam government from the beginning. If troops were to be pulled out in the middle of the war, the United States would lose face to the other major powers; making themselves vulnerable in wars to come. But the possibility of winning the war would mean a commitment of 500,000 more troops and even that did not guarantee a victory. By this time it had become apparent that with the fall of South Vietnam, the likelihood of Southeast Asia falling to communism was rare. But the United States had never lost a war and former President Johnson did not want to be the first. So after many meetings with his advisors, Johnson decided to escalate into the Vietnam War and committed 500,000 more troops. Well everybody knows the outcome of the Vietnam War. It was not pretty. It traumatized the lives of many soldiers and citizens of the United States. America felt threatened by the communist North Vietnamese. The U.S. had no control of the outcome of Southeast Asia because of the lack of a world authority. The U.S. was considered to be a major power in the world and fought greatly to keep themselves in that position. Sovereignty prevented U.S. from governing the citizens of Vietnam. If America was able to take over the unstable government of South Vietnam, then the Viet Cong may not have been so determined to overthrow it. If a world authority or world government had been established, then the Vietnam War may never had occurred. The threat of the communists to overthrow the Vietnam government may not have been so great. The intentions and capabilities of the communists would have been known. No spies to be sent, not theories to be established or perspectives to be evaluated. The building of arms and strength of the opposing military could be monitored more easily. The horrible decision to escalate into the Vietnam War may have been avoided. As we sum up the causes of war, one can only see them as excuses for rationalizing the killing of own kind. The lack of world sovereignty, the presence of a nation-state and human nature of individuals can be studied, revised and studied again. But one situation remains clear. War sucks. The Vietnam War will be remembered by the families of the soldier who died and by the individuals who experience the war first hand. This war might have been avoided if a world government had been developed and foreign policy established. But one will never know. Bibliography:

Word Count: 2150