theories_of_war_final

theories_of_war_final - Adam Reed Dr. White Political...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Adam Reed Dr. White Political Theories of War July 24, 2007 War is a phenomenon, existing without any strong rational. There are no positive effects of war. Individual people or states would never say that war is a good thing. Most rational beings can agree that a utopian world would be war-free. Yet somehow, among many rational actors, an irrational institution is created: the institution of war. There are many explanations for war, yet no reasonable solutions. States exist as independent actors. Independent actors are going to do whatever they deem necessary to survive. Problems arise because they are individuals acting within a global community. The existence of a global community is undeniable. There is no state in existence that does not in some way affect another. Evidence of this is found in economic, social, and environmental policies. If the United States lowers prices on sugar, this will affect sugar prices across the globe. When countries open up their borders for immigration both sides are affected. Pollutants put into the air in Germany affect England. The question remains: how do you retain sovereignty in a global community? For many, the answer comes in the creation of war. One state believes that their policy is right, so they force other states to adopt their beliefs. This can either be a result of altruistic feelings from the aggressor or from fear that opposing policies with hinder their progress. It is impossible for individual states to always reach a conclusion about what is right. Each of them has their own priorities and goes about reaching their goals in different ways. Priorities, for individual states, are usually not that of strengthening the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Reed global community. Each state acting as its own protector and assuming that each other state is doing the same creates breading ground for militaristic aggression. Furthermore, it prevents states from reaping the benefits of a truly functioning global community. There must be something in the global community that operates above personal interests. A global governing body is the only solution to war. States are usually hesitant to adhere to international law in fear that their autonomy will be lost. However, this is not a steadfast rule. Nations that benefit from international law are of course more likely to support it. In the early days of the United States, the founding fathers were much more supportive of international law because they feared Britain and other European powers. “When the United States was weak, it practiced the strategies of indirection, the strategies of weakness; now that the United States is powerful, it behaves as powerful nations do” (Kagan 11). Simply put, a nation will adopt whatever policy best suits them at the time. Realities such as these are a testament to the true nature of states. When a state is weak it supports international law. However, once it grows
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 17

theories_of_war_final - Adam Reed Dr. White Political...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online