Philosophy of War Essay

Human history is plagued with series of bloody conflicts and wars, which resulted into killing of millions of men, women, and children. Different historians and analysts have presented variety of theories debating on the root causes of war. What ever the reasons, wars bring destruction, annihilation, and sorrows to the humanity. Development of technology further compounded the situation. It simplified the obliteration of mankind with introduction of weapons of mass destruction. Man is now capable of wiping out the humanity with least efforts. Inventions created for warfare have also helped in maintaining a balance of power and were actually successful in preventing wars from materializing. This paper will focus on philosophy of war, highlighting various theories about causes of war, with an analytical scrutiny of the present scenario where weapons of mass destruction have deeply affected the world peace. War is an instrument of policy. It is the continuation of national policies through other means (Clausewitz 12-13). In general terms, war can be described as a method and an approach of pursuance of national goals and objectives. War in military terms is a state of widespread conflict between states, organizations, or relatively large groups of people. It involves use of bloody aggression between two regular armies or between armed civilian groups (â€Å"War,† pars. 1-2). A common perception of war is a military campaign between at least two opposing sides. The disagreement leading to war may involve a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, or religion etc. Wars take place despite majority of populace opposing them. There are a large number of theories debating over why wars happen regardless of strong opposition. Whatever the cause of war, the development of technology has intensified the resultant human destructiveness. Development of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction have altogether changed the nature of war. The latest deadly military arsenals have reshaped the war strategies. These weapons are proving to be a strong deterrence against outbreak of war between two states but their possession by belligerents and terrorists have serious implications. Human history is devoid of any era which can be termed as peaceful. There has always been some war or conflict taking place between two opposing sides. The war itself has remained a constant phenomenon throughout the course of history however causative factors for such conflicts are certainly numerous. There are a large number of theories explaining causes of war including the political, economical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, and historical theories. These theories identify specific circumstances and inescapable trends imposing war on humanity. Two important theories have been deliberated upon in following paragraphs which stem out significantly when viewed in concurrence with present scenario. The theory most affected with advent of weapons of mass destruction is the psychological theory, also known as human aggression theory. This theory professes that human beings, especially men are born aggressive and violent. History is witness of the fact that people are capable of committing the most terrible acts of violence on other people. Wars have been waged, and millions have been killed due to personal agenda of leaders. Even before recorded history men killed men for petty issues, and vested interests. People when equipped with weapons tend to be more threatening and provoked in their aggression. Experiments have indicated that the presence of a weapon can augment ferociousness. It increases the consequences of aggressive incidents (Hinde and Pulkinnen, pars. 2, 15). Psychologists have agreed to some extent that although human nature is violent but people forcing large scale destruction and wars do not possess stable personalities. These people are normally mentally unbalanced and lack rationale. This school of thought argues that leaders like Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal. Just consider, any such leader, if in possession of nuclear arsenals in today’s world, can play havoc with the humanity. Inherent aggression of mankind coupled with modern weapons of mass destruction, if left uncontrolled and unchecked will ultimately 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. Several anthropologists see the war as fundamentally cultural, learned by nurture rather than nature. To this school, religious, ideological, and nationalistic beliefs create an environment for acceptance of war (â€Å"War,† par. 16). Religion is often exploited to justify actions and motivate the masses to support the aggression. Most wars in the history are perhaps fought in the name of religion. It is fact that Crusades are more commonly 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. Religion thus became a central theme in most conflicts fought there on (Armstrong 4). The late 20th century witnessed struggles for territorial sovereignty, political autonomy and access to resources. Religion remains the major motivating factor here as well, and dominates most of the post World War II conflicts. Issues in former Yugoslavia, Middle-East, South Asia, and Central Asia, are all evidences of anthropological theory about the causes of war (Dorfman 103). The ongoing war on terrorism highlights an interesting analogy regarding the previous discussion. The West (dominated by Christians) is threatened by the East (Islamic world). There are extremist 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 extremists. The riposte in the form of war on terror is though not directed against the religion of Islam but it is manifested to root out the Islamic extremist elements which are causing grave concerns to the real existence of modern world (Conway, par. 7). Imagine, if Al Qaeda gets nuclear weapons, rest assure it will not hesitate a minute to use it against the West. Technology and nuclear arsenal held by former soviet republics provide an open market 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. The philosophy of war is deeply affected by the advent of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons deter the escalation of crises to war. The weapons of mass destruction may not help in stopping outbreak of disputes between two opposing states but certainly prevents a war. The cold war era is an evidence of this prevention. In the recent times, it stopped a major war between India and Pakistan. In year 2001, there was a long standoff between large conventional armies consisting of over one million regular troops of both the nuclear states. In the recent history, it was the largest concentration of troops on international borders. Armies of both the countries equipped with weapons of mass destruction stood face to face for complete one year. The only thing which prevented the deadliest war in the history of mankind from materializing was the nuclear capability 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 keeping nuclear arsenals is much debatable. The question arises that do we still need to parlay the fear of nuclear war in order to secure our national interests and international peace (Gompert, pars. 0-15). The 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, then we need it too. It is not only necessitated from the point of view of our own security but it is mandatory for maintaining peace in the world. Modern weapon systems and latest war machinery will be required to harness the people with dreadful intentions (Orend, pars. 11-15). Once war commences, whatever its merits, philosophers disagree on the role of morality within war. Many have claimed morality is necessarily but it is discarded by the very nature of war including Christian thinkers such as Augustine, whereas others have sought to remind warriors both of the existence of moral relations in war and of various strictures to remain sensitive to moral ends. Sociologically, those going to and coming back from war often go through rites and rituals that symbolize their stepping out of, or back into, civil society, as if their transition is to a different level of morality and agency. War typically involves killing and the threat of being killed, which existentialist writers have drawn on in their examination of war’s phenomenology (Moseley, par. 4). Philosophy of war is a complex and intricate matter. It has an expanded horizon, with a broad spectrum of hypotheses. Simple and undeniable explanation of warfare would imply annihilation and sufferings. Man has killed man for various motives. No solid reasoning can be offered for an unimaginable scale of bloodshed caused by the humans against humanity. The subject lends itself to metaphysical and epistemological considerations, to the philosophy of mind and of human nature. It also encompasses more traditional areas of moral and political philosophy. With the invention of weapons of mass destruction, mankind is vulnerable to extreme dangers of extinction. Hope however is never lost. Eisenhower in 1953 while addressing United Nations General Assembly in the backdrop of the atomic bomb said that the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace. The atom can be used for peace, and welfare of mankind. However, the constant threat of these weapons falling in the hands of extremists or abnormal leaders would keep haunting the humanity.