war

war Click here for more free books!

(wôr)

1. 1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
   2. The period of such conflict.
   3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2. 1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
   2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

1. To wage or carry on warfare.
2. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.

at war

1. In an active state of conflict or contention.

[Middle English warre, from Old North French werre, of Germanic origin.]

WORD HISTORY   The chaos of war is reflected in the semantic history of the word war. War can be traced back to the Indo-European root *wers-, "to confuse, mix up." In the Germanic family of the Indo-European languages, this root gave rise to several words having to do with confusion or mixture of various kinds. One was the noun *werza-, "confusion," which in a later form *werra- was borrowed into Old French, probably from Frankish, a largely unrecorded Germanic language that contributed about 200 words to the vocabulary of Old French. From the Germanic stem came both the form werre in Old North French, the form borrowed into English in the 12th century, and guerre (the source of guerrilla) in the rest of the Old French-speaking area. Both forms meant "war." Meanwhile another form derived from the same Indo-European root had developed into a word denoting a more benign kind of mixture, Old High German wurst, meaning "sausage." Modern German Wurst was borrowed into English in the 19th century, first by itself (recorded in 1855) and then as part of the word liverwurst (1869), the liver being a translation of German Leber in Leberwurst.

View more Law & Legal Issues videos

For more information on war, visit Britannica.com.

noun

1. A vying with others for victory or supremacy: battle, competition, contest, corrivalry, race, rivalry, strife, striving, struggle, tug of war, warfare. See conflict/cooperation.
2. A state of open, prolonged fighting: belligerency, conflict, confrontation, hostility (used in plural), strife, struggle, warfare. See conflict/cooperation.
3. A state of disagreement and disharmony: clash, conflict, confrontation, contention, difference, difficulty, disaccord, discord, discordance, dissension, dissent, dissentience, dissidence, dissonance, faction, friction, inharmony, schism, strife, variance, warfare. See conflict/cooperation.

verb

To strive in opposition: battle, combat, contend, duel, fight, struggle, tilt, wrestle. See conflict/cooperation.

Idioms beginning with war:
warm heart
warpath
warrant
war horse
warm
warm as toast
warm the bench
warm the cockles of one's heart
war of nerves
warp
warp and woof
warts and all

See also all's fair in love and war; at war; been to the wars; declare war; tug of war.

Definition: armed conflict
Antonyms: ceasefire, peace

v

Definition: fight, battle
Antonyms: agree, ceasefire, make peace

War is perhaps the most serious of all public health problems. Public health has been defined by the Institute of Medicine as "what we, as a society, do collectively to assure the conditions in which people can be healthy." Using this definition, war is clearly antithetical to public health. It not only causes death and disability among military personnel and civilians, but it also destroys the social, economic, and political infrastructure necessary for well-being and health. War violates basic human rights. As a violent method of settling conflicts, it promotes other forms of violence in the community and the home. War causes immediate and long-term damage to the environment. And war and preparation for war sap human and economic resources that might be used for social good.

Direct Impact on Humans and the Environment

Worldwide, there were over 45 million deaths among military personnel during the twentieth century—a mean annual military death rate of 183 deaths per 1 million population. This rate was more than sixteen times greater than the reported rate for the nineteenth century, despite enormous progress in surgical treatment of war injuries and in the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. In addition, since an increasing percentage of wars are civil wars or are indiscriminate in the use of weapons, civilians are increasingly caught in the crossfire. Civilian deaths as a percentage of all war-related deaths rose from 14 percent during World War I to 90 percent during some wars of the 1990s. Moreover, during civil wars civilians may find it difficult to receive medical care and may be unable to obtain adequate and safe food and water, shelter, medicinal care, and public health services. The physical, mental, and social impacts of war on civilians are especially severe for vulnerable populations, including women, children, the elderly, the ill, and the disabled. Further, war is responsible for many million refugees and internally displaced persons.

Indirect Impacts on Humans and the Environment

War also has a severe, indirect impact on humans and the environment through the diversion of human and economic resources. The governments of many developing countries spend five to twenty-five times more on military than on health expenditures. From this culture of violence people learn at an early age that violence is the way to try to resolve conflicts. War and preparation for war use huge amounts of nonrenewable resources, such as fossil fuels, as well as toxic and radioactive substances that cause pollution of the air, water, and land.

Indiscriminate Harm to Noncombatants

Of particular concern to public health is the indiscriminate harm done to noncombatants. This includes not only the use of so-called weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, but also some uses of conventional weapons. Examples of the latter include the carpet bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and other cities during World War II; and collateral damage caused by bombs and missiles in recent conflicts in Iraq, Serbia, and Kosovo. Anti-personnel land mines also cause indiscriminate injury and death and, like biological and chemical weapons, have been banned by international convention.

Chemical and biological weapons have been used since antiquity. Chemical weapons, which are used to produce toxic effects rather than explosions or fire, include vesicant agents such as mustard gas; agents producing pulmonary edema such as chlorine and phosgene; agents affecting oxidizing enzymes such as cyanide; and anticholinesterase inhibitors known as nerve agents. Chemical weapons were used extensively in World War I, leading to the negotiation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which banned the use of chemical and bacteriologic weapons. During World War II, chemical weapons were stockpiled by several nations, but were little used. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which was opened for signature in 1993 and entered into force in 1997, bans the development, production, transfer, and use of chemical weapons. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), headquartered in The Hague, has broad enforcement powers under the CWC. The United States and Russia are proceeding with destruction of stockpiles of chemical weapons, but there remains controversy about the health consequences of the methods being used. In 1995, the Aum Shinrikyo sect in Japan released nerve agent gas in the Tokyo subway, resulting in a number of deaths and many injuries. This incident heightened the concern about future use of chemical weapons.

Biological weapons, which are used to cause disease in living organisms, were developed and stockpiled by the United States, Great Britain, and other nations during World War II, but saw only very limited use by Japan in China. In 1969 the United States unilaterally renounced the use of biological weapons and announced the destruction of its stockpiles. The Biologic Weapons Convention (BWC), which was opened for signature in 1972 and entered into force in 1975, is much weaker than the CWC. It permits "defensive" research, which has led to suspicion that offensive research and development is being done. Efforts are currently being made to strengthen the BWC. Concern has recently been raised about the possible use of biological agents by groups or individuals to attack civilian populations.

The Anti-Personnel Landmine Convention (ALC) was opened for signature in 1997 and entered into force in 1999, setting precedents both for the speed of its ratification and for the work of nongovernmental organizations in bringing it about. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines and its leader, Jody Williams, were awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. By February 2000 the ALC had been signed by 137 governments, but not by the United States, Russia and the other states of the former USSR, and most countries of the Middle East. The ALC, in addition to banning any further production or placement of mines, calls for destroying stockpiles, removing mines from the ground, and helping landmine survivors.

Nuclear weapons were used by the United States in 1945 to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In each city, a bomb of explosive power equivalent to about 15 kilotons of TNT caused approximately 100,000 deaths within the first few days. Nuclear weapons have not been used in war since, but enormous quantities of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons have been stockpiled by the United States and the Soviet Union. Explosive tests of these weapons have been conducted by these two nations and by the United Kingdom, France, China, South Africa, and, in 1998, India and Pakistan. There have been 518 tests documented in the atmosphere, under water, or in space and, after the signing of the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, approximately 1,500 tests underground. The U.S. National Cancer Institute estimated in 1997 that the release of Iodine-131 in fallout from U.S. atmospheric nuclear test explosions was responsible for 49,000 excess cases of thyroid cancer among U.S. residents. Another study estimated that radioactive fallout from nuclear test explosions would be responsible for 430,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000. A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was negotiated in 1997, but a number of nations, including the United States, have refused to ratify it.

There are now approximately 35,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled in the seven nations that have declared possession—the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, and Pakistan. Israel is also widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. The declared nuclear-weapons nations agreed in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to work toward elimination of these weapons, but progress has been slow. The International Court of Justice in a unanimous advisory opinion in 1996 ruled that the nuclear weapons states were obligated under the NPT "to pursue in good faith … negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament." The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War was awarded the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons use by the United States and the Soviet Union. With the dissolution of the USSR, there has also been concern about leakage of nuclear weapons to other nations, to groups, and even to individuals.

The Role of Health Workers and Organizations

Physicians, nurses, and other health care personnel clearly have an ethical duty to care for the victims of war. But medical and public health workers, many believe, also have an ethical duty to prevent war and its consequences. Since membership in the armed forces of a nation seems to imply participation in a war effort, the question arises whether medical and public health personnel can ethically play such a military role.

Alternate ways for medical and public health workers to care for the casualties of war are available through organizations such as the International Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders (which received the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize), and Doctors of the World, as well as various associations that seek to alleviate the causes of war and to promote nonviolent conflict resolution. Such associations include the American Public Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Human Rights, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and Amnesty International.

Public health professionals can help to reduce and eliminate the causes of war, such as discrimination, poverty, and disease. They can educate and raise awareness about the health and social consequences of war and preparation for war; establish surveillance systems to detect wars, or the circumstances that lead to war, at an early stage; advocate for policies and treaties to ban weapons of indiscriminate destruction; encourage and support mediation and other forms of nonviolent conflict resolution; and work with all groups in society to promote a "culture of peace."

(SEE ALSO: Ethnocentrism; Famine; Genocide; Gulf War Syndrome; Nuclear Power; Refugee Communities; Terrorism; Violence)

Bibliography

Amnesty International (1991). Health Personnel: Victims of Human Rights Violations. London: Author.

—— (1996). Prescription for Change: Health Professionals and the Exposure of Human Rights Violations. London: Author.

Arms Project of Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights (1993). Landmines: A Deadly Legacy. New York: Human Rights Watch.

British Medical Association (1992). Medicine Betrayed: The Participation of Doctors in Human Rights Abuses. London: Zed Books.

Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict (1997). Preventing Deadly Conflict: Final Report. Washington, DC: Author.

Forrow, L. F.; Blair, B. G.; Helfand, I.; Lewis, G.; Postol, T.; Sidel, V. W.; Levy, B. S.; Abrams, H.; and Cassel, C. (1998). "Accidental Nuclear War: A Post-Cold War Assessment." New England Journal of Medicine 338:1326–1331.

Forrow, L. F., and Sidel, V. W. (1998). "Medicine and Nuclear War: From Hiroshima to Mutual Assured Destruction to Abolition 2000." Journal of the American Medical Association 280:456–461.

Geiger, H. J., and Cook-Deegan, R. M. (1993). "The Role of Physicians in Conflicts and Humanitarian Crises." Journal of the American Medical Association 270:616–620.

Institute of Medicine (1988). The Future of Public Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (1997). Landmines: A Global Health Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Author.

Levy, B. S., and Sidel, V. W., eds. (1997). War and Public Health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sidel, V. W. (1989). "Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Greatest Threat to Public Health." Journal of the American Medical Association 262:680–682.

—— (1995) "The International Arms Trade and Its Impact on Health." British Medical Journal 311:1677–1680.

—— (1996). "The Role of Physicians in the Prevention of Nuclear War." In Genocide, War, and Human Survival, eds. B. C. Strozier and M. Flynn. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Sidel, V. W., and Goldwyn, R. M. (1966). "Chemical and Biological Weapons—A Primer." New England Journal of Medicine 242:21–27.

Sidel, V. W., and Shahi, G. (1997). "The Impact of Military Activities on Development, Environment and Health." In International Perspectives in Environment, Development and Health: Toward A Sustainable World, eds. G. Shahi, B. S. Levy, A. Binger, T. Kjellstrom and R. Lawrence. New York: Springer.

Wright S., ed. (1990). Preventing a Biological Arms Race. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

— VICTOR W. SIDEL; BARRY S. LEVY

This essay consists of five articles, which deal broadly with different large aspects of war. The first provides an interpretation of the changing Nature of War from ancient times to the present. The second examines Levels of War—tactical, operational, strategic—comparing recent historical examples with modern American military thought. The third explores the degree to which there has been an American Way of War. The fourth, which shows American perspectives on the Causes of War, assesses historic interpretations of the causes of war by American policymakers, scholars, and activists. The fifth, examining the American experience, probes the debate over the Effects of War on the Economy.

When the nation is at war, the dominant pattern involving the use of governmental power is one of presidential initiative followed by congressional acquiescence or approval. Sometimes advance congressional approval of the use of troops is sought and received, but frequently that has not been the case.

In its own realm, the Supreme Court often has difficulty deciding certain issues when doing so might have negative consequences for the war's conduct. In a few leading decisions in which the Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of governmental conduct during war time, two main themes have emerged. First, the Court has tended not to interfere with major policies of the political branches of government, even when constitutional issues have been presented. Second, in selected instances the Court has laid down limits, although these often have been carefully drawn after the fact. These tendencies have prompted the comment that, in the crucible of war, constitutional principles can become “highly malleable” (Corwin, 1984, p. 271).

Civil War

The dominant pattern became clear in the early days of the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln took dramatic action during the ten weeks between the fall of Fort Sumter and the convening of Congress in special session on 4 July 1861. Among other things, Lincoln consolidated state militias into one force, summoned volunteers for active service, increased the size of the army and navy without legislative authorization, paid money from the Treasury without an appropriation, closed the Post Office to “treasonable correspondence,” and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Congress later approved only some of these actions.

In the Prize Cases (1863), the Court rebuffed a challenge to President Lincoln's blockade of southern ports, which led to the capture of ships as prizes of war. The Court, divided 5 to 4, upheld Lincoln's action as a defensive use of his power as commander in chief, even though there was no declaration of war or other legislative authorization.

Ex parte Milligan (1866) resulted from Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln acted without advance legislative approval, although Congress passed a statute in 1863 retroactively authorizing the writ's suspension. During the war, military authorities arrested persons suspected of treason or espionage, placed them in prison, and tried them before military tribunals. If convicted, they were unable to petition a civilian court for a writ of habeas corpus. This scenario led to conflict between the president and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who questioned the president's power to suspend the writ in Ex parte Merryman (1861). The chief justice, acting as a circuit judge in Baltimore, ordered a prisoner's release. The local military commander refused, and President Lincoln continued to direct suspension of the writ. Merryman reaffirmed the practical limits of a justice's authority.

In Milligan, the Court reviewed the legality of trying civilians before military tribunals. It ruled that so long as regular courts are open and functioning, civilians must be tried there, where they receive procedural protections such as trial by jury. Milligan's apparently bold holding should be considered in light of the fact that the Court acted after the war was over and hostilities had ceased. The same happened in Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946), which after World War II reaffirmed Milligan.

World War I

The dominant pattern was repeated during World War I, when President Woodrow Wilson closed German wireless stations and created a host of administrative boards before the declaration of war. Numerous statutes also delegated broad authority to the president during World War I, of which a few were challenged in court. The Court in 1918 upheld the Selective Service Act in Arver v. United States (see Selective Draft Law Cases), and in 1919 it sustained a prohibition statute in Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.

After World War I, the Court failed to protect freedom of speech when prosecutions were brought under laws that attempted to control expression (see Speech and the Press; State Sedition Laws; Subversion). In Schenck v. United States (1919), defendants were convicted under the 1917 Espionage Act of conspiring to cause and attempting to cause insubordination in the armed forces as well as obstructing the recruitment and enlistment of members of the armed services during war with Germany. They had printed and circulated to men accepted for military service documents criticizing the draft and calling on them to assert their rights. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, affirmed the convictions. In his opinion, Justice Holmes wrote, “When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight.” In another opinion by Justice Holmes, Debs v. United States (1919), the Court affirmed another conviction under the Espionage Act. Justice Holmes finally dissented on behalf of the principle of freedom of speech in Abrams v. United States (1919), marking the way for the development of First Amendment doctrine. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court embraced the modern test that advocacy of illegality is protected speech unless such advocacy is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

World War II

During World War II, the dominant pattern occurred yet again. Before America's entry into the war in December 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed with Britain to exchange overage destroyers for leases of British ports in the Caribbean. The Lend Lease Act of 1941 gave the president authority to order or procure articles of war for transfer to any country that the president deemed vital to the nation's defense. Roosevelt also created several presidential offices, and he exercised considerable control over labor relations (see Presidential Emergency Powers).

The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 broadly authorized the Office of Price Administration (OPA) to regulate consumer prices. The Supreme Court upheld this delegation of power in Yakus v. United States (1944). The Court also upheld the sanctions power of the OPA in Steuart & Bros. v. Bowles (1944), which dealt with the claim of a fuel‐oil dealer charged with violating an OPA order. Congress had not enacted the penalty provision under which the OPA proceeded against the retailer, but the Court nonetheless held that the executive had authority to penalize suppliers for violating rules on fuel‐oil distribution.

The Court upheld other economic controls during World War II. These included a statute authorizing recovery of excess profits under the Renegotiation Act (Lichter v. United States, 1948) as well as rent controls (Bowles v. Willingham, 1944). In Woods v. Miller Co. (1948), the Court sustained the continuation of rent controls after the war on the theory that they were necessary to cope with conditions caused by the war.

Civil liberties came to the forefront during World War II in decisions in which the Court—as in earlier conflicts—tended to defer to executive determinations. A key action was President Roosevelt's executive order giving military officials the legal authority to exclude persons from designated areas on the west coast in order to protect against sabotage or espionage. Under the order, the War Relocation Authority subjected persons of Japanese ancestry from designated areas in the West to a curfew, excluded them from their homes, detained them in relocation centers, and evacuated them to locations in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas. Roughly 112,000 persons, of whom over 65,000 were U.S. citizens, were involuntarily removed from their homes by the end of 1942.

In Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), the Court upheld the curfew restriction. The Court relied on the president's power as commander in chief of the armed forces, and noted that Congress had enacted a statute ratifying the president's initial order. In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Court determined that the exclusion program did not unconstitutionally burden persons of Japanese ancestry because of their race. Three justices dissented, including Justice Frank Murphy, who concluded that the exclusion program reflected racism. In subsequent years, the Korematsu decision came under sharp criticism. Korematsu's conviction itself was set aside after a special court hearing in 1984. In the 1980s, Congress enacted legislation providing compensation to survivors who had suffered from the exclusion program.

Korea

The first large‐scale conflict fought without a declaration of war involved Korea (1950–1953). In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court struck down President Harry S. Truman's order seizing the steel mills to prevent a strike that could lead to a steel shortage during the Korean conflict. Youngstown has been hailed as a leading statement of the importance of checks on the president. The justices stressed that Congress specifically had denied the president general seizure power to avert work stoppages.

Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurrence presented a conceptual framework for evaluating presidential action. In category 1, when the president acts with express or implied authority provided by Congress, his action enjoys the highest degree of legitimacy. In category 2, when the president acts in the face of legislative silence, a “zone of twilight” requires the Court to consider the scope of the president's constitutional authority in light of “imponderables” of the moment. In category 3, when the president acts contrary to the express or implied will of Congress, his authority is at its lowest ebb. Jackson noted that the Court cannot uphold the president's action in category 3 without disabling Congress from acting, which should not be done except in unusual circumstances since it would threaten the constitutional balance between the branches of government.

Many commentators have praised Justice Jackson's effort to clarify limits on presidential power. In practical reality, the president can initiate action more swiftly than Congress. Given its size, the diversity of its membership, and its generally reactive posture, Congress takes time to formulate a position. Nevertheless, when a specific congressional view is expressed, Youngstown suggests that it should be taken seriously.

Vietnam and Its Aftermath

Congress was slow to manifest its opposition to the war in Vietnam, which involved the deployment of U.S combat troops in that country from 1965 to the mid‐1970s. Indeed, Congress gave the president wide‐ranging power to prosecute the war in the Tonkin Gulf resolution (1964), a blank‐check authorization that many members of Congress later regretted. By 1973 and 1974, however, Congress imposed specific restrictions on further war making in Vietnam, and the U.S. embassy in Saigon was evacuated in April 1975. Although U.S. military involvement had been a presidential initiative, Congress played a key role in bringing the involvement to an end. The Court declined to decide the constitutionality of the war. However, in its 1971 Pentagon Papers decision (which held that the government had not met its “heavy burden of showing justification” for a prior restraint on the press), it did rule against the government in a First Amendment case. That case was one of the Vietnam‐era decisions in which the Court signaled its understanding that it is essential to protect political speech even in time of war (see Brandenburg v. Ohio).

In 1973, Congress adopted, over President Richard Nixon's veto, the War Powers Resolution, which sought to place general limits on war making by assuring a role for Congress (see War Powers). The constitutionality of the resolution has been a common topic of debate between the legislative and executive branches of government. The following decades saw continuous contention about the statute's applicability, with the executive branch frequently arguing that it did not limit the president in pursuing military objectives.

For years after Vietnam, U.S. military engagements tended to be brief. They included troop deployments to the island of Grenada (1983) and Panama (1990). Also, as the Iran‐Contra episode (1986) during the presidency of Ronald Reagan indicated, much of the country's involvement in foreign conflicts was covert. These changes in the use of U.S. power reflected the chastening effects of long‐term troop deployment in Vietnam and the continuing fear that conflicts might escalate into confrontations involving the two superpowers during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union.

The Post–Cold War World

When the Cold War came to an end, international relations entered a new phase in which the United States became the world's only superpower. During the presidency of George H. W. Bush, the country fought the Gulf War of 1991, which turned backed an invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. This relatively short, decisive military encounter was the product of presidential initiative and prior congressional approval. During the presidency of George W. Bush in 2003, the United States undertook a much longer‐term invasion of Iraq to achieve regime change. Here again, the dominant pattern endured, for the military initiative was taken by the president, to whom Congress had given broad authority with a generally worded resolution. Renewed debate about the need to protect civil liberties in the larger war on terrorism came into prominence (see Detainee Cases).

See also Military Trials and Martial Law; Separation of Powers; War Powers.

Bibliography

• Edwin S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers, 5th ed. (1984).
• Harold H. Koh, The National Security Constitution (1990).
• Clinton Rossiter, The Supreme Court and the Commander in Chief (1976).
• J. Malcolm Smith and Stephen Jurika, The President and National Security: His Role as Commander‐in‐Chief (1972)

— Thomas O. Sargentich

n. 1. a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state: Britain declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914 | Iran and Iraq had been at war for six years.

2. a particular armed conflict: after the war, they emigrated to America.

engage in a war: small states warred against each another.

go to war declare, begin, or see active service in a war.

war of attrition a prolonged war or period of conflict during which each side seeks to gradually wear out the other by a series of small-scale actions.

See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.

Armed conflict between two or more parties, usually fought for political ends. Its everyday meaning is clear, and the main focus of the idea is on the use of force between large-scale political units such as states or empires, usually over control of territory. The boundaries of the idea are, however, difficult to pin down. Some of this difficulty is suggested by the numerous adjectives that can be placed in front of it: civil war, guerrilla war, limited war, total war, gang war, tribal war, cold war, race war, trade war, liberation war, propaganda war, class war, and so forth. Some of these are metaphors exploiting the image of ruthless and violent conflict over political ends taken from international relations, and transferred to actors other than states. In a legal sense, states can be at war without actually using force against each other, but merely by declaring themselves to be in a state of war (phoney war). Conversely, states can be using force against each other on quite a large scale without actually making formal declarations that they are in a state of war. The political element in wars blurs messily between the international system and civil wars, preventing any clear location of the phenomenon at the interstate level. At both levels, wars are often about disputes over sovereignty and territory.

There are many theories about the causes of war, but no unified view. Some argue that war is simply a large-scale expression of the selfish, violent, and power-seeking elements in human nature. Others, notably neorealists, argue that the regular recurrence of war throughout history is a consequence of the anarchic structure of the international system. Perhaps the most numerous source of theories is found amongst those who argue that war is caused by the political construction of states and the ideologies they express. During the nineteenth century, liberals argued that aristocratic states were aggressive because of the martial inclinations of their ruling class. Towards the middle of the twentieth century, almost everyone argued that fascist states were aggressive, including the fascists themselves. Marxists argue that capitalist states are driven to aggression by their ruthless competition for markets, while socialist states relate to each other peacefully. Liberals argue that communist states are inherently aggressive because of their totalitarian organization and their universalist ideology, while liberal democracies relate peacefully because of their economic interdependence with each other, and the constraints of democracy on the state's use of force. Empirically the liberals so far have the better of this argument. There are almost no cases of democracies going to war with each other.

Until quite recently, war was held to be a legitimate practice of states in pursuit of their national interest. European states fought regularly amongst themselves in pursuit of territory, dynastic claims, and colonies, and resort to war was an accepted mechanism for maintaining the balance of power. In the late nineteenth century laws of war began to develop to put some constraints on the use of some of the nastier technological possibilities for weapons. The shock of the unexpected cost and carnage of the First World War established war prevention firmly on the international agenda, but the overambitious and weak collective security mechanism of the League of Nations conspicuously failed to expunge war from the practice of states. After the Second World War, a stronger legal regime against war was constructed, making war illegal for nearly all purposes except self-defence and collective security. The lesson of the First, and even more so the Second, World War for the great powers was that their capacity to inflict destruction on each other had outrun the possible gains to be made from war amongst themselves except as a last resort of self-defence. This lesson was hugely reinforced by the arrival of nuclear weapons, whose obliterative powers were so great as to plausibly eliminate the distinction between total victory and total defeat. This development has not eliminated war amongst the lesser powers, or between great powers and lesser powers. Recent US-led wars against terrorism and wars on drugs reopen the prospect of non-state actors becoming principal players in the practice of war.

— Barry Buzan

The laws of warfare are spelled out in Deuteronomy (20:1-20) and amplified in the Mishnah (Sot. 8). Before going into battle, soldiers are exhorted by the priests not to panic at the sight of the enemy's might. Officers then grant exemption to four categories of men: those who had built a new home but not yet dedicated it; those who had planted a vineyard but not yet tasted its fruit; those who had betrothed a wife but had still to consummate the union; and anyone whose faintheartedness might weaken the army's morale. In addition, both the soldiers and their camp had to be in a state of holiness (Deut. 23:10-15). Before a town is stormed, its inhabitants should be offered peace terms; their fruit trees are not to be cut down, even in the event of a prolonged siege (see Ecology). If any Canaanite town refuses to surrender, all of its inhabitants must be annihilated, a measure aimed at preventing the likely spread of idol worship were these pagans to remain alive. In the case of towns captured far away, where permanent occupation is not envisaged by the Israelites, only adult males are to be killed; everyone else may be taken as the spoils of war.

It was Israel's firm belief that God could never be defeated. If, therefore, Israel should suffer a reversal, it had to be the outcome of faithlessness, of a betrayal of God's covenant with His people. Thus, when they tried to enter the Promised Land against His wishes and were promptly routed by their enemies (Num. 14:45), God was in fact vindicated. Similarly, in the era of the Judges, any shift in the fortunes of war is attributed not to military prowess or the number of troops involved but to Israel's religious faithfulness or disloyalty. Significantly, however, David was precluded from building God's holy Temple because he had "shed much blood" as "a man of battles" (I Chr. 22:8, 28:3). The task of building a Sanctuary in Jerusalem, the City of Peace, had to await a more tranquil age and a ruler whose very name---Solomon---expressed the concept of Peace (shalom).

Three categories of war are designated in the Mishnah (Sot. 8.7): milḥemet mitsvah, "commanded by God" and the Torah; milḥemet ḥovah, "obligatory" because of enemy aggression; and milḥemet ha-reshut, an "optional" war of political significance only. Campaigns of the first type, limited to the destruction of Amalek and the Canaanite nations, were historically obsolete. Wars falling under the third category, for the purpose of extending Israel's borders or for economic gain, could only be waged by the king after he had obtained the consent of a 71-member Sanhedrin. The second category, wars of self-defense and national survival, had the only remaining practical application. For such a war, even the biblical exemptions (see above) had to be suspended: a newly married man must take part in the fighting as a sacred duty; and Sabbath prohibitions could also be waived in the interests of national defense (Tosef. to Er. 4:5-9).

While this concept of a "holy war" proved vital in Hasmonean times (cf. I Macc. 3:21), most of the sages, when the Jews no longer enjoyed independence, had no firsthand knowledge of warfare. A dress sword worn on the Sabbath they considered not an "ornament" but a disgrace, and they tended to explain away military allusions found in the Bible. One amoraic scholar believed that the weapon of the hero in Psalm 45:4 meant "the sword of the Torah." The wars and battles of the Bible had faded into a distant past, and now the struggle against Rome was also becoming a vague memory. Talmudic analysis and codification of the laws governing war must thus be regarded as largely theoretical.

During the Middle Ages, a horror of warfare became ingrained in Jews because of their suffering at the hands of various conquering armies, particularly the European Crusaders. Jewish participation in military operations was limited to Arabia and the Maghreb, where Judaizing tribes fought unsuccessful battles against the Muslims; to Ethiopia, where the Beta Israel ("Falashas") were eventually defeated by native Christians; and to southern Russia and the Caucasus region, where Judaizing Khazars formed a wedge between Christian Byzantium and Muslim Persia. Another rare instance of generalship was displayed by Granada's Jewish vizier, Samuel Ha-Nagid (993-1055), the statesman and poet who led his armies against rival Muslim principalities and who died in the midst of one such campaign.

The process of Jewish emancipation, from the late 18th century, together with new socio-political conditions in Europe and America, had the inevitable effect of converting military service into a vital issue for Jews, who now fought under many banners. Halakhic authorities such as Moses Sofer dealt with the question in their Responsa: a minority concluded that a Jew should not risk his life in non-Jewish wars, but the weight of halakhic opinion was in favor of Jews discharging their civic duty and serving in the army of the motherland. Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan (ḥafets ḥayyim), for example, noted that all the enactments applying to Jewish kings also apply to non-Jewish rulers whose maintenance of law and order benefits their Jewish subjects. However, there is consistent and unanimous condemnation of any Jew opting to serve as a mercenary.

Israel's War of Independence (1948-49) was regarded in most Orthodox religious circles as a milḥemet ḥovah, a justified war. The same approval was given to Israel's later wars. However, the 1982 Lebanon War produced a division of religious opinion, some authorities defining it as a milḥemet ha-reshut, an optional war, undertaken for purposes beyond legitimate defense.

Since the early years of the State, a consensus of opinion has been achieved within Israel regarding matters of national security. This finds religious expression in the directives issued by the military rabbinate governing conduct in time of war and the waiving of Sabbath prohibitions, etc., in emergency situations that involve "danger to life" (see Pikku'Aḥ Nefesh).

Conflicts arising between the armed forces of two or more nations and the methods employed to guard and protect such nations, under the authority of their respective governments.

Under the U.S. Constitution, only the federal government possesses the power to make war. When the United States has gone to war, the courts have allowed the federal government to take extraordinary measures to further the war effort. The great deference shown by the courts during war has led, however, to the suppression of political dissent and other actions that would have been unconstitutional during peacetime.

Declaration and Commencement

Only Congress has the power to declare war. The president of the United States, as commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, does have the power to repel invasions in the absence of any declaration of war by Congress. Subject to this power, the president can order the hostilities to be carried into the invader's own land.

The president's power is illustrated by President Abraham Lincoln's actions at the beginning of the Civil War. In the ten weeks between the fall of Fort Sumter and the convening of Congress in July 1861, Lincoln made war preparations based on his authority as commander in chief. He initiated the drafting of men for military service, approved of a Southern naval blockade, and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Congress later ratified most of Lincoln's actions.

In the twentieth century several U.S. presidents have committed U.S. armed forces without a declaration of war. President Harry S. Truman ordered troops to Korea in 1951 as part of a United Nations "police action." Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon prosecuted the Vietnam War without a congressional declaration. In response Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C.A. § 1541 et seq.), which restricts the president's power to mobilize the military during undeclared war. It requires the president to make a full report to Congress when sending troops into foreign areas, limits the duration of troop commitment without congressional authorization, and provides a veto mechanism that allows Congress to force a recall of troops at any time.

Status and Rights of Citizens

During a time of war, the U.S. government may properly compel the services of all its citizens and subjects. It can recall nationals who are abroad and subject them to penalty if they do not obey. The government can take steps it deems necessary for national security against enemy aliens. Enemy aliens residing in the United States at the outbreak of a declared war or who enter the United States during a war are properly subject to arrest, detention, internment, or deportation.

Enemy Intercourse

The general rule is that, during a declared war, all intercourse, correspondence, and traffic between U.S. citizens and subjects of enemy states that might be advantageous or provide comfort to the enemy are prohibited. For example, it is illegal to transmit money across enemy lines. In addition, a U.S. citizen cannot lawfully make a contract with a citizen of an enemy state while war exists, and any such contract is, therefore, void. The laws of war proscribe all trading with the enemy and all other commercial relations while a state of war exists.

Requisition of Private Property

In times of war, Congress and the president, as commander in chief, have the power to requisition private property necessary for the war effort.

A military commander can seize or requisition a citizen's property for public use or to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. The commander can do this, however, only in situations involving imminent and impending danger or necessity. The services and production of a business organization, such as a shipping company, can properly be requisitioned.

An individual whose private property is requisitioned is entitled to fair compensation. However, the compensation does not have to be paid in advance or at the time the property is seized. When compensation is made, the owner is entitled to receive the reasonable value of the property. The market value of the requisitioned property is generally used as the measure of fair compensation.

Martial Rule

Martial rule exists when military authorities exercise varying degrees of control over civilians in territory where, due to war or public commotion, the civil government is not able to maintain order and enforce the law.

War Powers of the U.S. Government

The power of the federal government to conduct war extends to every matter and activity that has an effect on its conduct and progress. The war powers embrace every phase of national defense, including the mobilization and use of all resources of the nation and the protection of war materials. Most of these powers have not been used since World War II, because the United States did not fight under a declaration of war while engaged in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf.

Congress has the authority to stimulate the production of the war equipment and supplies by all proper methods, including the payment of subsidies or the imposition of limits on profits.

Congress can control the food supply during war to ensure that military and civilian needs are met. Other materials may be rationed as well, including gasoline. Congress also can regulate and control prices as a wartime emergency measure to prevent inflation. Price controls are designated to stabilize economic conditions, prevent speculative and abnormal increases in prices, increase production, and ensure a sufficient supply of goods at fair prices. The federal government can also impose rent control on housing.

Civil liberties can also be curtailed during wartime. The government can censor news that affects national security, such as reports of troop movements. It is within the power of Congress to enact sedition laws that prohibit political speech that disrupts the war effort or gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

During the early months of U.S. involvement in World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the removal of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast. At the time the action was justified on national security grounds, because military commanders believed that California was vulnerable to Japanese spies and saboteurs. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944), upheld the removal. Thousands of Japanese Americans lost their property and businesses and were "relocated" to concentration camps for the duration of the war.

See: Armed Services; Arms Control and Disarmament; Japanese American Evacuation Cases; Korean War; Korematsu v. United States; Martial Law; Military Government; Military Law; Military Occupation; Militia; Milligan, Ex Parte; Rules of War; Tonkin Gulf Resolution; World War I; World War II.

n.

A by-product of the arts of peace. The most menacing political condition is a period of international amity. The student of history who has not been taught to expect the unexpected may justly boast himself inaccessible to the light. "In time of peace prepare for war" has a deeper meaning than is commonly discerned; it means, not merely that all things earthly have an end -- that change is the one immutable and eternal law -- but that the soil of peace is thickly sown with the seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth. It was when Kubla Khan had decreed his "stately pleasure dome" -- when, that is to say, there were peace and fat feasting in Xanadu -- that he

                        heard from afar
    Ancestral voices prophesying war.

Tutor's tip: Another word that sounds like "war" which a series of battles fought against another, is "wore" which means to have put on the body.

LearnThatWord.com is a free vocabulary and spelling program where you only pay for results!

Quotes:

"O can't you see, brother -- Death's a congested road for fighters now, and hero a cheap label." - C. D. Andrews

"The chief reason warfare is still with us is neither a secret death-wish of the human species, nor an irrepressible instinct of aggression, nor, finally and more plausibly, the serious economic and social dangers inherent in disarmament, but the simple fact that no substitute for this final arbiter in international affairs has yet appeared on the political scene." - Hannah Arendt

"From the happy expression on their faces you might have supposed that they welcomed the war. I have met with men who loved stamps, and stones, and snakes, but I could not imagine any man loving war." - Margot Asquith

"War both needs and generates certain virtues; not the highest, but what may be called the preliminary virtues, as valor, veracity, the spirit of obedience, the habit of discipline. Any of these, and of others like them, when possessed by a nation, and no matter how generated, will give them a military advantage, and make them more likely to stay in the race of nations." - Walter Bagehot

"The cannon thunders... limbs fly in all directions... one can hear the groans of victims and the howling of those performing the sacrifice... it's Humanity in search of happiness." - Charles Baudelaire

"It takes twenty years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only twenty seconds of war to destroy him." - Baudouin I

See more famous quotes about War

• Types and Techniques of Warfare - war: sustained, often widespread, armed conflict, esp. between nations
• Security and Defense - war: armed conflict between sovereign states
• Card Games
• Violent Events - war: organized, armed conflict between nations
• Fights - war: sustained, widespread conflict, esp. between nations or peoples, with heavily armed and equipped soldiers

This article is about war in general. For other uses, see War (disambiguation) and The War (disambiguation).

Warfare Military history
Eras Prehistoric Ancient Medieval Gunpowder Industrial Modern Battlespace Air Information Land Sea Space Weapons Armor Artillery Biological Cavalry Chemical Electronic Infantry Nuclear Psychological Tactics Attrition warfare Guerrilla warfare Maneuver warfare Siege Total war Trench warfare Conventional warfare Unconventional warfare Asymmetric warfare Counter-insurgency Network-centric warfare AirLand Battle Cold war Proxy war Strategy Economic Grand Operational Organization Ranks Command and control Staff Intelligence Education and training Logistics Technology and equipment Materiel Supply chain management Military engineering Lists Battles Commanders Operations Sieges Wars War crimes Weapons Writers
Portal   v d e

War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties^[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.^[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war, (and other violence) is usually called peace.

In 2003, Nobel Laureate Richard E. Smalley identified war as the sixth (of ten) biggest problems facing the society of mankind for the next fifty years.^[4] In the 1832 treatise On War, Prussian military general and theoretician Carl Von Clausewitz defined war as follows: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."^[5]

While some scholars see warfare as an inescapable and integral aspect of human culture, others argue that it is only inevitable under certain socio-cultural or ecological circumstances. Some scholars argue that the practice of war is not linked to any single type of political organization or society. Rather, as discussed by John Keegan in his History Of Warfare, war is a universal phenomenon whose form and scope is defined by the society that wages it.^[6] Another argument suggests that since there are human societies in which warfare does not exist, humans may not be naturally disposed for warfare, which emerges under particular circumstance.^[7] The ever changing technologies and potentials of war extend along a historical continuum. At the one end lies the endemic warfare of the Paleolithic^{[citation needed]} with its stones and clubs, and the naturally limited loss of life associated with the use of such weapons. Found at the other end of this continuum is nuclear warfare, along with the recently developed possible outcome of its use, namely the rather sobering potential risk of the complete extinction of the human species.

Contents 1 Etymology 2 History of warfare 3 Ten largest wars (by death toll) 4 Types of warfare 4.1 Warfare environment 4.2 Behaviour and conduct in war 5 Effects of war 5.1 On soldiers 5.2 On civilians 5.3 On the economy 5.3.1 World War II 6 Factors ending a war 7 List of ongoing wars 8 Efforts to stop wars 9 Motivations 9.1 Psychoanalytic psychology 9.2 Evolutionary theories 9.3 Economic theories 9.4 Marxist theories 9.5 Demographic theories 9.5.1 Malthusian theories 9.5.2 Youth bulge theory 9.6 Rationalist theories 9.7 Political science theories 10 War ethics 11 See also 12 References 12.1 Bibliography 13 External links

Etymology

Mural of War (1896), by Gari Melchers.

The English word war derives from the late Old English (c.1050) words wyrre and werre; the Old North French werre; the Frankish werra; and the Proto-Germanic werso. The denotation of war derives from the Old Saxon werran, Old High German werran, and the German verwirren: “to confuse”, “to perplex”, and “to bring into confusion”.^[8] Another posited derivation is from the Ancient Greek barbaros, the Old Persian varhara, and the Sanskrit varvar and barbara. In German, the equivalent is Krieg; the equivalent Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian words for "war" is guerra, derived from the Germanic werra (“fight”, “tumult”).^[9] Etymologic legend has it that the Romanic peoples adopted a foreign, Germanic word for "war", to avoid using the Latin bellum, because, when sounded, it tended to merge with the sound of the word bello ("beautiful").^[10]

History of warfare

Main article: History of war

Before the dawn of civilization, war likely consisted of small-scale raiding. One half of the people found in a Nubian cemetery dating to as early as 12,000 years ago had died of violence.^[11] Since the rise of the state some 5,000 years ago,^[12] military activity has occurred over much of the globe. The advent of gunpowder and the acceleration of technological advances led to modern warfare. According to Conway W. Henderson, "One source claims 14,500 wars have taken place between 3500 BC and the late 20th century, costing 3.5 billion lives, leaving only 300 years of peace (Beer 1981: 20)."^[13]

In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, says that approximately 90–95% of known societies throughout history engaged in at least occasional warfare,^[14] and many fought constantly.^[15]

The percentages of men killed in war in eight tribal societies, and Europe and the U.S. in the 20th century. (Lawrence H. Keeley, Archeologist)

Keeley explained several styles of primitive combat such as, small raids, large raids, and massacres. All of these forms of warfare were perpetrated by primitive societies. The use of the massacre by pre-state societies can be exhibited by the Dogrib tribes of the subartic in North America. The Dogrib tribe eventually destroyed the Yellowknife tribe by killing 4 men, 13 women, and 17 children which accounted for 20 percent of the population.^[11] This was a devastating blow from which the Yellowknife tribe never recovered. Keeley further explains how small raids are not organized due to the lack of leadership and any formal training. This causes raids to be short and quick with relatively low numerical casualties but may significantly damage a percentage of a population. The deficit of resources also can account for a lack of fortifications and defensive structures in primitive prestate societies. The protection provided by a defensive could not justify the valuable resources used and labor implemented to build it.^[11]

William Rubinstein wrote that "Pre-literate societies, even those organised in a relatively advanced way, were renowned for their studied cruelty ... 'archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography [ie, after the coming of the Europeans]'. At Crow Creek, South Dakota, as noted, archaeologists found a mass grave of 'more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. AD 1325)' ".^[16]

In Western Europe, since the late 18th century, more than 150 conflicts and about 600 battles have taken place.^[17]

Japanese samurai attacking a Mongol ship, 13th century

The Human Security Report 2005 documented a significant decline in the number and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s. However, the evidence examined in the 2008 edition of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management's "Peace and Conflict" study indicated that the overall decline in conflicts had stalled.^[18]

Recent rapid increases in the technologies of war, and therefore in its destructiveness (see Mutual assured destruction), have caused widespread public concern, and have in all probability forestalled, and may hopefully altogether prevent the outbreak of a nuclear World War III. At the end of each of the last two World Wars, concerted and popular efforts were made to come to a greater understanding of the underlying dynamics of war and to thereby hopefully reduce or even eliminate it all together. These efforts materialized in the forms of the League of Nations, and its successor, the United Nations.

Shortly after World War II, as a token of support for this concept, most nations joined the United Nations. During this same post-war period, with the aim of further delegitimizing war as an acceptable and logical extension of foreign policy^{[citation needed]}, most national governments also renamed their Ministries or Departments of War as their Ministries or Departments of Defense, for example, the former US Department of War was renamed as the US Department of Defense .

In 1947, in view of the rapidly increasingly destructive consequences of modern warfare, and with a particular concern for the consequences and costs of the newly developed atom bomb, the initial developer of the concept of this bomb, Albert Einstein famously stated, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."^[19] Fortunately, the anticipated costs of a possible third world war are currently no longer deemed as acceptable by most, thus little motivation currently seems to exist on an international level for such a war.

Still since the close of World War II, limited non-nuclear conflicts continue, and surprisingly enough, some outspoken celebrities and politicians have even advocated for the proclamation of another world war.^[20] Mao Zedong urged the socialist camp not to fear nuclear war with the United States since, even if "half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist."^[21]

• 

  Greek hoplite and Persian warrior depicted fighting, on an ancient kylix, 5th century BC

• 

  The Battle of Tewkesbury (1471) during the Wars of the Roses in England

• 

  A cattle raid during the Swabian War (Luzerner Schilling)

• 

  The Battle of Ravenna, in which France defeated the Spaniards on Easter Sunday in 1512

• 

  Swiss and Landsknecht pikemen fight at "push of pike" during the Italian Wars

• 

  Russo-Polish war, Battle of Orsha in 1514

• 

  The Spanish naval victory of the Battle of Lepanto, 1571, the last battle to be fought primarily between galleys

• 

  Battle of White Mountain, 1620, an early battle in the Thirty Years' War

• 

  The Four Days' Battle, 1–4 June 1666, during the Second Anglo–Dutch War

• 

  The Battle of Poltava (1709), a decisive battle between Russian and Swedish troops

• 

  Depicting French Cuirassiers charging onto the British squares during the Battle of Waterloo

• 

  The 20th Foot at the Battle of Inkerman, Crimean War, 1854

• 

  American Civil War, Union captures Fort Fisher, 1865

• 

  USA's Army 89th Infantry Division cross the Rhine River in assault boats, 1945

Ten largest wars (by death toll)

Main article: List of wars by death toll

Three of the ten most costly wars, in terms of loss of life, have been waged in the last century. These are of course the two World Wars, then followed by the Second Sino-Japanese War (which is sometimes considered part of World War II, or overlapping with that war). Most of the others involved China or neighboring peoples. The death toll of World War II, being 60 million plus, surpasses all other war-death-tolls by a factor of two. This may be due to significant recent advances in weapons technologies, as well as recent increases in the overall human population.

• 60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)^[22][23]
• 36,000,000 - An Shi Rebellion (China, 755–763)^[24]
• 30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century) (see Mongol invasions and Tatar invasions)^[25][26][27]
• 25,000,000 - Qing dynasty conquest of Ming dynasty (1616–1662)^[28]
• 20,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)^[29]
• 20,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1850–1864) (see Dungan revolt)^[30]
• 20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)^[31]
• 8,000,000–12,000,000 - Dungan revolt (China, 1862–1877)
• 7,000,000–20,000,000 Conquests of Tamerlane (1370–1405)^[32][33]
• 5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1922)^[34]

Types of warfare

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (January 2010)

War, to become known as one, must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within the broad military strategy subject to military logistics. War Studies by military theorists throughout military history have sought to identify the philosophy of war, and to reduce it to a military science.

Ruins of Guernica (1937). The Spanish civil war was one of Europe's bloodiest and most brutal civil wars.

In general, modern military science considers several factors before a National defence policy is created to allow a war to commence: the environment in the area(s) of combat operations, the posture national forces will adopt on the commencement of a war, and the type of warfare troops will be engaged in.

Conventional warfare is an attempt to reduce an opponent's military capability through open battle. It is a declared war between existing states in which nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are not used or only see limited deployment in support of conventional military goals and maneuvers.

The opposite of conventional warfare, unconventional warfare, is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict.

Nuclear warfare is warfare in which nuclear weapons are the primary, or a major, method of coercing the capitulation of the other side, as opposed to a supporting tactical or strategic role in a conventional conflict.

Civil war is a war where the forces in conflict belong to the same nation or political entity and are vying for control of or independence from that nation or political entity.

Asymmetric warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of military capability or size. Asymmetric conflicts often result in guerrilla tactics being used to overcome the sometimes vast gaps in technology and force size.

Intentional air pollution in combat is one of a collection of techniques collectively called chemical warfare. Poison gas as a chemical weapon was principally used during World War I, and resulted in an estimated 91,198 deaths and 1,205,655 injuries.^{[citation needed]} Various treaties have sought to ban its further use. Non-lethal chemical weapons, such as tear gas and pepper spray, are widely used, sometimes with deadly effect.

Warfare environment

The environment in which a war is fought has a significant impact on the type of combat which takes place, and can include within its area different types of terrain. This, in turn, means that soldiers have to be trained to fight in a specific types of environments and terrains that generally reflects troops' mobility limitations or enablers. These include:

British paratroopers inside one of the C-47 transport aircraft, September 1944 Warfare by objectiveis a class 2 warfare Defensive warfare Offensive warfare Warfare by doctrine Attrition warfare/Fabian warfare Maneuver warfare Guerilla warfare Static warfare/Positional warfare Insurgency warfare Counterinsurgency warfare U.S. Marine Raiders gathered in front of a Japanese dugout, January 1944 Warfare by terrain Jungle warfare Desert warfare Mountain warfare Arctic warfare Naval warfare Littoral warfare Urban warfare Behaviour and conduct in war “ The nature of warfare never changes, only its superficial manifestations. Joshua and David, Hector and Achilles would recognize the combat that our soldiers and Marines have waged in the alleys of Somalia and Iraq. The uniforms evolve, bronze gives way to titanium, arrows may be replaced by laser-guided bombs, but the heart of the matter is still killing your enemies until any survivors surrender and do your will. ” —Ralph Peters[35] The behaviour of troops in warfare varies considerably, both individually and as units or armies. In some circumstances, troops may engage in genocide, war rape and ethnic cleansing. Commonly, however, the conduct of troops may be limited to posturing and sham attacks, leading to highly rule-bound and often largely symbolic combat in which casualties are much reduced from that which would be expected if soldiers were genuinely violent towards the enemy.[36] Situations of deliberate dampening of hostilities occurred in World War I by some accounts, e.g., a volley of gunfire being exchanged after a misplaced mortar hit the British line, after which a German soldier shouted an apology to British forces, effectively stopping a hostile exchange of gunfire.[37] Other examples of non-aggression, also from World War I, are detailed in "Good-Bye to All That." These include spontaneous ceasefires to rebuild defences and retrieve casualties, alongside behaviour such as refusing to shoot at enemy during ablutions and the taking of great risks (described as 1 in 20) to retrieve enemy wounded from the battlefield. The most notable spontaneous ceasefire of World War I was the Christmas truce. The psychological separation between combatants, and the destructive power of modern weaponry, may act to override this effect and facilitate participation by combatants in the mass slaughter of combatants or civilians, such as in the bombing of Dresden in World War II.[citation needed] The unusual circumstances of warfare can incite apparently normal individuals to commit atrocities.[38] Effects of war Nations customarily measure the ‘costs of war’ in dollars, lost production, or the number of soldiers killed or wounded. Rarely do military establishments attempt to measure the costs of war in terms of individual human suffering. Psychiatric breakdown remains one of the most costly items of war when expressed in human terms. —No More Heroes, Richard Gabriel[17] Disability-adjusted life year for war per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004.[39]   no data   less than 100   100-200   200-600   600-1000   1000-1400   1400-1800   1800-2200   2200-2600   2600-3000   3000-8000   8000-8800   more than 8800 The Apotheosis of War (1871) by Vasily Vereshchagin On soldiers Soldiers subject to combat in war often suffer psychological and physical casualties, including depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, disease, injury, and death. In every war in which American soldiers have fought in, the chances of becoming a psychiatric casualty – of being debilitated for some period of time as a consequence of the stresses of military life – were greater than the chances of being killed by enemy fire. —No More Heroes, Richard Gabriel[17] During World War II, research conducted by US Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall found that, on average, only 15% to 20% of American riflemen in WWII combat fired at the enemy.[36] In Civil War Collector’s Encyclopedia, F.A. Lord notes that of the 27,574 discarded muskets found on the Gettysburg battlefield, nearly 90% were loaded, with 12,000 loaded more than once and 6,000 loaded 3 to 10 times. These studies suggest that most soldiers resist firing their weapons in combat, that- as some theorists argue- human beings have an inherent resistance to killing their fellow human beings.[36] Swank and Marchand’s WWII study found that after sixty days of continuous combat, 98% of all surviving soldiers will become psychiatric casualties. Psychiatric casualties manifest themselves in fatigue cases, confusional states, conversion hysteria, anxiety, obsessional and compulsive states, and character disorders.[36] One-tenth of mobilised American men were hospitalised for mental disturbances between 1942 and 1945, and after thirty-five days of uninterrupted combat, 98% of them manifested psychiatric disturbances in varying degrees. —14–18: Understanding the Great War, Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Annette Becker[17] Additionally, it has been estimated that anywhere from 18% to 54% of Vietnam war veterans suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.[36] Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white American males aged 13 to 43 died in the American Civil War, including about 6% in the North and approximately 18% in the South.[40] The war remains the deadliest conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers. United States military casualties of war since 1775 have totaled over two million. Of the 60 million European soldiers who were mobilized in World War I, 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured.[41] Why?, from The Disasters of War (Los desastres de la guerra), by Francisco Goya, 1812-15. A collection of depictions of the brutalities of the Napoleonic-Peninsular War. During Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, more French soldiers died of typhus than were killed by the Russians.[42] Felix Markham thinks that 450,000 crossed the Neman on 25 June 1812, of whom less than 40,000 recrossed in anything like a recognizable military formation.[43] More soldiers were killed from 1500-1914 by typhus than from all military action during that time combined.[44] In addition, if it were not for the modern medical advances there would be thousands of more dead from disease and infection. For instance, during the Seven Years' War, the Royal Navy reported that it conscripted 184,899 sailors, of whom 133,708 died of disease or were 'missing'.[45] Les Grandes Misères de la guerre depict the destruction unleashed on civilians during the Thirty Years' War. It is estimated that 378 000 people died due to war each year between 1985 and 1994.[46] On civilians See also: Civilian casualties Many wars have been accompanied by significant depopulations, along with destruction of infrastructure and resources (which may lead to famine, disease, and death in the civilian population). Civilians in war zones may also be subject to war atrocities such as genocide, while survivors may suffer the psychological aftereffects of witnessing the destruction of war. During the Thirty Years' War in Europe, for example, the population of the German states was reduced by about 30%.[47][48] The Swedish armies alone may have destroyed up to 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.[49] Estimates for the total casualties of World War II vary, but most suggest that some 60 million people died in the war, comprising around 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians.[50] The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, about half of all World War II casualties.[51] Since a high proportion of those killed were young men, the postwar Soviet population was 45 to 50 million fewer than post–1939 projections would have led one to expect.[52] The largest number of civilian deaths in a single city was 1.2 million citizens dead during the 872-day Siege of Leningrad. On the economy See also: Military keynesianism Once a war has ended, losing nations are sometimes required to pay war reparations to the victorious nations. In certain cases, land is ceded to the victorious nations. For example, the territory of Alsace-Lorraine has been traded between France and Germany on three different occasions. Typically speaking, war becomes very intertwined with the economy and many wars are partially or entirely based on economic reasons such as the American Civil War. In some cases war has stimulated a country's economy (World War II is often credited with bringing America out of the Great Depression) but in many cases, such as the wars of Louis XIV, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I, warfare serves only to damage the economy of the countries involved. For example, Russia's involvement in World War I took such a toll on the Russian economy that it almost collapsed and greatly contributed to the start of the Russian Revolution of 1917. World War II One of the starkest illustrations of the effect of war upon economies is the Second World War. The Great Depression of the 1930s ended as nations increased their production of war materials to serve the war effort.[53] The financial cost of World War II is estimated at about a billion U.S. dollars worldwide,[54][55] making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives. By the end of the war, the European economy had collapsed with 70% of the industrial infrastructure destroyed.[56] Property damage in the Soviet Union inflicted by the Axis invasion was estimated to a value of 679 billion rubles. The combined damage consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, 2,508 church buildings, 31,850 industrial establishments, 40,000 miles of railroad, 4100 railroad stations, 40,000 hospitals, 84,000 schools, and 43,000 public libraries.[57] Factors ending a war This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008) This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (January 2010) Women and priests retrieve the dead bodies of Swabian soldiers just outside the city gates of Constance after the battle of Schwaderloh. (Luzerner Schilling) The political and economic circumstances, in the peace that follows war, usually depend on the facts on the ground. Where evenly matched adversaries decide that the conflict has resulted in a stalemate, they may cease hostilities to avoid further loss of life and property. They may decide to restore the antebellum territorial boundaries, redraw boundaries at the line of military control, or negotiate to keep or exchange captured territory. Negotiations between parties involved at the end of a war often result in a treaty, such as the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, which ended the First World War. A warring party that surrenders or capitulates may have little negotiating power, with the victorious side either imposing a settlement or dictating most of the terms of any treaty. A common result is that conquered territory is brought under the dominion of the stronger military power. An unconditional surrender is made in the face of overwhelming military force as an attempt to prevent further harm to life and property. For example, the Empire of Japan gave an unconditional surrender to the Allies of World War II after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see Surrender of Japan), the preceding massive strategic bombardment of Japan and declaration of war and the immediate invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Union. A settlement or surrender may also be obtained through deception or bluffing. Many other wars, however, have ended in complete destruction of the opposing territory, such as the Battle of Carthage of the Third Punic War between the Phoenician city of Carthage and Ancient Rome in 149 BC. In 146 BC the Romans burned the city, enslaved its citizens, and razed the buildings. Some wars or aggressive actions end when the military objective of the victorious side has been achieved. Others do not, especially in cases where the state structures do not exist, or have collapsed prior to the victory of the conqueror. In such cases, disorganised guerilla warfare may continue for a considerable period. In cases of complete surrender conquered territories may be brought under the permanent dominion of the victorious side. A raid for the purposes of looting may be completed with the successful capture of goods. In other cases an aggressor may decide to end hostilities to avoid continued losses and cease hostilities without obtaining the original objective, such as happened in the Iran–Iraq War. Some hostilities, such as insurgency or civil war, may persist for long periods of time with only a low level of military activity. In some cases there is no negotiation of any official treaty, but fighting may trail off and eventually stop after the political demands of the belligerent groups have been reconciled, a political settlement has been negotiated, the combatants are gradually killed or decide the conflict is futile, or the belligerents cease active military engagement but still threatens each other. An example is the Chinese Civil War which essentially ceased by 1950 but the People's Republic of China fought diplomatically to isolate Taiwan, but it still threatens Republic of China (commonly, Taiwan) with an invasion. For this reason, some historians consider the war not ended but continuing. List of ongoing wars Main article: List of ongoing conflicts Please expand this article. More information might be found in a section of the talk page. (May 2011) Conflicts in the following list are currently causing at least 1,000 violent deaths per year, a categorization used by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program[58] and recognised by the United Nations.[59][60] The UN also use the term "low intensity conflict," which can overlap with the 1,000 violent deaths per year categorisation.[61] Start of conflict War/conflict Location Cumulative fatalities Fatalities in 2010/11 1964 Colombian Armed Conflict  Colombia 50,000+ 1,000+[62] 1967 Naxalite-Maoist insurgency  India ~11,200 1,174+[63] 1978 Afghan civil war  Afghanistan 600,000–2,000,000[citation needed] 10,461+ [64] 1991 Somali Civil War  Somalia 300,000[65]–400,000[66] 2,318+[67] 2004 War in North-West Pakistan  Pakistan 30,452[68] 7,435[69] 2004 Shia Insurgency in Yemen  Yemen and  Saudi Arabia 25,000[70] 8,000 2006 Mexican Drug War  Mexico 39,392+[71] 24,374[72] 2009 Sudanese nomadic conflicts  Sudan 2,000–2,500[73] 708 2011 Sudan–SPLM-N conflict  Sudan 1,500+ 1,500+[citation needed] 2011 2011 Syrian uprising  Syria 3,000+[74] 3,000+ Efforts to stop wars Execution at Verdun at the time of the mutinies of 1917, when parts of the French Army refused to conduct further offensive operations. Anti-war movements have existed for every major war in the 20th century, including, most prominently, World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. In the 21st century, worldwide anti-war movements occurred ever since the United States declared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2001, the US government decided to invade Afghanistan to fight against international terrorism that caused the September 11 attacks. Opposition to the War in Afghanistan spread all over the world. Protests occurred in cities in Europe, Asia, and all over the United States, criticizing its ineffectiveness and illegitimacy. However, they did not stop the US engagement in the war. As of now, the public view worldwide does not seem to favor the war. Organizations like Stop the War Coalition, based in the United Kingdom, keep working on campaigning against the War. They raise awareness of the war, organize demonstrations, and lobby the governments.[75] There also exist significant worldwide opposition to the Iraq War. The US engaged in the war to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqi government allegedly had developed. Critics oppose the war based on the argument of violation of sovereignty, civilian deaths, absence of the UN approval, and lack of justification. However, they did not stop the involvement again. Since then, the US government has been harshly criticized by the public, domestically and internationally, for its conduct during the war, especially in the killings of civilians. Even though the government has been counting the US soldiers up until now, they have refused to release numbers on the civilian deaths.[76] Individual projects like Iraq Body Count project tries to reveal the actual number of deaths from the war based on journalistic data, showing the civilian effort to face the truth of war. Mexican Drug War, with estimated casualty of 40,000 since December 2006, has been recently facing a fundamental opposition.[77] In 2011, the movement for peace and justice has started a popular middle-class movement against the war. It has won the recognition of President Calderon who started the war, but has not ended the war.[78] Governments also use the method of disarmament to stop and prevent the cost of war. Motivations Motivations for war may be different for those ordering the war than for those undertaking the war. For example, in the Third Punic War, Rome's leaders may have wished to make war with Carthage for the purpose of eliminating a resurgent rival, while the individual soldiers may have been motivated by a wish to make money. Since many people are involved, a war may acquire a life of its own from the confluence of many different motivations. The Jewish Talmud describes in the BeReshit Rabbah commentary on the fight between Cain and Abel (Parashot BeReshit XXII:7) that there are three universal reasons for wars: A) Economic, B) Ideological/religious, and C) Power/pride/love (personal).[79] The Ottoman campaign for territorial expansion in Europe in 1566, Crimean Tatars as vanguard. The Tatars essentially sought booty, especially slaves. In Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger, the author points out that both sides will claim that morality justifies their fight. He also states that the rationale for beginning a war depends on an overly optimistic assessment of the outcome of hostilities (casualties and costs), and on misperceptions of the enemy's intentions. As the strategic and tactical aspects of warfare are always changing, theories and doctrines relating to warfare are often reformulated before, during, and after every major war. Carl Von Clausewitz said, 'Every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.'.[80] The one constant factor is war’s employment of organized violence and the resultant destruction of property and/ or lives that necessarily follows. Psychoanalytic psychology Dutch psychoanalyst Joost Meerloo held that, "War is often...a mass discharge of accumulated internal rage (where)...the inner fears of mankind are discharged in mass destruction."[81] Thus war can sometimes be a means by which man's own frustration at his inability to master his own self is expressed and temporarily relieved via his unleashing of destructive behavior upon others. In this destructive scenario, these others are made to serve as the scapegoat of man's own unspoken and subconscious frustrations and fears. Other psychoanalysts such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings are inherently violent.[82] This aggressiveness is fueled by displacement and projection where a person transfers his or her grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies. By this theory, the nation state preserves order in the local society while creating an outlet for aggression through warfare. If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed and predetermined by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it. The Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, thought that war was the paranoid or projective “elaboration” of mourning.[83] Fornari thought that war and violence develop out of our “love need”: our wish to preserve and defend the sacred object to which we are attached, namely our early mother and our fusion with her. For the adult, nations are the sacred objects that generate warfare. Fornari focused upon sacrifice as the essence of war: the astonishing willingness of human beings to die for their country, to give over their bodies to their nation. Despite Fornari's theory that man's altruistic desire for self-sacrifice for a noble cause is a contributing factor towards war, in history only a tiny fraction of wars have originated from a desire for war from the general populace.[84] Far more often the general population has been reluctantly drawn into war by its rulers. One psychological theory that looks at the leaders is advanced by Maurice Walsh.[85] He argues that the general populace is more neutral towards war and that wars only occur when leaders with a psychologically abnormal disregard for human life are placed into power. War is caused by leaders that seek war such as Napoleon and Hitler. Such leaders most often come to power in times of crisis when the populace opts for a decisive leader, who then leads the nation to war. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. – Hermann Göring at the Nuremberg trials, April 18, 1946[86] Evolutionary theories The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2011) This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (October 2011) Several theories concern the evolutionary origins of warfare. There are two main schools one sees organized warfare as a emerging only in the mesolithic, as a result of the emergence of complex social organization, higher population density and political organization and competition over resources. The other school tends to see human warfare simply as an extension of animal behavior, such as territoriality and sexual competition.[87] This school argues that since organized warlike behavior patterns are also found in many other primate species such as chimpanzees,[88] as well as in many ant species,[89] this suggests that between group conflict is a general feature of animal social behavior. Biologists studying primate behavior have added to the debate, documenting warlike activities among several primate species and seeing similarities to humans.[90] Others argue that while war may be a natural phenomenon, the development of technology and complex social organization has accelerated the scale of warfare to exceptional levels among modern humans, starting at some point in the mesolithic, and escalating with the development of weaponry and large-scale state formations.[91] Dayak headhunters in Borneo One line of evidence for violent conflict among the ancestors of humans is sexual dimorphism. In species that have high levels of male competition over females, males tend to be larger and stronger than females. Humans, have considerable sexual dimorphism, although lower than our nearest primate relatives.[92] The strength difference is greater for upper-body strength than for lower-body strength. Men are also larger, faster, and more aggressive. Their skeleton, especially in the vulnerable face, is more robust. This suggests that male competition has been an important factor in human evolution.[93] Steven Pinker in his book The Blank Slate argues that raiding or warfare between groups of humans in the ancestral environment was often beneficial for the victors. This includes gaining control over scarce resources as well as the women of the defeated or raided group. Various features of modern warfare such as alliances between groups and preemptive wars were likely part of these conflicts. In order to have a credible deterrence against other groups (as well as on an individual level), it was important to have a reputation for retaliation, causing humans to develop instincts for revenge as well as for protecting a group's (or an individual's) reputation ("honor"). Pinker argues that the development of the state and the police have dramatically reduced the level of warfare and violence compared to the ancestral environment. Whenever the state breaks down, which can be very locally such as in poor areas of a city, humans again organize in groups for protection and aggression and concepts such as violent revenge and protecting honor again become extremely important. Ashley Montagu strongly denied universalistic instinctual arguments, arguing that social factors and childhood socialization are important in determining the nature and presence of warfare. Thus, he argues, while human aggression may be a universal occurrence, warfare is not, and would appear to have been a historical invention, associated with certain types of human societies.[94] This argument has been supported by ethnographic research conducted in societies where the concept of aggression seems to be entirely absent, e.g., the Chewong of the Malay peninsula.[95] Crofoot and Wrangham have instead argued that warfare, if defined as group interactions in which "coalitions attempt to aggressively dominate or kill members of others groups", is a characteristic of most human societies. Those in which it has been lacking "tend to be societies that were politically dominated by their neighbors".[96] Economic theories Kuwaiti oil wells on fire, during the Gulf War, 1 March 1991 War can be seen as a growth of economic competition in a competitive international system. In this view wars begin as a pursuit of markets for natural resources and for wealth. While this theory has been applied to many conflicts, such counter arguments become less valid as the increasing mobility of capital and information level the distributions of wealth worldwide, or when considering that it is relative, not absolute, wealth differences that may fuel wars. There are those on the extreme right of the political spectrum who provide support, fascists in particular, by asserting a natural right of a strong nation to whatever the weak cannot hold by force.[97][98] Some centrist, capitalist, world leaders, including Presidents of the United States and US Generals, expressed support for an economic view of war. Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? – Woodrow Wilson, September 11, 1919, St. Louis.[99] I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. – Major General Smedley Butler (simultaneously the highest ranking and most decorated United States Marine (including two Medals of Honor) and Republican Party primary candidate for the United States Senate) 1935.[100] For the corporation executives, the military metaphysic often coincides with their interest in a stable and planned flow of profit; it enables them to have their risk underwritten by public money; it enables them reasonably to expect that they can exploit for private profit now and later, the risky research developments paid for by public money. It is, in brief, a mask of the subsidized capitalism from which they extract profit and upon which their power is based. – C. Wright Mills, Causes of World War 3, 1960. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. – Dwight Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961. Marxist theories The Marxist theory of war is quasi-economic in that it states that all modern wars are caused by competition for resources and markets between great (imperialist) powers, claiming these wars are a natural result of the free market and class system. Part of the theory is that war will only disappear once a world revolution, over-throwing free markets and class systems, has occurred. German Anarchist Rosa Luxembourg theorized that imperialism was the result of capitalist countries needing new markets. Expansion of the means of production is only possible if there is a corresponding growth in consumer demand. Since the workers in a capitalist economy would be unable to fill the demand, producers must expand into non-capitalist markets to find consumers for their goods, hence driving imperialism.[101] Demographic theories Demographic theories can be grouped into two classes, Malthusian theories and youth bulge theories. Malthusian theories US Army soldiers in Somalia, 1993 Malthusian theories see expanding population and scarce resources as a source of violent conflict. Pope Urban II in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, spoke: For this land which you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil strife. Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves.[102] This is one of the earliest expressions of what has come to be called the Malthusian theory of war, in which wars are caused by expanding populations and limited resources. Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) wrote that populations always increase until they are limited by war, disease, or famine.[103] This theory is thought by Malthusians to account for the relative decrease in wars during the past fifty years, especially in the developed world, where advances in agriculture have made it possible to support a much larger population than was formerly the case, and where birth control has dramatically slowed the increase in population. Youth bulge theory Median age by country. A youth bulge is evident for Africa, and to a lesser extent for South and Southeast Asia and Central America. Youth bulge theory differs significantly from Malthusian theories. Its adherents see a combination of large male youth cohorts – as graphically represented as a "youth bulge" in a population pyramid – with a lack of regular, peaceful employment opportunities as a risk pool for violence. While Malthusian theories focus on a disparity between a growing population and available natural resources, youth bulge theory focuses on a disparity between non-inheriting, 'excess' young males and available social positions within the existing social system of division of labour. Contributors to the development of youth bulge theory include French sociologist Gaston Bouthoul,[104] U.S. sociologist Jack A. Goldstone,[105] U.S. political scientist Gary Fuller,[106][107][108] and German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn.[109] Samuel Huntington has modified his Clash of Civilizations theory by using youth bulge theory as its foundation: I don't think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims. But the key factor is the demographic factor. Generally speaking, the people who go out and kill other people are males between the ages of 16 and 30. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s there were high birth rates in the Muslim world, and this has given rise to a huge youth bulge. But the bulge will fade. Muslim birth rates are going down; in fact, they have dropped dramatically in some countries. Islam did spread by the sword originally, but I don't think there is anything inherently violent in Muslim theology.[110] Youth Bulge theories represent a relatively recent development but seem to have become more influential in guiding U.S. foreign policy and military strategy as both Goldstone and Fuller have acted as consultants to the U.S. Government. CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson referred to youth bulge theory in his 2002 report "The National Security Implications of Global Demographic Change".[111] Palestinian militant with rifle, 2009 According to Heinsohn, who has proposed youth bulge theory in its most generalized form, a youth bulge occurs when 30 to 40 percent of the males of a nation belong to the "fighting age" cohorts from 15 to 29 years of age. It will follow periods with total fertility rates as high as 4-8 children per woman with a 15-29 year delay. A total fertility rate of 2.1 children born by a woman during her lifetime represents a situation of in which the son will replace the father, and the daughter will replace the mother accounting for a small proportion of deaths to factors such as illness and accidents. Thus, a total fertility rate of 2.1 represents replacement level, while anything below represents a sub-replacement fertility rate leading to population decline. Total fertility rates above 2.1 will lead to population growth and to a youth bulge. A total fertility rate of 4-8 children per mother implies 2-4 sons per mother. Consequently, one father has to leave not 1, but 2 to 4 social positions (jobs) to give all his sons a perspective for life, which is usually hard to achieve. Since respectable positions cannot be increased at the same speed as food, textbooks and vaccines, many "angry young men" find themselves in a situation that tends to escalate their adolescent anger into violence: they are Demographically superfluous, Might be out of work or stuck in a menial job, and Often have no access to a legal sex life before a career can earn them enough to provide for a family. See: Hypergamy, Waithood. The combination of these stress factors according to Heinsohn[112] usually heads for one of six different exits: Mexican soldiers detain cartel suspects in Michoacán, 2007 Emigration ("non violent colonization") Violent Crime Rebellion or putsch Civil war and/or revolution Genocide (to take over the positions of the slaughtered) Conquest (violent colonization, frequently including genocide abroad). Religions and ideologies are seen as secondary factors that are being used to legitimate violence, but will not lead to violence by themselves if no youth bulge is present. Consequently, youth bulge theorists see both past "Christianist" European colonialism and imperialism and today's "Islamist" civil unrest and terrorism as results of high birth rates producing youth bulges.[113] With the Gaza Strip now being seen as another example of youth-bulge-driven violence, especially if compared to Lebanon which is geographically close, yet remarkably more peaceful.[114] Among prominent historical events that have been linked to the existence of youth bulges is the role played by the historically large youth cohorts in the rebellion and revolution waves of early modern Europe, including French Revolution of 1789,[115] and the importance of economic depression hitting the largest German youth cohorts ever in explaining the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s.[116] The 1994 Rwandan Genocide has also been analyzed as following a massive youth bulge.[117] While the implications of population growth have been known since the completion of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974,[118] neither the U.S. nor the WHO have implemented the recommended measures to control population growth to avert the terrorist threat. Prominent demographer Stephen D. Mumford attributes this to the influence of the Catholic Church.[119] Youth Bulge theory has been subjected to statistical analysis by the World Bank,[120] Population Action International,[121] and the Berlin Institute for Population and Development.[122] Detailed demographic data for most countries is available at the international database of the United States Census Bureau.[123] Statistic data about historical development of demographic and economic parameters over the last 200 years for each country can be visualized at Gapminder.[124] Youth bulge theories have been criticized as leading to racial, gender and age "discrimination".[125] Rationalist theories Rationalist theories of war assume that both sides to a potential war are rational, which is to say that each side wants to get the best possible outcome for itself for the least possible loss of life and property to its own side. Given this assumption, if both countries knew in advance how the war would turn out, it would be better for both of them to just accept the post-war outcome without having to actually pay the costs of fighting the war. This is based on the notion, generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Carl von Clausewitz, that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. Rationalist theory offers three reasons why some countries cannot find a bargain and instead resort to war: issue indivisibility, information asymmetry with incentive to deceive, and the inability to make credible commitments.[126] U.S. Marines direct a concentration of fire at the enemy, Vietnam, 8 May 1968 Issue indivisibility occurs when the two parties cannot avoid war by bargaining because the thing over which they are fighting cannot be shared between them, only owned entirely by one side or the other. Religious issues, such as control over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, are more likely to be indivisible than economic issues. A bigger branch of the theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, is that both sides decide to go to war and one side may have miscalculated. Some go further and say that there is a problem of information asymmetry with incentives to misrepresent. The two countries may not agree on who would win a war between them, or whether victory would be overwhelming or merely eked out, because each side has military secrets about its own capabilities. They will not avoid the bargaining failure by sharing their secrets, since they cannot trust each other not to lie and exaggerate their strength to extract more concessions. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely, partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit. The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces. Thirdly, bargaining may fail due to the states' inability to make credible commitments.[127] In this scenario, the two countries might be able to come to a bargain that would avert war if they could stick to it, but the benefits of the bargain will make one side more powerful and lead it to demand even more in the future, so that the weaker side has an incentive to make a stand now. Rationalist explanations of war can be critiqued on a number of grounds. The assumptions of cost-benefit calculations become dubious in the most extreme genocidal cases of World War II, where the only bargain offered in some cases was infinitely bad. Rationalist theories typically assume that the state acts as a unitary individual, doing what is best for the state as a whole; this is problematic when, for example, the country's leader is beholden to a very small number of people, as in a personalistic dictatorship. Rationalist theory also assumes that the actors are rational, able to accurately assess their likelihood of success or failure, but the proponents of the psychological theories above would disagree. Rationalist theories are usually explicated with game theory, for example, the Peace War Game, not a wargame as such, rather a simulation of economic decisions underlying war. Political science theories This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008) The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. There are several different international relations theory schools. Supporters of realism in international relations argue that the motivation of states is the quest for security. Which sometimes is argued to contradict the realist view, that there is much empirical evidence to support the claim that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea that has come to be known as the democratic peace theory. Other factors included are difference in moral and religious beliefs, economical and trade disagreements, declaring independence, and others. Another major theory relating to power in international relations and machtpolitik is the Power Transition theory, which distributes the world into a hierarchy and explains major wars as part of a cycle of hegemons being destabilized by a great power which does not support the hegemons' control. Military adventurism can sometimes be used by political leaders as a means of boosting their domestic popularity, as has been recorded in US war-time presidential popularity surveys taken during the presidencies of several recent US leaders.[128] War ethics Morning after the Battle of Waterloo, by John Heaviside Clarke, 1816 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008) This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (January 2010) The seeming contradiction between warfare and morality has led to serious moral questions, which have been the subject of debate for thousands of years.[129] The debate, generally speaking, has two main viewpoints: Pacifists, who believe that war is inherently immoral and therefore is never justified regardless of circumstances, and those who believe that war is sometimes necessary and can be moral. There are two different aspects to ethics in war, according to the most prominent and influential thought on justice and war: The Just War Theory.[130][131] First is Jus ad bellum (literally translated as "right to war"), which dictates which unfriendly acts and circumstances justify a proper authority in declaring war on another nation. There are six main criteria for the declaration of a just war: first, any just war must be declared by a lawful authority; second, it must be a just and righteous cause, with sufficient gravity to merit large-scale violence; third, the just belligerent must have rightful intentions – namely, that they seek to advance good and curtail evil; fourth, a just belligerent must have a reasonable chance of success; fifth, the war must be a last resort; and sixth, the ends being sought must be proportional to means being used.[132][133] Once a just war has been declared, the second standard, or aspect, is put into effect. Jus In bello, which literally translates to "right in war", are the ethical rules of conduct when conducting war. The two main principles in jus in bello are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality regards how much force is necessary and morally appropriate to the ends being sought and the injustice suffered.[134] The principle of Discrimination determines who are the legitimate targets in a war, and specifically makes a separation between combatants, who it is permissible to kill, and non-combatants, who it is not.[134] Failure to follow these rules can result in the loss of legitimacy for the just war belligerent, and so thereby forfeit the moral right and justice of their cause.[131] In besieged Leningrad. "Hitler ordered that Moscow and Leningrad were to be razed to the ground; their inhabitants were to be annihilated or driven out by starvation. These intentions were part of the 'General Plan East'." —The Oxford Companion to World War II.[135] The Just War standard is as old as Western Civilization itself, and still has significant impact on thinking about the morality of wars and violence today.[136] Just War Theory was foundational in the creation of the United Nations and in International Law's regulations on legitimate war.[129] These two positions generally cover the broad philosophical and ethical bents mainstream society. However, there are several theories on and about War which are in the minority in culture, but which, because of the influence they have had in recent history, demand mention here. These strains of thought on human society and war can be broken up into two main camps: Marxist and Fascist, both of which view war as purely practical. Marxism, and other such historicist ideals, hold that history advances through a set of dialectics (as stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus: thesis, antithesis, synthesis). Marx, and his followers, in particular held that history advances through violence. Marxism-Leninism, in fact, held the belief that outright incitement to violence and war was necessary to topple Capitalism and free the proletariat. In these theories, the question of ethics has no place, as the value of the war is entirely dependent on whether it advances the revolution or synthesis. Fascism, and the ideals it encompasses, such as Pragmatism, Racism, and Social Darwinism, hold that violence is good.[137][138][citation needed] Pragmatism holds that war and violence can be good if it serves the ends of the people, without regard for universal morality. Racism holds that violence is good so that a master race can be established, or to purge an inferior race from the earth, or both. Social Darwinism thinks that violence is sometimes necessary to weed the unfit from society so that civilization can flourish. These are broad archetypes for the general position that the ends justify the means. See also War portal Book: War Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print. Possible causes Peak water Peak uranium Peak oil Religious war Racism General reference Undeclared war Colonial war Religious war Breakaway states Casus belli Fault line war Islam and war Horses in warfare Sun Tzu, The Art of War War cycles Water conflicts Nuclear war War as metaphor War-related lists List of battles List of battles and other violent events by death toll List of battles by death toll List of invasions Lists of wars List of military commanders List of ongoing conflicts List of orders of battle List of terrorist incidents List of war crimes List of wars by death toll References ^ a b "American Heritage Dictionary: War". Thefreedictionary.com. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/War. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ "Merriam Webster's Dictionary: War". Merriam-webster.com. 2010-08-13. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/.  ^ Smalley, Richard E. (2008). "Smalley Institute Grand Challenges". Rice University. http://cnst.rice.edu/content.aspx?id=246. Retrieved 24 April 2011.  ^ Clausewitz, Carl von (1984) [1832]. Howard, Michael; Paret, Peter. eds. On War [Vom Krieg] (Indexed ed.). New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-691-01854-6.  Italics in original. ^ Keegan, John, (1994) A History Of Warfare, (Pimlico) ^ Societies at Peace (Howell and Willis 1989) ^ "war". Online Etymology Dictionary. 2010. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=war. Retrieved 24 April 2011.  ^ Diccionario de la Lengua Española, 21a edición (1992) p. 1071 ^ "Online Etymology Dictionary". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=war&searchmode=none. Retrieved 2009-06-05.  ^ a b c Keeley: War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage ^ Diamond, Jared, Guns, Germs and Steel ^ Conway W. Henderson (2010). Understanding International Law. John Wiley and Sons. 212. ISBN 1405197641 ^ "Review: War Before Civilization". Brneurosci.org. 2006-09-04. http://brneurosci.org/reviews/war.html. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ Spengler (4 July 2006). "The fraud of primitive authenticity". Asia Times Online. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HG04Aa02.html. Retrieved 2009-06-08.  ^ Rubinstein, W. D. (2004). Genocide: a history. Pearson Education. pp.22–50. ISBN 0-582-50601-8 ^ a b c d World War One – A New Kind of War | Part II, From 14 – 18 Understanding the Great War, by Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Annette Becker ^ Hewitt, Joseph, J. Wilkenfield and T. nevertheless the concept war is more than just a word but a signification to the meaning Death. Gurr Peace and Conflict 2008, Paradigm Publishers, 2007 ^ "Albert Einstein: Man of Imagination". 1947. http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/action/urgent-actions/einstein/. Retrieved 2010-02-03.  Nuclear Age Peace Foundation paper ^ "Right-wing media divided: Is U.S. now in World War III, IV, or V?". 2006. http://mediamatters.org/research/200607140017. Retrieved 2010-02-04.  Discussion of attempts to proclaim World Wars III, IV and V ^ "Instant Wisdom: Beyond the Little Red Book". Time. September 20, 1976. ^ Wallinsky, David: David Wallechinsky's Twentieth Century: History With the Boring Parts Left Out, Little Brown & Co., 1996, ISBN 0-316-92056-8, ISBN 978-0-316-92056-8 - cited by White ^ Brzezinski, Zbigniew: Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, Prentice Hall & IBD, 1994, ASIN B000O8PVJI – cited by White ^ "Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century". Users.erols.com. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#AnLushan. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ Ping-ti Ho, "An Estimate of the Total Population of Sung-Chin China", in Études Song, Series 1, No 1, (1970) pp. 33-53. ^ "Mongol Conquests". Users.erols.com. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Mongol. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ "The world's worst massacres Whole Earth Review". Findarticles.com. 1987. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_1987_Fall/ai_5151514/pg_2. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ McFarlane, Alan: The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap, Blackwell 2003, ISBN 0-631-18117-2, ISBN 978-0-631-18117-0 - cited by White ^ Michael Duffy (2009-08-22). "Military Casualties of World War One". Firstworldwar.com. http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ "Taiping Rebellion – Britannica Concise". Concise.britannica.com. http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9380148/Taiping. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ "Nuclear Power: The End of the War Against Japan". Bbc.co.uk. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ "Timur Lenk (1369-1405)". Users.erols.com. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Timur. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ Matthew's White's website (a compilation of scholarly estimates) -Miscellaneous Oriental Atrocities ^ "Russian Civil War". Spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScivilwar.htm. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ Peters, Ralph. New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy, 2005. p. 30 ^ a b c d e Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (1996). On Killing – The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War & Society. Little, Brown & Co.,.  ^ Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. ^ Waller, James. Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing.  ^ "Mortality and Burden of Disease Estimates for WHO Member States in 2004". World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/gbddeathdalycountryestimates2004.xls.  ^ Maris Vinovskis (1990). Toward a social history of the American Civil War: exploratory essays. Cambridge University Press. p.7. ISBN 0-521-39559-3 ^ Kitchen, Martin (2000), The Treaty of Versailles and its Consequences, New York: Longman ^ The Historical Impact of Epidemic Typhus. Joseph M. Conlon. ^ See a large copy of the chart here: http://www.adept-plm.com/Newsletter/NapoleonsMarch.htm, but discussed at length in Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (London: Graphics Press, 1992) ^ War and Pestilence. TIME. ^ A. S. Turberville (2006). Johnson's England: An Account of the Life & Manners of His Age. ISBN READ BOOKS. p.53. ISBN 1-4067-2726-1 ^ Obermeyer Z, Murray CJ, Gakidou E (June 2008). "Fifty years of violent war deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia: analysis of data from the world health survey programme". BMJ 336 (7659): 1482–6. doi:10.1136/bmj.a137. PMC 2440905. PMID 18566045. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2440905.  ^ The Thirty Years War (1618–48), Alan McFarlane, The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap (2003) ^ History of Europe – Demographics. Encyclopædia Britannica. ^ "Population". History Learningsite. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/population_thirty_years_war.htm. Retrieved 2008-05-24.  ^ "World War II Fatalities". http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html. Retrieved 2007-04-20.  ^ "Leaders mourn Soviet wartime dead". BBC News. May 9, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4530565.stm. Retrieved January 6, 2010.  ^ Geoffrey A. Hosking (2006). Rulers and victims: the Russians in the Soviet Union. Harvard University Press. p.242. ISBN 0-674-02178-9 ^ Great Depression and World War II. The Library of Congress. ^ Mayer, E. (2000) "World War II" course lecture notes on Emayzine.com (Victorville, California: Victor Valley College) ^ Coleman, P. (1999) "Cost of the War," World War II Resource Guide (Gardena, California: The American War Library) ^ Marc Pilisuk, Jennifer Achord Rountree (2008). Who benefits from global violence and war: uncovering a destructive system. Greenwood Publishing Group. p.136. ISBN 0-275-99435-X ^ The New York Times, 9 February 1946, Volume 95, Number 32158. ^ "Definitions Uppsala Conflict Data Program". http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/. Retrieved 2009-05-04.  ^ "The World at War". GlobalSecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html. Retrieved 2008-05-12.  ^ "Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups, A Manual & Guidelines for Practitioners". http://ochaonline.un.org/humanitariannegotiations/Chapter1-2.htm#FNfour. Retrieved 2009-05-04.  ^ "UN peacekeeping chief says Darfur 'a low-intensity conflict' with 150 deaths a month". http://www.startribune.com/nation/43815017.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUUr. Retrieved 2009-05-07. [dead link] ^ "Colombian military claims to have killed 3,500 criminals in 2011 – Colombia news". Colombia Reports. 2011-07-06. http://www.colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/17441-military-claims-to-have-killed-3500-criminals-in-2011.html. Retrieved 2011-10-23.  ^ "India's Maoists offer ceasefire". BBC News. 2010-02-22. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8529124.stm. Retrieved 2010-05-08.  ^ [1] 2,412+ civilians, 711 foreign troops, 1,292 Afghan police, 821 Afghan soldiers and 5,225 insurgents kileld in 2010 ^ "Twentieth Century Atlas – Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides". Users.erols.com. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-21.  ^ John Pike (2004-11-05). "Hundreds of thousands killed in years of war, says new president". Globalsecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/11/mil-041105-irin03.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-21.  ^ "IRIN Africa | SOMALIA: Accusations traded over rising casualties at Mogadishu market | Somalia | Conflict | Human Rights". Irinnews.org. 2010-12-02. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91267. Retrieved 2011-10-23.  ^ "Global War on Terror Claims 30,000 Pakistani Casualties". http://www.vamban.com/global-war-on-terror-claims-30000-pakistani-casualties.  ^ "Pakistan (1992 – first combat deaths) | Project Ploughshares". Ploughshares.ca. 2011-04-30. http://www.ploughshares.ca/content/pakistan-1992-first-combat-deaths. Retrieved 2011-10-23.  ^ Page 2. Books.google.nl. 2010-06-16. http://books.google.nl/books?id=Sj81Eaxz-2kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Regime+and+Periphery+in+Northern+Yemen:+The+Huthi+Phenomenon&hl=nl#v=onepage&q=25%2C000&f=false. Retrieved 2011-10-23.  ^ "Mexico says 28,000 killed in drugs war since 2006". BBC News. 2010-08-04. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10860614.  ^ "Durante 2010 hubo 24 mil 374 homicidios en México: La Jornada". INEGI. 28 July 2011. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2011/07/28/201721657-en-2010-hubo-24-mil-374-homicidios-en-mexico-inegi/.  ^ "Scores killed in Sudan tribal clash". http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/01/20101712175653198.html.  ^ "BBC News – Syria uprising: UN says protest death toll hits 3,000". Bbc.co.uk. 2011-10-14. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15304741. Retrieved 2011-10-23.  ^ "Stop the War Coalition: Timeline of Events 2001–2011".  ^ "Iraq Body Count".  ^ "How many have died in Mexico's drug war?".  ^ "Calderon apologises to drug war victims".  ^ "The Conflict between Cain and Abel". 2008. http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/728352/Rabbi_David_Horwitz/Parashat_Bereshit:_The_Conflict_between_Cain_and_Abel. Retrieved 2010-02-07.  Analysis of Midrash re: Cain & Abel ^ Clausewitz, Carl Von (1976), On War (Princeton University Press) p.593 ^ | A. M. Meerloo, M.D. The Rape of the Mind (2009) p.134, Progressive Press, ISBN 9781615773763 ^ Durbin, E.F.L. and John Bowlby. Personal Aggressiveness and War 1939. ^ (Fornari 1975) ^ Blanning, T.C.W. "The Origin of Great Wars." The Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars. pg. 5 ^ Walsh, Maurice N. War and the Human Race. 1971. ^ In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946) ^ Peter Meyer. Social Evolution in Franz M. Wuketits and Christoph Antweiler (eds.) Handbook of Evolution The Evolution of Human Societies and Cultures Wiley-VCH Verlag ^ O'Connell, Sanjida (2004-01-07). "Apes of war...is it in our genes?". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3317461/Apes-of-war...-is-it-in-our-genes.html. Retrieved 2010-02-06.  Analysis of chimpanzee war behavior ^ Warrior Ants: The Enduring Threat of the Small War and the Land-mine. 1996. SSRN 935783.  Scholarly comparisons between human and ant wars ^ Crofoot, Margaret C. and Richard W. Wrangham, 2010 "Intergroup Aggression in Primates and Humans: The Case for a Unified Theory" in Kappeler, Thomas M & Joan B Silk (eds) Mind the Gap – tracing the origins of human universals. Springer. ^ Johan M.G. van der Dennen. 1995. The Origin of War: Evolution of a Male-Coalitional Reproductive Strategy. Origin Press, Groningen, 1995 chapters 1 & 2 ^ Roger Lewin and Robert Foley. 2004 Principles of human evolution, 2nd ed.p. 182-3 ^ Puts, D. A. (2010). "Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans". Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (3): 157–175. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.005.  edit ^ Montagu, Ashley (1976), The Nature of Human Aggression (Oxford University Press) ^ Howell, Signe and Roy Willis, eds. (1989) Societies at Peace: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Routledge ^ "Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals" By Peter M. Kappeler, Joan B. Silk, 2009, Chapter 8, "Intergroup Aggression in Primates and Humans; The Case for a Unified Theory", Margaret C. Crofoot and Richard W. Wrangham ^ Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds., Fascism: Fascism and Culture, New York: Routledge, 2004. ^ Hawkins, Mike. Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat, Cambridge University Press, 1997. ^ The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Arthur S. Link, ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990), vol. 63, pp. 45–46. ^ 1935 issue of left of the magazine, Common Sense. ^ O'Callaghan, Einde (25 October 2007). "The Marxist Theory of Imperialism and its Critics". Marxist Internet Archive. http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1955/08/imp-crit.html. Retrieved 24 April 2011.  ^ Safire, William (200]). Lend me your ears: great speeches in history. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 94. ISBN 9780393059311.  ^ Waugh, David (2000). Geography: an integrated approach. Nelson Thornes. p. 378. ISBN 9780174447061.  ^ Bouthoul, Gaston: "L`infanticide différé" (deferred infanticide), Paris 1970 ^ Goldstone, Jack A.: "Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World", Berkeley 1991; Goldstone, Jack A.: "Population and Security: How Demographic Change can Lead to Violent Conflict", [2] ^ Fuller, Gary: "The Demographic Backdrop to Ethnic Conflict: A Geographic Overwiew", in: CIA (Ed.): "The Challenge of Ethnic Conflict to National and International Order in the 1990s", Washington 1995, 151-154 ^ "Fuller, Gary (2004): "The Youth Crisis in Middle Eastern Society"" (PDF). http://www.strategicinspirations.com/ispu/go/images/F000180/Graham+Fuller+paper.pdf. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ Fuller, Gary (2003): "The Youth Factor: The New Demographics of the Middle East and the Implications for U.S. Policy"[3] ^ Gunnar Heinsohn (2003): "Söhne und Weltmacht: Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen" ("Sons and Imperial Power: Terror and the Rise and Fall of Nations"), Zurich 2003), available online as free download (in German) [4]; see also the review of this book by Göran Therborn: "Nato´s Demographer", New Left Review 56, March/April 2009, 136-144 [5] ^ ‘So, are civilizations at war?’, Interview with Samuel P. Huntington by Michael Steinberger, The Observer, Sunday October 21, 2001 [6] ^ Helgerson, John L. (2002): "The National Security Implications of Global Demographic Trends"[7] ^ "Heinsohn, G.(2006): "Demography and War."". Webcitation.org. http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/funnyguy_35/DefenceTraining.PDF&date=2009-10-25+22:25:12. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ Heinsohn, G.(2005): "Population, Conquest and Terror in the 21st Century." [8] ^ G. Heinsohn: "Why Gaza is Fertile Ground for Angry Young Men." Financial Times Online, June 14, 2007 [9], retrieved on December 23, 2007; compare demographic data for Gaza Strip ([10],[11])and Lebanon ([12], [13]) provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; see also David Bau: "History is Demographics"[14], retrieved on December 23, 2007 ^ Goldstone, Jack A.: "Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World", Berkeley 1991 [15] ^ Moller, Herbert (1968): ‘Youth as a Force in the Modern World’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 10: 238–260; 240–244 ^ Diessenbacher, Hartmut (1994): Kriege der Zukunft. Die Bevölkerungsexplosion gefährdet den Frieden. Muenchen: Hanser 1998; see also (criticizing youth bulge theory) Marc Sommers (2006): "Fearing Africa´s Young Men: The Case of Rwanda." The World Bank: Social Development Papers – Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction, Paper No. 32, January 2006 [16] ^ "National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) – April 1974". Population-security.org. http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ Stephen D. Mumford: The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy ^ Urdal, Henrik (2004): "The Devil in the Demographics: The Effect of Youth Bulges on Domestic Armed Conflict," [17], ^ Population Action International: "The Security Demographic: Population and Civil Conflict after the Cold War"[18] ^ Kröhnert, Steffen (2004): "Warum entstehen Kriege? Welchen Einfluss haben demografische Veränderungen auf die Entstehung von Konflikten?" [19] ^ "United States Census Bureau: International Database". Census.gov. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/informationGateway.php. Retrieved 2011-01-24.  ^ Gapminder World: Development of total fertility rates and income per person, 1800-2009 [20] ^ Hendrixson, Anne: "Angry Young Men, Veiled Young Women: Constructing a New Population Threat" [21] ^ Fearon, James D. 1995. "Rationalist Explanations for War." International Organization 49, 3: 379-414. [22] ^ Powell, Robert. 2002. "Bargaining Theory and International Conflict." Annual Review of Political Science 5: 1-30. ^ "Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy (pg. 19)". 2001. http://www.bepress.com/peps/vol7/iss3/3/. Retrieved 2010-02-07.  Leaders may use war as instant popularity boost ^ a b DeForrest, Mark Edward. "Conclusion". JUST WAR THEORY AND THE RECENT U.S. AIR STRIKES AGAINST IRAQ. Gonzaga Journal of International Law. http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/72/26/. Retrieved 8/1/2011.  ^ DeForrest, Mark Edward. "GENERALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF JUST WAR THEORY". JUST WAR THEORY AND THE RECENT U.S. AIR STRIKES AGAINST IRAQ. Gonzaga Journal of International Law. http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/72/26/. Retrieved 8/1/2011.  ^ a b Codevilla, Seabury, Angelo, Paul (1989). War: Ends and Means. New York, NY: Basic Books. p. 304. ISBN 0465090672. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157488610X/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0465090672&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0144DHEVCX1XCVMJXAZQ.  ^ Aquinas, Thomas. "Part II, Question 40". The Summa Theologica. Benziger Bros. edition, 1947. http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html. Retrieved 8/1/2011.  ^ Mosley, Alexander. "The Jus Ad Bellum Convention". Just War Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/. Retrieved 8/1/2011.  ^ a b Moseley, Alexander. "The Principles Of Jus In Bello". Just War Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/. Retrieved 8/1/2011.  ^ Ian Dear, Michael Richard Daniell Foot (2001). The Oxford Companion to World War II. Oxford University Press. p.88. ISBN 0198604467 ^ Moseley, Alexander. "Introduction". Just War Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/. Retrieved 8/1/2011.  ^ Griffin and Feldman, eds, Roger and Matthew (2004). Fascism: Fascism and Culture. pg. 185: Routledge.  ^ Woodley, Daniel (2010). Fascism and political theory critical perspectives on fascist ideology. London: Routledge. p. 276. ISBN 0-203-87157-X. http://wxy.seu.edu.cn/humanities/sociology/htmledit/uploadfile/system/20100724/20100724163537707.pdf.  Bibliography Angelo Codevilla and Paul Seabury, War: Ends and Means (Potomac Books, Revised second edition by Angelo Codevilla, 2006) ISBN-X Angelo M. Codevilla, No Victory, No Peace (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005) ISBN Barzilai Gad, Wars, Internal Conflicts and Political Order: A Jewish Democracy in the Middle East (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996). Clausewitz, Carl Von (1976), On War (Princeton and New Jersey: Princeton University Press) Fry, Douglas P., 2005, The Human Potential for Peace: An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence, Oxford University Press. Gat, Azar 2006 War in Human Civilization, Oxford University Press. Gunnar Heinsohn, Söhne und Weltmacht: Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen ("Sons and Imperial Power: Terror and the Rise and Fall of Nations"), Orell Füssli (September 2003), ISBN, available online as free download (in German) Fabio Maniscalco, (2007). World Heritage and War – monographic series "Mediterraneum", vol. VI. Massa, Naples. ISBN.  Keegan, John, (1994) "A History Of Warfare", (Pimlico) Kelly, Raymond C., 2000, Warless Societies and the Origin of War, University of Michigan Press. Livingstone Smith, David (2007). The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War ,. St. Martin's Press. ISBN.  Small, Melvin & Singer, David J. (1982). Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars,. Sage Publications. ISBN.  Otterbein, Keith, 2004, How War Began. Turchin, P. 2005. War and Peace and War: Life Cycles of Imperial Nations. New York, NY: Pi Press. ISBN Van Creveld, Martin The Art of War: War and Military Thought London: Cassell, Wellington House Fornari, Franco (1974). The Psychoanalysis of War. Tr. Alenka Pfeifer. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Press. ISBN . Reprinted (1975) Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN Walzer, Michael (1977) Just and Unjust Wars (Basic Books) Keeley, Lawrence. War Before Civilization, Oxford University Press, 1996. Zimmerman, L. The Crow Creek Site Massacre: A Preliminary Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, 1981. Chagnon, N. The Yanomamo, Holt, Rinehart & Winston,1983. Pauketat, Timothy. North American Archaeology 2005. Blackwell Publishing. Wade, Nicholas. Before the Dawn, Penguin: New York 2006. Rafael Karsten, Blood revenge, war, and victory feasts among the Jibaro Indians of eastern Ecuador (1923). S. A. LeBlanc, Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest, University of Utah Press (1999). Duane M. Capulla, War Wolf, University of Pili (2008) External links Wikimedia Commons has media related to: War Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Warfare Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: War Correlates of War Project Correlates of War 2 Antiwar.com Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry Complex Emergency Database (CE-DAT) – A database on the human impact of conflicts and other complex emergencies. The Art of the War World War I primary source collection Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century International humanitarian law – International Committee of the Red Cross website Customary international humanitarian law International Committee of the Red Cross International humanitarian law database – Treaties and States Parties Customary IHL Database

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - krig, ufred, strid, kamp
v. intr. - bekrige, kæmpe, føre krig

idioms:

• have been in the wars    har deltaget i krig, være slemt medtaget
• war baby    krigsbarn
• war bride    krigsbrud
• war chest    krigskasse
• war cloud    krigssky, kommende krigsområde
• war crime    krigsforbrydelse
• war cry    krigskald, krigsråd, kampskrig
• war department    militærafdeling
• war game    krigsspil
• war of attrition    udmattelseskrig, opslidningskrig
• war of nerves    nervekrig
• war of the elements    elementernes kamp
• war of words    krig på ord, erklæringskrig
• war paint    krigsmaling
• war to the knife    krig på kniven

Nederlands (Dutch)
oorlog, gevecht, oorlogs-, strijden

Français (French)
n. - guerre, (fig) guerre, (fig) lutte (contre)
v. intr. - être en guerre (contre)
adj. - de/de la guerre, militaire

idioms:

• have been in the wars    (on dirait) qu'il leur sont arrivés des malheurs
• war baby    enfant de la guerre
• war bride    mariée de la guerre
• war chest    caisse du parti (servant à financer les campagnes électorales
• war cloud    signe avant-coureur de la guerre
• war crime    crime de guerre
• war cry    (lit, fig) cri de guerre
• war department    ministère de la guerre
• war game    (Mil) man¯uvre militaire, jeu de stratégie militaire
• war of attrition    guerre d'usure
• war of nerves    guerre des nerfs
• war of the elements    catastrophes naturelles
• war of words    guerre des mots
• war paint    peinture de guerre

Deutsch (German)
n. - Krieg, Kampf
v. - Krieg führen
adj. - Kriegs-, Militär-

idioms:

• have been in the wars    (ugs.) mitgenommen aussehen, verletzt sein
• war baby    (Nach)kriegskind
• war bride    Kriegsbraut
• war chest    Geldmittel zur Finanzierung einer Kampagne
• war cloud    bedrohliche internationale Situation, Kriegsgefahr
• war crime    Kriegsverbrechen
• war cry    Kriegsruf, Schlachtruf
• war department    Kriegsministerium
• war game    Kriegsspiel
• war of attrition    Zermürbungskrieg
• war of nerves    Nervenkrieg
• war of the elements    Kampf der Elemente
• war of words    Wortgefecht
• war paint    Kriegsbemalung

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - πόλεμος
v. - πολεμώ, αντιμάχομαι, διεξάγω πόλεμο
adj. - πολεμικός

idioms:

• have been in the wars    είμαι στραπατσαρισμένος, είμαι σε κακό χάλι
• war baby    νόθο παιδί που η γέννησή του αποδίδεται στις επικρατούσες συνθήκες του πολέμου
• war bride    νιόπαντρη σύζυγος πολεμιστή
• war chest    χρηματοδότηση πολιτικής ή προεκλογικής εκστρατείας
• war cloud    απειλή πολέμου
• war crime    έγκλημα πολέμου
• war cry    πολεμική ιαχή, (μτφ.) πολιτικό σύνθημα
• war department    υπουργείο πολέμου
• war game    (στρατ.) πολεμική άσκηση επί χάρτου
• war of attrition    πόλεμος φθοράς
• war of nerves    πόλεμος νεύρων
• war of the elements    πόλεμος των στοιχείων της φύσης, αντάρα
• war of words    λεκτικός διαξιφισμός, ανταλλαγή κατηγοριών
• war paint    πολεμική βαφή (προσώπου)
• war to the knife    θανάσιμη αναμέτρηση, πόλεμος μέχρις εσχάτων

Italiano (Italian)
guerra, bellico

idioms:

• act of war    atto di guerra
• have been in the wars    malconcio
• war baby    figlio di guerra
• war bride    sposa di guerra
• war chest    fondi per una campagna, bottino
• war cloud    situazione torbida
• war crime    crimine di guerra
• war cry    grido di battaglia
• war department    ministero della guerra
• war game    esercitazione tattica
• war of nerves    guerra dei nervi
• war of the elements    guerra degli elementi
• war of words    guerra di parole
• war paint    pitture di guerra

Português (Portuguese)
n. - guerra (f)
v. - fazer guerra
adj. - relativo à guerra

idioms:

• act of war    ato de guerra (m)
• have been in the wars    passar por muita coisa
• war baby    criança nascida em época de guerra
• war bride    mulher que casa um homem em época de guerra
• war chest    fundo de guerra (m)
• war cloud    nuvens de guerra
• war crime    crime de guerra (m)
• war cry    grito de guerra (m)
• war department    departamento de guerra (m)
• war game    exercício militar (m)
• war of nerves    guerra de nervos (f)
• war of the elements    guerra dos elementos (f)
• war of words    guerra de palavras (f)
• war paint    pintura de guerra (f)
• war to the knife    luta até a morte (f)

Русский (Russian)
война, боевые действия, борьба, воевать, враждовать

idioms:

• act of war    акт агрессии
• have been in the wars    побывать в переделке
• war baby    ребенок, родившийся во время войны, офицер военного времени, новобранец
• war bride    невеста военнослужащего, уходящего на фронт
• war chest    средства на войну, средства для определенной цели
• war cloud    угроза войны
• war crime    военное преступление
• war cry    боевой клич, лозунг
• war department    министерство обороны
• war game    военная игра, военные учения
• war of nerves    психологическая война
• war of the elements    разбушевавшаяся стихия
• war of words    словесная война
• war paint    боевая раскраска тела, парадная форма одежды, косметика
• war to the knife    война на истребление

Español (Spanish)
n. - guerra, armamento, fuerzas armadas
v. intr. - estar en guerra, guerrear, luchar
adj. - bélico, de guerra

idioms:

• have been in the wars    como si viniera de la guerra
• war baby    niño (ilegítimo) nacido durante la guerra
• war bride    mujer que se casa con un soldado durante la guerra
• war chest    recaudación pública para fines benéficos o para financiar una campaña política
• war cloud    amenaza de guerra
• war crime    crimen de guerra
• war cry    grito de guerra, slogan de un partido político
• war department    ministerio de guerra
• war game    maniobras de guerra (en campo o sobre un mapa), simulacro de guerra
• war of attrition    guerra de desgaste
• war of nerves    guerra de nervios
• war of the elements    catástrofes naturales
• war of words    guerra de declaraciones
• war paint    pinturas de guerra, galas, maquillaje

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - krig
v. - kriga
adj. - krigs-

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
战, 战争, 作战, 战斗, 打仗

idioms:

• have been in the wars    在战争中受过伤
• war baby    战时私生子, 因战争发展的工业
• war bride    战时新娘
• war chest    战争基金, 筹措资金
• war cloud    战云, 战争之威胁
• war crime    战争犯罪
• war cry    作战时的呐喊, 口号
• war department    美国陆军部
• war game    作战演习, 军事演习
• war of attrition    消耗战
• war of nerves    神经战, 心理战
• war of the elements    自然灾害, 风暴, 天灾
• war of words    舌战, 公开的争辩, 论战
• war paint    盛装, 化妆品
• war to the knife    你死我活的搏斗

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 戰, 戰爭
v. intr. - 作戰, 戰鬥, 打仗

idioms:

• have been in the wars    在戰爭中受過傷
• war baby    戰時私生子, 因戰爭發展的工業
• war bride    戰時新娘
• war chest    戰爭基金, 籌措資金
• war cloud    戰雲, 戰爭之威脅
• war crime    戰爭犯罪
• war cry    作戰時的吶喊, 口號
• war department    美國陸軍部
• war game    作戰演習, 軍事演習
• war of attrition    消耗戰
• war of nerves    神經戰, 心理戰
• war of the elements    自然災害, 風暴, 天災
• war of words    舌戰, 公開的爭辯, 論戰
• war paint    盛裝, 化妝品
• war to the knife    你死我活的搏鬥

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 전쟁, 군사, 다툼
v. intr. - 싸우다, 다투다

idioms:

• have been in the wars    상처투성이다, 싸운 흔적이 있다

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 戦争, 戦い, 闘争, 戦術, 軍事
v. - 戦争する, 戦う

idioms:

• be on a war footing    戦時体制にある
• have been in the wars    けがをしている手荒く扱われた形跡がある
• war baby    戦時中に生まれた子
• war bride    戦争花嫁
• war chest    軍資金, 運動資金
• war cloud    戦雲
• war crime    戦争犯罪
• war cry    鬨の声, 喊声, 標語
• war department    陸軍省
• war game    机上戦, 対抗演習
• war of attrition    消耗戦
• war of nerves    神経戦
• war of the elements    大暴風雨
• war of words    舌戦
• war paint    盛装, 化粧品
• war to the knife    血戦

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) حرب, حاله الحرب, فن الحرب, خصام, كفاح, صراع (فعل) يتكافح, يتصارع, يشن الحرب على (صفه) سي‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮מלחמה, מערכה, תורת הלחימה‬
v. intr. - ‮נלחם, נאבק‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.

To select your translation preferences click here.