war

war Click here for more free books!

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.

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

For more information on war, visit Britannica.com.

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.

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

This article is about war in general; for other uses of the term, see war (disambiguation) and The War.

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 Strategy Economic Grand Operational Organization Ranks Command and control Staff Intelligence Education and training Logistics Technology and equipment Materiel Supply chain management Lists Battles Commanders Operations Sieges Writers Wars War crimes Weapons
Portal   v • d • e

War is a reciprocated, armed conflict between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganising a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result. In his book, On War, Prussian military theoretician Carl Von Clausewitz calls war the "continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means."^[1]

War is an interaction in which two or three or more opposing forces have a “struggle of wills”.^[2] The term is also used as a metaphor for non-military conflict, such as in the example of Class war.

War is not necessarily considered to be the same as occupation, murder, or genocide because of the reciprocal nature of the violent struggle, and the organized nature of the units involved.^[3]

A civil war is a war between factions of citizens of one country (such as in the English Civil War), or else a dispute between two nations that were created out of one formerly-united country. A proxy war is a war that results when two powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each other directly.

War is also a cultural entity, and its practice 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.^[4] The conduct of war extends along a continuum, from the almost universal tribal warfare that began well before recorded human history, to wars between city states, nations, or empires.

In the organised military sense, a group of combatants and their support is called an army on land, a navy at sea, and an air force in the air. Wars may be conducted simultaneously in one or more different theatres. Within each theatre, there may be one or more consecutive military campaigns.

A military campaign includes not only fighting but also intelligence, troop movements, supplies, propaganda, and other components. A period of continuous intense conflict is traditionally called a battle, although this terminology is not always applied to conflicts involving aircraft, missiles or bombs alone, in the absence of ground troops or naval forces. Also many other actions may be undertaken by military forces during a war, this could include weapons research, prison internment, assassination, occupation, and in some cases genocide may occur.

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.'^[5].

War is not limited to the human species; Ants engage in massive intra-species conflicts which might be termed warfare, and chimpanzee packs will engage each other in tribe like warfare. It is theorized that other species also engage in similar behavior, although this is not well documented.^[6][7][8]

Contents 1 Etymology 2 History of warfare 3 Motivations 3.1 Economic theories 3.2 Evolutionary psychology 3.3 Behavioral theories 3.4 Sociological theories 3.5 Demographic theories 3.5.1 Malthusian theories 3.5.2 Youth bulge theory 3.6 Rationalist theories 3.7 Marxist theories 3.8 Political science theories 3.9 Objectivist view 4 Conduct of wars 4.1 Behaviour & conduct in war 4.2 Types of warfare 4.3 Military posture 4.4 Warfare environment 5 Effects of war 5.1 On soldiers 5.2 On civilians 5.3 On the economy 5.3.1 World War II 6 Morality of war 7 Factors ending a war 8 List of wars by death toll 9 See also 10 References 11 Bibliography 12 External links

Etymology

From late Old English (c.1050), wyrre, werre, from Old North French werre "war" (Fr. guerre), from Frankish *werra, from Proto-Germanic *werso (Compare with Old Saxon werran, Old high German werran, German verwirren "to confuse, perplex"). Cognates suggest the original sense was "to bring into confusion."

There was no common Germanic word for "war" at the dawn of historical times. Spanish, Portuguese, Italian guerra are from the same source; Romanic peoples turned to Germanic for a word to avoid Latin "bellum" because its form tended to merge with bello- "beautiful."^[9]

History of warfare

Main article: History of war

This section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (January 2009)

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

Napoleon Bonaparte retreating from Moscow after a disastrous French invasion of Russia.

Army 89th Infantry Division cross the Rhine River in assault boats, 1945.

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.^[10] Since the rise of the state some 5,000 years ago,^[11] military activity has occurred over much of the globe. The advent of gunpowder and the acceleration of technological advances led to modern warfare.

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, and many fought constantly.^[12]

In Western Europe, since the late 18th century, more than 150 conflicts and about 600 battles had taken place.^[13]

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.^[14]

Motivations

Motivations for war may be different for those ordering the war than for those undertaking the war. For a state to prosecute a war it must have the support of its leadership, its military forces, and its people. For example, in the Third Punic War,^[15] 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.

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.

Economic theories

One school of thought argues that 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 the strong to whatever the weak cannot hold by force. 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.^[16]

"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." - simultaneously highest ranking and most decorated United States Marine (including two Medals of Honor) Major General Smedley Butler (and a Republican Party primary candidate for the United States Senate) 1935.^[17]

"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, Jan. 17, 1961.

Government funded war programs have historically produced some of the most innovative products we know today. The PhDs at the Universities that created things like the transistor were funded by war programs. The Internet (originally called ARPAnet) was an ARPA funded program, a way to communicate over long distances in the case of nuclear destruction. War funded programs created the cell phone as a way for soldiers to communicate easily from within their tanks over long distances.

It can also be argued that if you decrease the population of the loosing country, you may get an increased supply of food, increased supply of raw materials, decreased multinational corporate competition, control over their natural resources (including a cheap labor market, oilfields, agricultural land and more). The weakening of these countries creates an opportunity for multinational corporations to enter and develop their markets when the country is no longer able (financially or by lack of human resources) to develop them itself.

By some beliefs, war may also create increased economic activity in a country in the form of new jobs. When the unemployment rate is high, people may be making less purchases than they were a year or two ago, and overall output is flat. But when the country decides to prepare for war, the government needs to equip its soldiers with the extra gear and munitions needed in order to win the war. Corporations win contracts to supply boots, bombs and vehicles to the army. Many of these companies will have to hire extra workers in order to meet this increased production. If the preparations for war are large enough, large numbers of workers will be hired reducing the unemployment rate. Other workers may need to be hired to cover reservists in private sector jobs who get sent overseas. With the unemployment rate down we have more people spending again and people who had jobs before will be less worried about losing their job in the future so they'll spend more than they did. This extra spending will help the retail sector, who will need to hire extra employees causing unemployment to drop even further. The Broken Window Fallacy is an economic theory that argues that this increased economic activity could have happened even without government intervention, because you cannot prove how the money spent on war programs could have been invested otherwise.

Evolutionary psychology

A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition. Animals are naturally aggressive, and in humans this aggression manifests itself as warfare. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz.^[18]

These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals. Ashley Montagu^[19] strongly denies such universalistic instinctual arguments, pointing out that social factors and childhood socialization are important in determining the nature and presence of warfare. Thus 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.

Behavioral theories

Some psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings are inherently violent.^[20] This aggressiveness is fueled by displacement and projection where a person transfers their 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.^[21] 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.

While these theories may have some general explanatory value about why war exists, they do not explain when or how they occur. Nor do they explain the existence of certain human cultures completely devoid of war.^[22] If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. A solution adapted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica.^[23]

An additional problem with theories that rest on the will of the general population, is that in history only a tiny fraction of wars have originated from a desire for war from the general populace.^[24] 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.^[25] 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, Hitler, and Stalin. 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.

Sociological theories

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

Sociology has long been very concerned with the origins of war, and many thousands of theories have been advanced, many of them contradictory. Sociology has thus divided into a number of schools. One, the Primat der Innenpolitik (Primacy of Domestic Politics) school based on the works of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler, sees war as the product of domestic conditions, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities. Thus World War I was not a product of international disputes, secret treaties, or the balance of power but a product of the economic, social, and political situation within each of the states involved.

This differs from the traditional Primat der Außenpolitik (Primacy of Foreign Politics) approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke that argues it is the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation that leads to peace.

Demographic theories

Gari Melchers, Mural of War, 1896.

Demographic theories can be grouped into two classes, Malthusian theories and youth bulge theories.

Malthusian theories

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, wrote, "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."

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.

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,^[26] U.S. sociologist Jack A. Goldstone,^[27] U.S. political scientist Gary Fuller,^[28][29][30] and German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn.^[31] 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."^[32]

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".^[33]

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. 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

1. Demographically superfluous,
2. Might be out of work or stuck in a menial job, and
3. 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^[34] usually heads for one of six different exits:

1. Violent Crime
2. Emigration ("non violent colonization")
3. Rebellion or putsch
4. Civil war and/or revolution
5. Genocide (to take over the positions of the slaughtered)
6. 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.^[35] 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.^[36]

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,^[37] and the importance of economic depression hitting the largest German youth cohorts ever in explaining the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s.^[38] The 1994 Rwandan Genocide has also been analyzed as following a massive youth bulge.^[39]

While the implications of population growth have been known since the completion of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974,^[40] 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.^[41]

Youth Bulge theory has been subjected to statistical analysis by the World Bank,^[42] Population Action International,^[43] and the Berlin Institute for Population and Development.^[44] Detailed demographic data for most countries is available at the international database of the United States Census Bureau.^[45]

Youth bulge theories have been criticized as leading to racial, gender and age "discrimination".^[46]

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.^[47]

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.^[48] 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.

Marxist theories

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

The Marxist theory of war states that all modern wars are caused by competition for resources and markets between great (imperialist) powers. These wars are a natural progression of the free market and class system, and will only disappear once a world revolution has occurred.

Political science theories

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. 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.

Objectivist view

Ayn Rand, developer of Objectivism advocates rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, adduced that if men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. She maintained that so long as people hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged "good" can justify it—there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations.^[49]

Conduct of wars

The 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.

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.

Behaviour & conduct in war

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.^[50]. 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.^[51] Other examples of non-aggression, also from World War I, are detailed in Goodbye 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.

It has been postulated that sport serves as an direct alternative to war, and may be regarded as having an equivalent social function. Sipes found war and sporting alternatives to be positively correlated.^[52]

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.^[53]

Types of warfare

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

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 a war in which nuclear weapons are the primary 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.

Military posture

Historian Victor Davis Hanson has claimed there exists a unique "Western Way of War", in an attempt to explain the military successes of Western Europe.^{citation needed} It originated in Ancient Greece, where, in an effort to reduce the damage that warfare has on society, the city-states developed the concept of a decisive pitched battle between heavy infantry. This would be preceded by formal declarations of war and followed by peace negotiations. In this system constant low-level skirmishing and guerrilla warfare were phased out in favour of a single, decisive contest, which in the end cost both sides less in casualties and property damage. Although it was later perverted by Alexander the Great^?, this style of war initially allowed neighbours with limited resources to coexist and prosper.

He argues that Western-style armies are characterised by an emphasis on discipline and teamwork above individual bravado. Examples of Western victories over non-Western armies include the Battle of Marathon, the Battle of Gaugamela, the Siege of Tenochtitlan, the Battle of Plassey and the defence of Rorke's Drift.

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:

Conventional warfare Defensive warfare Offensive warfare Jungle warfare Border warfare a type of limited defensive warfare Urban warfare Desert warfare Maneuver warfare Trench warfare Mountain warfare sometimes called Alpine warfare Arctic warfare or Winter warfare in general Naval warfare or Aquatic warfare that includes Littoral, Amphibious and Riverine warfare

Unconventional warfare Guerilla warfare Psychological warfare Biological warfare Chemical warfare Mine warfare a type of static terrain denial warfare Air warfare that includes Airborne warfare and Airmobile warfare Sub-aquatic warfare Space warfare Electronic warfare including Radio, Radar and Network warfare Cyber warfare Directed-energy warfare Nuclear warfare Tribal warfare and gang warfare, which occur on a local or sub-state level

Effects of war

On soldiers

They would have dedicated their lives to fighting battles, with little possibility of regaining the ability to live successfully as a civilian. 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.[13]

Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the American Civil War, including 6% in the North and 18% in the South.^[54] 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.^[55]

Why?, from The Disasters of War (Los desastres de la guerra), by Francisco Goya, 1812-15.

During Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, more French soldiers died of typhus than were killed by the Russians.^[56] 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.^[57] More soldiers were killed from 1500-1914 by typhus than from all military action during that time combined.^[58] In addition, if it were not for the modern medical advances there would be thousands of more dead from disease and infection.

Les Grandes Misères de la guerre depict the destruction unleashed on civilians during the Thirty Years' War.

On civilians

Many wars have been accompanied by significant depopulations. During the Thirty Years' War in Europe, for example, the population of the German states was reduced by about 30%.^[59][60] 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.^[61]

Estimates for the total casualties of World War II vary, but most suggest that some 60 million people died in the war, including about 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians.^[62] The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, about half of all World War II casualties.^[63] 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

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.^[64] The financial cost of the World War II is estimated at about a trillion 1944 U.S. dollars worldwide,^[65][66] making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives.

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.^[67]

Morality of war

"The morning after the battle of Waterloo", by John Heaviside Clarke, 1816.

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

Throughout history war has been the source of serious moral questions. Although many ancient nations and some modern ones have viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history, concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased. Today, war is seen by some as undesirable and morally problematic. At the same time, many view war, or at least the preparation and readiness and willingness to engage in war, as necessary for the defense of their country and therefore a just war. Pacifists believe that war is inherently immoral and that no war should ever be fought.

The negative view of war has not always been held as widely as it is today. Heinrich von Treitschke saw war as humanity's highest activity where courage, honour, and ability were more necessary than in any other endeavour. Friedrich Nietzsche also saw war as an opportunity for the Übermensch to display heroism, honour, and other virtues.^{[citation needed]}

Another supporter of war, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, favoured it as part of the necessary process required for history to unfold and allow society to progress. At the outbreak of World War I, the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?" This attitude has been embraced by societies from Sparta and Rome in the ancient world to the fascist states of the 1930s.

International law recognizes only two cases for a legitimate war:

1. Wars of defense: when one nation is attacked by an aggressor, it is considered legitimate for a nation along with its allies to defend itself against the aggressor.
2. Wars sanctioned by the UN Security Council: when the United Nations as a whole acts as a body against a certain nation. Examples include various peacekeeping operations around the world.

The subset of international law known as the law of war or international humanitarian law also recognises regulations for the conduct of war, including the Geneva Conventions governing the legitimacy of certain kinds of weapons, and the treatment of prisoners of war. Cases where these conventions are broken are considered war crimes, and since the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II the international community has established a number of tribunals to try such cases.

A nation's economy is often stimulated by government war-spending. When countries wage war, more weapons, armor, ammunition, and the like are needed to be created and sold to the armies, thus their economies can enter a boom (or war economy) reducing unemployment. However war is often followed by a recession.

Factors ending a war

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

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 depends 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, or combatants are gradually killed or decide the conflict is futile.

List of wars by death toll

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into List of wars and disasters by death toll. (Discuss)

These figures include deaths of civilians from diseases, famine, atrocities etc. as well as deaths of soldiers in battle.

This is an incomplete list of wars.

• 60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)^[68][69]
• 36,000,000 - An Shi Rebellion (China, 755–763)^{[citation needed]}
• 30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century) (see Mongol invasions and Tatar invasions)^{[70][71][72][73]}
• 25,000,000 - Qing dynasty conquest of Ming dynasty (1616–1662)^[74]
• 20,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)^[75]
• 20,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864) (see Dungan revolt)^[76]
• 20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)^[77]
• 10,000,000 - Warring States Era (China, 475 BC–221 BC)
• 7,000,000 - 20,000,000 Conquests of Timur the Lame (1360-1405)^[78][79]
• 5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1921)^[80]
• 5,000,000 - Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia (1882- 1898)^[81][82]
• 3,800,000 - 5,400,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2007)^[83][84][85]
• 3,500,000–6,000,000 - Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815) (see Napoleonic Wars casualties)
• 3,000,000–11,500,000 - Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)^[86]
• 3,000,000–7,000,000 - Yellow Turban Rebellion (China, 184–205)
• 2,500,000–3,500,000 - Korean War (1950–1953) (see Cold War)^[87]
• 2,300,000–3,800,000 - Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)
  • 300,000–1,300,000 - First Indochina War (1945–1954)
  • 100,000–300,000 - Vietnamese Civil War (1954–1960)
  • 1,750,000–2,100,000 - American phase (1960–1973)
  • 170,000 - Final phase (1973–1975)
  • 175,000–1,150,000 - Secret War (1962–1975)
• 2,000,000–4,000,000 - Huguenot Wars ^[88]
• 2,000,000 - Shaka's conquests (1816-1828)^[89]
• 2,000,000 - Mahmud of Ghazni's invasions of India (1000-1027)^[90]
• 300,000–3,000,000^[91] - Bangladesh Liberation War (1971)
• 1,500,000–2,000,000 - Afghan Civil War (1979-)
  • 1,000,000–1,500,000 Soviet intervention (1979–1989)
• 1,300,000–6,100,000 - Chinese Civil War (1928–1949) note that this figure excludes World War II casualties
  • 300,000–3,100,000 before 1937
  • 1,000,000–3,000,000 after World War II
• 1,000,000–2,000,000 - Mexican Revolution (1910–1920)^[92]
• 1,000,000 - Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)^[93]
• 1,000,000 - Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)^[94]
• 1,000,000 - Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005)
• 1,000,000 - Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
• 618,000^[95] - 970,000 - American Civil War (including 350,000 from disease) (1861–1865)
• 900,000–1,000,000 - Mozambique Civil War (1976–1993)
• 868,000^[96] - 1,400,000^[97] - Seven Years' War (1756-1763)
• 800,000 - 1,000,000 - Rwandan Civil War (1990-1994)
• 800,000 - Congo Civil War (1991–1997)
• 600,000 to 1,300,000 - First Jewish-Roman War (see List of Roman wars)
• 580,000 - Bar Kokhba’s revolt (132–135CE)
• 570,000 - Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
• 550,000 - Somali Civil War (1988- )
• 500,000 - 1,000,000 - Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
• 500,000 - Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)
• 500,000 - Ugandan Civil War (1979–1986)
• 400,000–1,000,000 - War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay (1864–1870)
• 400,000 - War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
• 371,000 - Continuation War (1941-1944)
• 350,000 - Great Northern War (1700-1721)^[98]
• 315,000 - 735,000 - Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639-1651) English campaign ~40,000, Scottish 73,000, Irish 200,000-620,000^[99]
• 300,000 - Russian-Circassian War (1763-1864) (see Caucasian War)
• 300,000 - First Burundi Civil War (1972)
• 300,000 - Darfur conflict (2003-)
• 270,000–300,000 - Crimean War (1854–1856)
• 255,000-1,120,000 - Philippine-American War (1898-1913)
• 230,000–1,400,000 - Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
• 224,000 - Balkan Wars, includes both wars (1912-1913)
• 220,000 - Liberian Civil War (1989 - )
• 217,000 - 1,124,303 - War on Terror (9/11/2001-Present)^{[citation needed]}
• 200,000 - 1,000,000^[100][101] - Albigensian Crusade (1208-1259)
• 200,000–800,000 - Warlord era in China (1917–1928)
• 200,000 - Second Punic War (BC218-BC204) (see List of Roman battles)
• 200,000 - Sierra Leone Civil War (1991–2000)
• 200,000 - Algerian Civil War (1991- )^[102][103]
• 200,000 - Guatemalan Civil War (1960–1996)
• 190,000 - Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871)
• 180,000 - 300,000 - La Violencia (1948-1958)
• 170,000 - Greek War of Independence (1821-1829)
• 150,000 - Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
• 150,000 - North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
• 150,000 - Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905)
• 148,000-1,000,000 - Winter War (1939)
• 125,000 - Eritrean-Ethiopian War (1998–2000)
• 120,000 - 384,000 Great Turkish War (1683-1699) (see Ottoman-Habsburg wars)
• 120,000 - Third Servile War (BC73-BC71)
• 117,000 - 500,000 - Revolt in the Vendée (1793-1796)
• 103,359+ - 1,136,920+ - Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2003-Present)
• 101,000 - 115,000 - Arab-Israeli conflict (1929- )
• 100,500 - Chaco War (1932–1935)
• 100,000 - 1,000,000 - War of the two brothers (1531–1532)
• 100,000 - 400,000 - Western New Guinea (1984 - ) (see Genocide in West Papua)
• 100,000 - 200,000 - Indonesian invasion of East Timor (1975-1978)
• 100,000 - Persian Gulf War (1991)
• 100,000–1,000,000 - Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962)
• 100,000 - Thousand Days War (1899–1901)
• 100,000 - Peasants' War (1524-1525)^[104]
• 97,207 - Bosnian War (1992-1995)^[105]
• 80,000 - Third Punic War (BC149-BC146)
• 75,000 - 200,000? - Conquests of Alexander the Great (BC336-BC323)
• 75,000 - El Salvador Civil War (1980–1992)
• 75,000 - Second Boer War (1898–1902)
• 70,000 - Boudica's uprising (AD60-AD61)
• 69,000 - Internal conflict in Peru (1980- )
• 60,000 - Sri Lanka/Tamil conflict (1983-2009)
• 60,000 - Nicaraguan Rebellion (1972-91)
• 55,000 - War of the Pacific (1879-1885)
• 50,000 - 200,000 - First Chechen War (1994–1996)
• 50,000 - 100,000 - Tajikistan Civil War (1992–1997)
• 50,000 - Wars of the Roses (1455-1485) (see Wars involving England)
• 45,000 - Greek Civil War (1945-1949)
• 41,000–100,000 - Kashmiri insurgency (1989- )
• 36,000 - Finnish Civil War (1918)
• 35,000 - 40,000 - War of the Pacific (1879–1884)
• 35,000 - 45,000 - Siege of Malta (1565) (see Ottoman wars in Europe)
• 30,000 - Turkey/PKK conflict (1984- )
• 30,000 - Sino-Vietnamese War (1979)
• ~28,000 - 1982 Lebanon War (1982)
• 25,000 - Second Chechen War (1999 - present)^[106]
• 25,000 - American Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
• 23,384 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (December 1971)
• 23,000 - Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988-1994)
• 20,000 - 49,600 U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan (2001–2002)
• 19,000+ - Mexican–American War (1846-1848)
• 14,000+ - Six-Day War (1967)
• 15,000–20,000 - Croatian War of Independence (1991–1995)
• 11,053 - Malayan Emergency (1948-1960)
• 11,000 - Spanish-American War (1898)
• 10,000 - Amadu's Jihad (1810-1818)
• 10,000 - Halabja poison gas attack (1988)
• 7,264–10,000 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (August-September 1965)
• 7,000–24,000 - American War of 1812 (1812-1815)
• 7,000 - Kosovo War (1996–1999) (disputed)
• 5,000 - Turkish invasion of Cyprus (1974)
• 4,588 - Sino-Indian War (1962)
• 4,000 - Waziristan War (2004-2006)
• 4,000 - Irish Civil War (1922-23)
• 3,000 - Civil war in Côte d'Ivoire (2002-2007)
• 2,899 - New Zealand Land Wars (1845-1872)
• 2,604–7,000 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (October 1947-December 1948)
• 2,000 - Football War (1969)
• 2,000 - Irish War of Independence (1919-21)
• 1,975–4,500+ - violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2000 -)
• 1,724 - War of Lapland (1945)
• 1,500 - Romanian Revolution (December 1989)
• ~1,500 - 2006 Lebanon War
• ~1,400 - Israel Attack against Gaza (December 2008 - January 2009)
• 1,000 - Zapatista uprising in Chiapas (1994)
• 907 - Falklands War (1982)
• 62 - Slovenian Independence War (1991)

See also

War portal

Wikipedia:Books has a book on: War

• Peace
• Collateral damage

General reference

• Undeclared war
• Colonial war
• Religious war
• Breakaway states
• Casus belli
• Fault Line War
• Horses in warfare
• Sun Tzu, The Art of War
• War cycles
• Water war
• War as metaphor

War related lists

• List of ongoing conflicts
• List of wars and disasters by death toll
• List of wars
• List of battles
• List of war crimes
• List of orders of battle
• List of invasions
• List of terrorist incidents
• List of military commanders
• List of battles by death toll
• List of battles and other violent events by death toll

References

1. ^ Clausewitz, Carl Von (1976), On War (Princeton University Press) p.87
2. ^ Clausewitz, Carl Von (1976) p.77
3. ^ Clausewitz, Carl Von (1976), On War (Princeton University Press) p.77 "war is the collision of two living forces" and "total nonresstance would be no war at all"
4. ^ Keegan, John, (1994) "A History Of Warfare", (Pimlico)
5. ^ Clausewitz, Carl Von (1976), On War (Princeton University Press) p.593
6. ^ [1]
7. ^ [2]
8. ^ [3]
9. ^ "Online Etymology Dictionary". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=war&searchmode=none. Retrieved 2009-06-05. 
10. ^ Keeley: War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage
11. ^ Diamond, Jared, Guns, Germs and Steel
12. ^ Review: War Before Civilization
13. ^ ^{a b} World War One --- A New Kind of War | Part II, From 14 - 18 Understanding the Great War, by Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Annette Becker
14. ^ 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
15. ^ Punic Wars
16. ^ The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Arthur S. Link, ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990), vol. 63, pp. 45–46.
17. ^ 1935 issue of "the non-Marxist, socialist" magazine, Common Sense.
18. ^ Lorenz, Konrad On Aggression 1966
19. ^ Montagu, Ashley (1976), "The Nature of Human Aggression" (Oxford University Press)
20. ^ Durbin, E.F.L. and John Bowlby .Personal Aggressiveness and War 1939.
21. ^ (Fornari 1975)
22. ^ Turnbull, Colin (1987), "The Forest People" (Touchstonbe Books)
23. ^ Alexander, Franz. "The Psychiatric Aspects of War and Peace." 1941
24. ^ Blanning, T.C.W. "The Origin of Great Wars." The Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars. pg. 5
25. ^ Walsh, Maurice N. War and the Human Race. 1971.
26. ^ Bouthoul, Gaston: "L`infanticide différé" (deferred infanticide), Paris 1970
27. ^ 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", [4]
28. ^ 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
29. ^ Fuller, Gary (2004): "The Youth Crisis in Middle Eastern Society"
30. ^ Fuller, Gary (2003): "The Youth Factor: The New Demographics of the Middle East and the Implications for U.S. Policy"[5]
31. ^ 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) [6]; see also the review of this book by Göran Therborn: "Nato´s Demographer", New Left Review 56, March/April 2009, 136-144[7]
32. ^ ‘So, are civilizations at war?’, Interview with Samuel P. Huntington by Michael Steinberger, The Observer, Sunday October 21, 2001.[8]
33. ^ Helgerson, John L. (2002): "The National Security Implications of Global Demographic Trends"[9]
34. ^ Heinsohn, G.(2006): "Demography and War."
35. ^ Heinsohn, G.(2005): "Population, Conquest and Terror in the 21st Century." [10]
36. ^ G. Heinsohn: "Why Gaza is Fertile Ground for Angry Young Men." Financial Times Online, June 14, 2007[11], retrieved on December 23, 2007; compare demographic data for Gaza Strip ([12],[13])and Lebanon ([14], [15]) provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; see also David Bau: "History is Demographics"[16], retrieved on December 23, 2007
37. ^ Goldstone, Jack A.: "Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World", Berkeley 1991
38. ^ Moller, Herbert (1968): ‘Youth as a Force in the Modern World’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 10: 238–260; 240–244
39. ^ 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[17]
40. ^ National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) - April 1974
41. ^ Stephen D. Mumford: The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy
42. ^ Urdal, Henrik (2004): "The Devil in the Demographics: The Effect of Youth Bulges on Domestic Armed Conflict," [18],
43. ^ Population Action International: "The Security Demographic: Population and Civil Conflict after the Cold "[19]
44. ^ Kröhnert, Steffen (2004): "Jugend und Kriegsgefahr: Welchen Einfluss haben demografische Veränderungen auf die Entstehung von Konflikten?" [20]
45. ^ United States Census Bureau: International Database
46. ^ Hendrixson, Anne: "Angry Young Men, Veiled Young Women: Constructing a New Population Threat" [21]
47. ^ Fearon, James D. 1995. "Rationalist Explanations for War." International Organization 49, 3: 379-414. [22]
48. ^ Powell, Robert. 2002. "Bargaining Theory and International Conflict." Annual Review of Political Science 5: 1-30.
49. ^ Rand, Ayn (1966), chapter 2, The Roots of War, Ayn Rand - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
50. ^ Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (1996). On Killing – The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War & Society. Little, Brown & Co.,. 
51. ^ Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
52. ^ Sipes, Richard G. ((Feb., 1973)). American Anthropologist (, New Series, Vol. 75, No. 1): 64-86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/672340. 
53. ^ Waller, James. Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. 
54. ^ Lambert, Craig (May-June 2001). "The Deadliest War". Harvard Magazine. http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050155.html. Retrieved 2007-10-14. 
55. ^ Kitchen, Martin (2000),The Treaty of Versailles and its Consequences, New York: Longman
56. ^ The Historical Impact of Epidemic Typhus. Joseph M. Conlon.
57. ^ 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)
58. ^ War and Pestilence. TIME.
59. ^ The Thirty Years War (1618–48), Alan McFarlane, The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap (2003)
60. ^ History of Europe – Demographics. Encyclopædia Britannica.
61. ^ "Population". History Learningsite. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/population_thirty_years_war.htm. Retrieved 2008-05-24. 
62. ^ "World War II Fatalities". http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html. Retrieved 2007-04-20. 
63. ^ "Leaders mourn Soviet wartime dead". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4530565.stm. 
64. ^ Great Depression and World War II. The Library of Congress.
65. ^ Mayer, E. (2000) "World War II" course lecture notes on Emayzine.com (Victorville, California: Victor Valley College)
66. ^ Coleman, P. (1999) "Cost of the War," World War II Resource Guide (Gardena, California: The American War Library)
67. ^ The New York Times, 9 February 1946, Volume 95, Number 32158.
68. ^ Wallinsky, David: David Wallechinsky's Twentieth Century : History With the Boring Parts Left Out, Little Brown & Co., 1996, ISBN 0316920568, ISBN 978-0316920568 - cited by White
69. ^ Brzezinski, Zbigniew: Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, Prentice Hall & IBD, 1994, ASIN B000O8PVJI - cited by White
70. ^ Ping-ti Ho, "An Estimate of the Total Population of Sung-Chin China", in Études Song, Series 1, No 1, (1970) pp. 33-53.
71. ^ Mongol Conquests
72. ^ The world's worst massacres Whole Earth Review
73. ^ Battuta's Travels: Part Three - Persia and Iraq
74. ^ McFarlane, Alan: The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap, Blackwell 2003, ISBN 0631181172, ISBN 978-0631181170 - cited by White
75. ^ "Military Casualties of World War One"
76. ^ Taiping Rebellion - Britannica Concise
77. ^ Nuclear Power: The End of the War Against Japan
78. ^ Timur Lenk (1369-1405)
79. ^ Matthew's White's website (a compilation of scholarly estimates) -Miscellaneous Oriental Atrocities
80. ^ Russian Civil War
81. ^ Oromo Identity
82. ^ Glories and Agonies of the Ethiopian past
83. ^ Inside Congo, An Unspeakable Toll
84. ^ Conflict in Congo has killed 4.7m, charity says
85. ^ Come Back, Colonialism, All is Forgiven
86. ^ The Thirty Years War (1618-48)
87. ^ Cease-fire agreement marks the end of the Korean War on July 27, 1953.
88. ^ Huguenot Religious Wars, Catholic vs. Huguenot (1562-1598)
89. ^ Shaka: Zulu Chieftain
90. ^ K. S. Lal: Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, 1973
91. ^ Matthew White's Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
92. ^ Missing Millions: The human cost of the Mexican Revolution, 1910-1921
93. ^ Timeline: Iraq
94. ^ Jones, Geo H., Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 254
95. ^ The Deadliest War
96. ^ Clodfelter, cited by White
97. ^ Urlanis, cited by White
98. ^ Northern War (1700-21)
99. ^ The curse of Cromwell
100. ^ Albigensian Crusade (1208-49)
101. ^ Massacre of the Pure, Time, April 28, 1961
102. ^ Attacks raise spectre of civil war
103. ^ Journalists in Algeria are caught in middle
104. ^ Peasants' War, Germany (1524-25)
105. ^ Confirmed deaths beyond dispute
106. ^ Russian Federation: What justice for Chechnya's disappeared? - Amnesty International

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.
• 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 Emergencies Database (CE-DAT) - A database on the human impact of conflicts and other complex emergencies.

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.