How do wars start??????
From Yahoo Answers
How do they start? Do they start
slowly or quickly, from economic pressures, governmental pressures, from
foreign pressures, over a long period of time, over a military overthrow? How?
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
by palmagma
Member since:
March 11, 2010
Total points:
405 (Level 2)
Best
Answer - Chosen by Voters
Trying to discover how wars start
can be difficult (if not impossible) due to the extremely small amount of
knowledge that we can ever expect to possess about actual conditions and events
leading up to the official start of combat. Secret missions, for example, are
almost always hushed up, yet countless billions of dollars have been (and still
are being) poured into covert operations worldwide.
Also remember that history is written by the winners,
so we rarely see a balanced perspective.
Perhaps one comforting realization is that heads of the military are usually less inclined to start a war than are a country's politicians - probably because military leaders have first-hand knowledge of war's horrible consequences.
That said, it must be added that politicians and military leaders never seem to come anywhere close to forecasting just how long a war is going to last, or what its overall cost is likely to be.
Now raise the stakes by arming both sides in a conflict with modern horror weapons, the sort of incredibly destructive devices that we have patiently been designing to annihilate people in quantity.
Just hope that nobody anywhere near a red button ever mistakes
a natural phenomenon (e.g. a meteorite) for a surprise attack.
Also remember that history is written by the winners,
so we rarely see a balanced perspective.
Perhaps one comforting realization is that heads of the military are usually less inclined to start a war than are a country's politicians - probably because military leaders have first-hand knowledge of war's horrible consequences.
That said, it must be added that politicians and military leaders never seem to come anywhere close to forecasting just how long a war is going to last, or what its overall cost is likely to be.
Now raise the stakes by arming both sides in a conflict with modern horror weapons, the sort of incredibly destructive devices that we have patiently been designing to annihilate people in quantity.
Just hope that nobody anywhere near a red button ever mistakes
a natural phenomenon (e.g. a meteorite) for a surprise attack.
Source(s):
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
40% 4 Votes
This question about "How do wars start???… " was originally asked
on Yahoo! Answers India
Other
Answers (13)
- by tuffy
Member since:
December 18, 2009
Total points:
109,797 (Level 7)
Badge Image:
Wars start
when diplomatic talks breakdown. They can develop over a long period of time or
they can start quickly, such as WWI when a person was assassinated. Sometimes
they are started by strong nations trying to get control of small nations and
their territories. Men who are power hungry such as Napoleon and Hitler try to
conquer every nation they can. In WWII Japan, Germany, and Italy (Axis nations)
tried to conquer Britain, France, Australia, Canada, India, China. Russia, and
the United
States (Allied nations). During the Cold War (1945 - 1990) the Soviet Union tried to conquer nations and turn their governments into communist governments.
States (Allied nations). During the Cold War (1945 - 1990) the Soviet Union tried to conquer nations and turn their governments into communist governments.
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
10% 1 Vote
- 2 people rated this as good
- by ?
Member since:
April 21, 2010
Total points:
6,443 (Level 5)
This is
grossly oversimplified, but it's basically not much different than robbery.
That other country has something we want, let's take it away from them. The
"something" can be land, resources, people (to convert to a different
religion, for work, etc). The "something" can also be power, if the
war-starting country perceives "the other guys" to be powerful, and
decides to take them out before they get too powerful. Take a big dose of
greed, add in a few dashes of fear, and season with a disregard for human life,
and you get the recipe for war.
Look at who started wars over the last 100 years, and how that worked out for them. The lesson from history is, if you start a war of aggression, you will probably lose.
Look at who started wars over the last 100 years, and how that worked out for them. The lesson from history is, if you start a war of aggression, you will probably lose.
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
0% 0 Votes
- by Tothepoi...
Member since:
May 12, 2010
Total points:
5,658 (Level 5)
Wars can
start in many different ways. WWI happened primarily because the great powers
didn't understand how destructive war would be, and because they overestimated
the importance of rapid mobilization. The American Civil War was the result of
powerful social tensions between the north and the south, primarily (but not
exclusively) over the issue of slavery.
During the Second Intermediate Period in Ancient Egypt, a war was started after the Hyksos king Apopi sent a message to the Thebans, complaining that their hippos made so much noise that they could be heard even in lower Egypt! The precise meaning of the message is unclear, but what is clear is that wars sometimes begin for the pettiest of reasons.
The recent war in Iraq began because the US President was convinced that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction. He wasn't -- but we hung him anyway.
During the Second Intermediate Period in Ancient Egypt, a war was started after the Hyksos king Apopi sent a message to the Thebans, complaining that their hippos made so much noise that they could be heard even in lower Egypt! The precise meaning of the message is unclear, but what is clear is that wars sometimes begin for the pettiest of reasons.
The recent war in Iraq began because the US President was convinced that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction. He wasn't -- but we hung him anyway.
Source(s):
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
0% 0 Votes
- 1 person rated this as good
- by ?
Member since:
October 03, 2006
Total points:
5,872 (Level 5)
Whenever a
historical debate over foreign policy emerges, the British Empire’s
intervention in global affairs – through colonization – is normally blamed for
many of the problems the world faces today.
The main argument blames the creation of new states in various areas during the occupation and colonization; the way England shaped these areas forced groups of people who did not want to live with each other to coexist under one government.
No one can dispute some of the turmoil caused by colonization. But at second glance, the English aren’t the ones who shoulder the blame. Recent issues involving borders aren’t solely the fault of British Imperialism.
Did the British kill innocent Kurds in Iraq under Saddam's regime? Well, no. Has Britain perpetuated a war with India and Pakistan in the Kashmir? No. So how can we blame the actions of the British Empire for events that are happening right now? The British Empire ended most colonization a long time ago. Yet, they are still blamed for numerous wars.
The common belief is that ill-planned borders created the conflict. But borders don’t create conflicts. The governments that attempt to enforce certain borders or make certain territorial claims make conflicts. It is not the fault of the British for putting undesirable groups together. It is the fault of the newly formed governments for not relinquishing power given by the British and by keeping those groups together.
Yes, the British blundered the border between India and Pakistan. Pakistan says a certain part is theirs and India says that a certain part is theirs. How was the British Empire to know anyway? Should they have gathered votes from every backward village to determine the wishes of each population? Even now, a majority of people living in the Kashmir are Muslim. India could care less. Nonetheless, India still attempts to forcefully exert its power over the territory.
The new governments of India and Pakistan are responsible for this war. Both governments have had the power to peacefully negotiate the disputed territory. India could have peacefully traded away – or relinquished control over – certain territories. The two countries could have engaged in a peaceful negotiation, or, even, let the Kashmir rule itself.
The British Empire made the border, but the capability of each country to negotiate the border peacefully was in their hands, not the hands of the British Empire.
The heart of the problem lies in something much more terrible than colonization. It is the fact that any government does not want to relinquish power. No country wants to give up their land. The real culprit, then, is the nature of government, not any government in particular.
Iraq faces the same issues imposed by British rule ongoing today. Saddam Hussein could have easily divided the country into Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Was he going to give up power? Of course not! The British cannot be blamed for actions obviously taken by ruling regimes.
Even post-Saddam, Iraq isn’t willing to give up power. Why not let the Sunnis have their own country, and the Shiites theirs? It is disingenuous to blame an old regime for the structure of the new regime. All regimes are power hungry. Therefore, all regimes will operate with power-hungry motives. And these motives do not allow for secession by culturally variant territories.
The British Empire at one time was one of the most tyrannical powers on the earth. However, the blame cannot be specifically on them. The blame rests on the nature of government itself. Our own government, even, would not relinquish power during the War of Northern Aggression. Yet, somehow, we expect other nations to act differently. All nations generally behave the same way, because all governments are concerned with power and control, not the wishes of the people.
It's time to stop blaming wars on loose historical facts, but instead blame them on the regimes that start them. After all, history doesn't start wars; governments do.
The main argument blames the creation of new states in various areas during the occupation and colonization; the way England shaped these areas forced groups of people who did not want to live with each other to coexist under one government.
No one can dispute some of the turmoil caused by colonization. But at second glance, the English aren’t the ones who shoulder the blame. Recent issues involving borders aren’t solely the fault of British Imperialism.
Did the British kill innocent Kurds in Iraq under Saddam's regime? Well, no. Has Britain perpetuated a war with India and Pakistan in the Kashmir? No. So how can we blame the actions of the British Empire for events that are happening right now? The British Empire ended most colonization a long time ago. Yet, they are still blamed for numerous wars.
The common belief is that ill-planned borders created the conflict. But borders don’t create conflicts. The governments that attempt to enforce certain borders or make certain territorial claims make conflicts. It is not the fault of the British for putting undesirable groups together. It is the fault of the newly formed governments for not relinquishing power given by the British and by keeping those groups together.
Yes, the British blundered the border between India and Pakistan. Pakistan says a certain part is theirs and India says that a certain part is theirs. How was the British Empire to know anyway? Should they have gathered votes from every backward village to determine the wishes of each population? Even now, a majority of people living in the Kashmir are Muslim. India could care less. Nonetheless, India still attempts to forcefully exert its power over the territory.
The new governments of India and Pakistan are responsible for this war. Both governments have had the power to peacefully negotiate the disputed territory. India could have peacefully traded away – or relinquished control over – certain territories. The two countries could have engaged in a peaceful negotiation, or, even, let the Kashmir rule itself.
The British Empire made the border, but the capability of each country to negotiate the border peacefully was in their hands, not the hands of the British Empire.
The heart of the problem lies in something much more terrible than colonization. It is the fact that any government does not want to relinquish power. No country wants to give up their land. The real culprit, then, is the nature of government, not any government in particular.
Iraq faces the same issues imposed by British rule ongoing today. Saddam Hussein could have easily divided the country into Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Was he going to give up power? Of course not! The British cannot be blamed for actions obviously taken by ruling regimes.
Even post-Saddam, Iraq isn’t willing to give up power. Why not let the Sunnis have their own country, and the Shiites theirs? It is disingenuous to blame an old regime for the structure of the new regime. All regimes are power hungry. Therefore, all regimes will operate with power-hungry motives. And these motives do not allow for secession by culturally variant territories.
The British Empire at one time was one of the most tyrannical powers on the earth. However, the blame cannot be specifically on them. The blame rests on the nature of government itself. Our own government, even, would not relinquish power during the War of Northern Aggression. Yet, somehow, we expect other nations to act differently. All nations generally behave the same way, because all governments are concerned with power and control, not the wishes of the people.
It's time to stop blaming wars on loose historical facts, but instead blame them on the regimes that start them. After all, history doesn't start wars; governments do.
Source(s):
Vedran Vuk
... Student of Economics at Loyola University of New Orleans
2006 Summer Fellow at the Mises Institute.
2006 Summer Fellow at the Mises Institute.
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
20% 2 Votes
- 2 people rated this as good
- by Robyn
Member since:
November 23, 2008
Total points:
205,245 (Level 7)
Badge Image:
Wars start
because of the economic, social and political reasons and have expected and
unexpected outcomes. The absolute leader is the start of it all with their only
opinionated mind not hearing anyone else's they do what they want and what they
think is right, although it may not always be the right way. Some people can
get greedy and desire land or trade with others that are not willing to give,
so they take what they want or need by force and because of this a new
government forms and the economy starts taking a new form of a depression or a
thriving economy. These wars usually end with the quote"kill or be
killed" The last man standing gets what he wants in triumph by defeating a
country which is usually devastating to the losing countries whole existence.
There may even be a treaty that is made to end war and make peace and find a
solution to their problems,
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
10% 1 Vote
- by Jamison F
Member since:
February 21, 2008
Total points:
1,476 (Level 3)
It depends
on the situation, anything can cause a war, the Trojan War was over a woman.
World War 1 was caused by a system of Alliances. World War 2 was caused by
nations conquering others. The Civil War was caused by the South wanting to be
Free from the Federal Government. Anything can start a war, Its human nature we
fight.
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
0% 0 Votes
- by knight11...
Member since:
May 24, 2007
Total points:
43,584 (Level 7)
All of the
above. Plus you can add in assassination as a possible reason (The assassination
of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the cause of WWI).
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
0% 0 Votes
- by TheGrand...
Member since:
April 09, 2007
Total points:
28,253 (Level 7)
Somebody
wants something someone else has.
Or they want somebody to do something & they refuse.
Or they want somebody to do something & they refuse.
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
10% 1 Vote
- by nick smith
Member since:
June 30, 2010
Total points:
574 (Level 2)
When 2 or
more countries have problems... if 1 country within itself, it is called a
civil war
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
0% 0 Votes
- by Shubham
Member since:
July 19, 2009
Total points:
139 (Level 1)
It starts
when two countries do not like each other.
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
0% 0 Votes
- by BS2NITE
Member since:
March 09, 2007
Total points:
345 (Level 2)
Over a
woman
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
0% 0 Votes
- by pineappl...
Member since:
February 12, 2010
Total points:
7,843 (Level 5)
Worl war 1
started for no reason... lolol
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
0% 0 Votes
Member since:
July 06, 2010
Total points:
448 (Level 2)
when
american president get bored of holloywood movies.
- 3 years ago
- Report Abuse
10% 1 Vote
No comments:
Post a Comment