Talk:War

same with "War almost always results in many unnecessary deaths." unnecessary is very arguable, and also makes certain causal assumptions. i'm removing it.---DWRZ 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Other terms for war, often used euphemistically to circumvent limitations on war, include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action." not neccessarily true. while this is sometimes the case, there is a difference between these terms, and the distinctions/gradations they refer to are often honestly used. i'm rephrasing. ---DWRZ 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

my rephrase hasn't been that successful, so if anybody can think of a better (and more thorough) rewrite, that'd be great. ---DWRZ 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

i'm going to remove the list of positive and negative effects on war. the list makes several moral assumptions (that are POV, I might add with regret). ---DWRZ 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives

/Archive 1 - Unknown 2004 - June 2006: Information warfare, nuclear war, morality/ideology of war, and various.

/Archive 2 - Unknown 2004 - Nov 2006: Electronic warfare (and various), Information theory and Information examples.

Warfare in the animal kingdom

Are humans the only animal capable of warfare? If Baboons from one tribe attack another tribe with a sticks and stone is that not warfare? If ants coordinate attacks to encircle an enemy and “attack” (bite) all at once and then raid for resources (food), isn’t that warfare? When a plant uses chemical warfare to poison other plants around it, or strangles nearby plants with it’s roots in order to compete for resources (minerals in the soil, sunlight, etc) is THAT not warfare?

-G

OK. But does animals kills a lot? NO. So it is not dangerous.

it is not war in the context it is meant to be represented here... if someone is looking up war, they arent looking for shit about baboons 58.165.255.57 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Separate page for Theories

I reccomend we place a separate page for theories of why war occurs. Anybody concur/disagree? -DWRZ 19:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Prisoner's Dillema and Peace War Game Section

I removed this section. It is a ridiculous interpretation and application of the Prisoner's Dillema and game theory, and it does not cite enough sources. Please discuss before reinstating it. -DWRZ 02:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this again. The section has a serious error that most game theorists would immediately point out: the payoff matrix for the Prisoner's Dilemma does not accurately reflect all the possibilities and realities of life. War is not necessarily a "3" while peace a "1" or "2". Please discuss before reinstating it. -DWRZ 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The first serious error I see here is to expect ANY payoff matrix to reflect all the possibilities and realities of life. The second is not to consult the sources. Here, for your convenience is the most readily available.Industrial Organization - economics lecture in which the Peace War Game is an example. You should take more interest, it identifies a war-winning strategy, but requires cooperation. BTW, unilaterally deleting a section then starting a page on it doesn't make it any less an act of vandalism. MBHiii 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on expecting any payoff matrix, but some people (not me) are still of the belief that a very extensive matrix could adequately deal with reality. I read through the powerpoint, I'm not sure what you intend I see in it. It's a good powerpoint-- for explaining these and other aspects of game theory-- but it has nothing to do with War. Beyond the fact that the section is problematic it is also far too detailed and extensive to be on the main page (and as a subset of another section). Vandalism? I'm new to wikipedia but I thought I was following the "be bold" policy. No one here has posted anything in the talk page about this section here, and there has been no discussion regarding its inclusion/exclusion. Also, as far as I'm concerned, it's not vandalism if I brought the issue up on the talk page and have good intentions for the article. I don't see how re-including or even writing the section without discussing or posting anything here doesn't amount to vandalism itself, using your definition. -DWRZ 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't just delete things without getting some sense of how many people worked on it. Going back through the history of the Peace War Game will give you an idea. Also, the Hanseatic League vs the Vikings was a war won by cooperative Tit-for-tat. --63.98.135.196 23:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the Peace War Game history, thanks for pointing that out. Next time I will wait a bit longer for replies to posts in discussion. Nonetheless, I stand by the fact that the section should be removed, displaced, or qualified. The Hanseatic League versus the Vikings was not won by Tit-for-Tat. Yes, if you want to generalize and simplify a whole lot, it looks like the actions are like that. Second, one example does not justify a theory that is not generally held or significant. Third, the comparison is worthless even by the description of the Prisoner's Dilemma, which itself states that there are no outside influences and limits variables. I could go on. This section stinks of amateur work to me and its flaws and fallacies are outstanding. Again, like I said above, it also is way too specific for a front page of this entry-- indeed, I think all these theories which discuss why war happens and very little about how it is carried out, ended, and so on... belong a different page. I won't insist on this, it's my POV, but if anyone else agrees or can see where I'm coming from... I think this whole page is in need of a rewrite. -DWRZ 03:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a bit in the article to suggest how wars are ended - by the development of mutual understanding and agreement. 216.77.231.87 18:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's comment to Thaddeus Stevens when Stevens shouted, "Enemies are to be destroyed!". The president responded, "Mr. Stevens, are not our enemies destroyed when we make them our friends?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.98.135.196 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

War without weapons

The definition is good, but war requires weapons. Try imagining war just fought with fists. Barbara Ehrenreich said in a book review in Foreign Affairs "War is not a barroom brawl writ large." There is an important lethality element to war. There has never been a bare-handed war. Wars are always fought with weapons. WardHayesWilson 12:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• This makes sense, Ward, of course. I put or left (I don't recall which) the "usually" in there simply because I couldn't be sure there were no counterexamples. But the requrement is so compelling it makes sense to leave it in until presented with such. Fists could be viewed as weapons, for that matter. With "usually" dropped, though, the sentence needs some rearrangement to read optimally. --NathanHawking 20:37, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

The definition is again without weapons. This is a serious deficiency.

Weapons are at the center of war. Better weapons can be decisive in war. Empires (Mongols - reflex bow, Assyrians - iron weapons) have risen on the basis of better weapons. The centrality of weapons is demonstrated by the constant attention to technology throughout the history of war.

Weapons are conceptually necessary. They are the means for separating civilian from soldier. Weapons are key in one of the crucial acts of war: surrender. (How do you surrender? You lay down your weapons.) Weapons make some of the crucial distinctions in war possible and are, therefore, central to war.

Can anyone find a dictionary definition that doesn't mention weapons in its definition of war? The dictionaries I've consulted say "armed" conflict or the like.

Without objection I will re-insert weapons into the main definition.

WardHayesWilson 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• The question to answer is: let's say that, hypothetically, in the middle of WWI, or WWII, or the Franco-Prussian War, or any war, you do away with any kind of weapon imaginable, leaving only humans to use their fists. Would this end the war? Would it stop people for killing each other, even if it means that their country's and people's interests (food, raw materials, security) are in danger? It's hard to say, because it has never happened, and probably never will. But if the option comes to starving to death, or killing another person with your bare hands, I'm willing to bet the latter choice will prevail. Weapons don't kill people, people do. Weapons make it easier (less struggle) and less personal (i.e. you don't have to touch your victim's neck, jugular, and get bloody), but in my opinion, don't define war. It is peolpe's interests and what they are willing to do for it what makes war. To counter WarddHayesWilson's statements: 1. Weapon's are not the central part of war, people's interests are, as I said before. Weapons are merely a tool for war. 2. Weapon's are not conceptually necessary, because you can kill a man with your bare hands. They do not separate the soldier from the civilian, the involvement in the war cause does. What is a soldier? A person with a gun? A person in the military? Surely there's gray area between both these views, But what use would it be to a country's military to give every able person in that country a military weapon, thus inflating it's military manpower, if in the end many of them will not use it? There are military logistics to consider, as well as many other critical issues, that could turn a person into a soldier (i.e. in service of the country's military) without ever engaging in hostility personally. 3. The fact that most dictionary definitions of "war" use the term "armed conflict" as a justification for weapons being a necessity for war is analogous to saying that to call something a "bar-room brawl," the hostilities need to take place within the confines of a bar room. The weapons are there because they make killing easier. If chimps could find, much less fabricate, a tool which they realized will help them wage war against competing chimps, I'm 100% certain they would use it. But because they don't use weapons, you cannot call it war? I disagree. War is an hostile conflict, which necesitates diversion of resources to defeat you competition. If chimps are competeing for females, territory/food to the point where they have to kill other chimps to ensure survival, they are at war, and if they realized their potential for survival would be greatly enhanced by using a weapon, they would use it. But the underlying conflict, competition, persists in absence of weapons. --Rivera151 17:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the article should specially define war HERE as a type of military conflict which includes use of weapons. There is also Economic warfare which often preceedes military action. --Mrg3105 20:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree about the necessity of including weapons in the definition. I hope you all don't mind, but I'm going to change the opening sentence somewhat to include weapons. I'm leaning heavily on the definition of war used by Keith Otterbein. Athana 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that it is an obstacle to understanding war to define it narrowly when the psychology is no different when dealing with small tribes, neighborhood gangs, or nations. Group level violence = war in my book and also in the recent David Livingstone Smith book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.70.154 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"just war"

The final phrase of the Morality of war section is: "Today, some see only just wars as legitimate, and it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars of unjust aggression."

This seems to take for granted that "Just Wars" are a kind of war that has been proven to exist while it's only a theory (a doctrine) as following the link teaches us. I'd rather we put in something like:

"Today, some see only some specific wars, which they call "Just Wars" as legitimate, and it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars that do not fit these criteria."

At the very least, I'm going to capitalize "Just War" to emphasize that it's only a theory and not a common noun, if nobody objects or does it before me. Jules LT 18:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As a pacifist, I see no reason to believe that there is such a thing as a just war. I'd say that this view is probably fairly common among many normal people, and as such using "just war" as a common noun isn't acceptable. 61.9.204.168 06:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No Mention of Warfare in the Animal Kingdom

Humans are not unique among the animal kingdom in waging warfare - Jane Goodall has observed chimpanzees wage warfare and it is also a phenomonen observed among several species of ants. Would it be proper to place these examples in this article? One danger is obviously anthromorphism but it is possible that warfare, in certain cases, can be supported by natural selection. Simfish 01:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to make a case that animals fight "wars" except metaphoricaly.

First, I've argued above ("Wars Without Weapons") that war requires weapons. So I believe you can't have war in the animal kingdom (with the possible exception of some primates).

But even setting that aside wars are increasingly defined as characterized by high-level organization. My reading of the literature is that the consensus among historians is moving toward the notion that war only emerges among humans with the rise of agriculture and considerably-sized cities. The killing done by pre-historic man is less and less referred to as war. (Even though those prehistoric conflicts led, in some cases, to the extermination of whole groups.)

[It is hard to draw bright-line distinctions between war and, say, raids. Is what the Yanamamo [sp?] do war? Or raiding? Could we legitimately call what the Crips and the Bloods do war? (Journalists regularly do, but we aren't trying to sell advertising space.) Even when large numbers are killed we usually don't call this sort of activity war. Conflicts between groups - even those that result in killing - are not necessarily war.]

Finally, war usually requires considerable scale. Even a small war, like the War of 1812 (as we call it here in the States), usually involved battles with thousands of participants on each side.

I agree that group violence in the animal kingdom is fascinating and suggestive for understanding human violence. But I would hesitate to expand the definition of war wide enough to let these conflicts in. WardHayesWilson 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

_______

Have you heard about bonobos? These primates are as close genetically to humans as chimps, but are non-violent and very sexual. The only reason you haven't heard more about them is *because* they love sex, and the puritans who run the world don't approve of that. Frans de Waal is a highly respectable primatologist who's written about them. I'd recommend his books -- especially "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape." Athana 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen quite a lot of coverage of the Bonobos. Rick Norwood 13:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bonobos are also endangered. I hate when people use animals to make poltical statments. Anyway though not all species have large wars most have small battles. Thats just the way it is on earth. Also you don't need "weapons" to have war. You just need to be capable of hurting something. Needing a third party object to have a war makes no sense. Have you ever heard of a brawl? --Vehgah 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a seperate artical on animal warfare not so much chimps but ants and a few other insects (termites) definatly have an arguement but i dont think it belongs in the same category as human war let alone the same artical--Ggohtrin 01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

war in prehistory

I've reverted a paragraph that asserts that large scale warfare did not occur in prehistory. This romantic idea has no scientific basis. On the contrary, there are large numbers of ancient skeletons that show wounds typical of warfare. Rick Norwood 13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some do argue that there was little to no prehistoric warfare, but this issue is already well covered at our prehistoric warfare article. - SimonP 15:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's be careful. It is true that there was a romantic notion (particularly among anthropologists) in the sixties that argued that since primitive peoples were not very warlike that early hominids must not have been warlike either. Which was wishful thinking. (How did the neanderthals die out? Disease?) But that doesn't make the other view true. War is defined above as "large scale." Unless large numbers (say, 1,000s or even 100s) of pre-historic remains have been found together it probably can't be proved one way or the other. I don't know of any finds where the numbers reach the scale of a real battlefield. My own opinion is that most pre-historic killing occurred during activity like raiding. But my opinion is no more than any other opinion: it's a hunch based on some knowledge. There's no way to know for sure. There is pre-historic evidence of killing in combat. If war is large-scale, is there evidence of war? Do twenty killed together make a war? WardHayesWilson 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Maybe the paragraph could be rewritten to contrast the relatively small scale warfare of hunter gatherers with the large scale warfare of city states.

By the bye, "primative" people are often very warlike. Read about the "primative" people of New Zealand, for just one example. Rick Norwood 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well also the scale of wars should be considered by the percentage of populations. If you have one cave fighting another, than there will be a very high proportion of people involved, even though it would not even be called a gang war by modern standards. It is also reasonable to assume that there would have been larger coflicts between tribes.(Lucas(CA) 17:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Psychological theories

Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. This extreme school of thought argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal.

("pls .. reconsideration required about above statement.. a very judgemental statement .. how can we label a man mentally unbalanced just because of the path he took.. who made those rules.. who defines normality? ") Comment by 203.115.99.37 (talk · contribs) moved here from article page.

Armed Conflict Map

What definition of Armed Conflict are we using? (eg. Darfur is unmarked) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.122.160 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 July 2006.

Neither is Chad. Wally 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote in favor of war doesn't really fit?

"Suppose there are two starving tribes on a field. The potatoes just grow to feed only one of the tribes, who thus acquire forces to go to the other side of the mountain, where there are more potatoes growing; but if the two tribes divide in peace the potatoes of the field, the two tribes are not fed enough and will die of starvation. The peace, in this case is the destruction; the war, is the hope." - from the book Quincas Borba by the author Machado de Assis

To confront this problem the ancient Greek 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 negotations. In this system, constant low-level skirmishing and guerrilla warfare were phased out in favor 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 "Western Way of War", as described by historian Victor Davis Hanson, initially made it possible for neighbors with limited resources to coexist and prosper.

An anon put in the first paragraph, cited from Assis, and the second was added shortly after (which certainly helps to clarify the thing). Nevertheless, I feel that it is not a good fit in "morality of war," as such, so I post it here in hope a better place might be identified. Wally 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A quote that might fit as an alternative viewpoint is "War is the health of the state" by Randolph Bourne. It indicates an alternative view of warfare. Sound and Fury 06:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

==Terrorism==

The article mentions terrorism as an extreme form of guerilla war,which implies that acts of terrorism can only be carried by guerillas. Am not sure we can define terrorism in such a way, armies can commit acts of terrorism too, usually labeled as state terror. Therefore i removed the following sentence since it can be misleading (Terrorism can be considered an extreme form of asymmetrical warfare.)

Terrorism is definatly a form of war allbeit the underdogs version (tends to develop from desperation)--Ggohtrin 02:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

twisted interpretations

I'm new at this so I could be wrong, but doesn't the following seem a bit like a breach of NPOV rules? It doesn't seem very encylcopædia-like, especailly the last two sentences.

           Religion is often attributed as a cause of war. However, Religion itself teaches peace and understanding. How could that then, cause wars? It is the twisted interpretations of those that follow these religions, that in turn create conflict.

Yup, you are very much right, sounds like a sunday preach to me, I replaced it with the followingDifferent interpretations of religous beliefs may have been the cause of several conflicts throughout history. am sure it can be done in a better way, I just thought the old sentence should be removed ASAP, so if anyone has got a better way of doing it, please go ahead213.42.2.28 10:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)The man who sold the world

NPOV

"On balance, war is probably a bad thing." That really shouldn't be there. Ethical/value assumption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DWRZ (talk • contribs) 10:23, 14 September 2006.

Songs about war

External link section at the bottom. Can I ask if it is possible to build back into the main page the reference for the link and open up a place in the main body of the text for songs about war discussion please. RoddyYoung 11:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Effects of War section revision

I have two problems with this section: 1. The language used is inconsistent throughout. 2. One of the comments in the Negative section is "loss of a countries innocence." This seems kind of silly to me. -Andy, Sept 21, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.250.221.33 (talk • contribs).

Reasons for War

Religion should probably be added. --יהושועEric 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion is almost never the cause of war just the political justification for it--Ggohtrin 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) forgot to sign

Resources should most definitely be added. I'm actually shocked that there is little mention for this. The largest conflicts the world has ever seen, and will see, have been sparked by threats to access to key resource areas, or threats to the supply line between the resource area and its ultimate consumer. At the onset of Wold War I, the British declared war on Germany when they invaded Belgium, a previously accorded neutral country. This threatened the security of cargo in Antwerp, a key port in the world, connecting many railways with sea shipping routes. The Balkans were a "powder keg" because nationalist ideals had sparked as a result of foreign occupations (Austria-Hungary in Serbia). Notable is the desire for Russia's "warm water port", and its desire for dissociation of the slavic state from Austria-Hungary to pusue this matter, but it is reasonable to assume that nationalist ideals were a result of foreign occupations exploiting resources and manpower in their benefit, and with little space for benefit to the resource-bearing nation and nationals. It is no coincidence that the war spread into the Ottoman Empire, just around the area where the Suez Canal connects India's ship route to England. And the sinking of the Lusitania that propelled the United States into war was also a result of German military efforts to cut supplies to the English from the USA. All this and this is just in WWI.

WWII has the same pattern, with countries siezing key transit routes to their opponent, and precipitating war. It is no coincidence that the global conflict spread to similar areas of the globe, notably around northwestern Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Indo-Pacific.

The scarcity of oil in today's global market, and the dependence of this global market (and it's military apparatus) on oil as a raw material, has bypassed the traditional strategies of cutting intermediary trade routes (of which the Strait of Hormuz comes to mind) and focus on the last source, the Middle East. Rivera151 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Levels of combat

Some obvious problems with the new list:

• "Battle" is conventionally used to refer to any cohesive armed engagement, from an encounter between two platoons to a multi-year operation involving several army groups. Certainly, for events before WWII, this is the only usage of the word that is encountered, and it supplants pretty much everything else.
• "Campaign" generally means a series of battles (of whatever size); I've never seen a different definition used that paid attention to the size of the formations involved.
• "Operation" is a very vague term that can mean anything from a bombing run to an entire war effort, depending on the context.

Beyond that, the other definitions don't seem to be coming from a reputable source; is there one that's just not cited, or are these original research? Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

After discussing this with the author, it looks like this material isn't (yet) available from a published source, so I've moved it here for the time being. There's probably something useful as a starting point for a discussion of the terminology, even if we can't cite the particular definitions given. Kirill Lokshin 13:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied material:

Although not seeking to define war in absolute terms, or suggest ultimate definitions, the list below seeks to suggest a structure for war descriptors as military conflicts at appropriate organizational levels of forces employed.

The descriptors are not used consistently in historical literature, and therefore can not be always applied to specific events uniformly. Definitions are drawn based on earliest occurring general usage and may not conform to use by either professional specific militaries or their constituent Arms and Services, or misuse by non-professionals such as journalists, fiction writers and general commentators at the time this article was created in 2006.

Some examples are historical notables drawn from one war such as the Battle of Britain, which was an air campaign initiated by Germany, the Battle of Midway which was a culmination of weeks-long manoeuvring by US and Japanese fleets, and the Battle of Stalingrad which was conducted by multiple German and Soviet Armies and culminated in a strategic operation Uranus.

Another example is lack of comparative analysis in events such as Battle of Mogadishu as it is sometimes called, involved only 160 US service personnel, and is better termed a skirmish or a combat when considered in comparison with the Battle of Bastogne (1944) that involved a reinforced US 101st Airborne division. Other terms, though appropriate descriptors of historical events; fail to correctly define the scale of combat, for example the Siege of Leningrad, which was a very long Frontal strategic defensive operation. The Tarutino Manoeuver by Kutuzov in 1812 was in fact performed by the entire Imperial Russian Army at hand comprising multiple corps, and was an operation that sought to outmanoeuvre Napoleon. However the battle that resulted from it was conducted on a lower organizational level.

Some descriptors are also used in the English language to describe non-combat activity that may lead to combat such as manoeuvre, which is often used to describe unit movements during changes in positioning within the Area of Operation.

Clash - combat at section, squad, flight crew or part of ship's crew level

Encounter - combat at platoon, flight or individual small vessel level

Skirmish - combat at company, troop, battery, air squadron or large ship's company level

Combat - combat at battalion, squadron, air wing or multiple naval vessels level

Engagement - combat at regiment, brigade or naval task force level

Battle - combat at divisional or naval/air fleet level

Manoeuver - combat at Corps level

Operation - combat at Army level

Strategic operation - combat at Army Group or Front (including supporting components) level

Campaign - combat at level of multiple Army Groups or Fronts (a.k.a. Theatre of war)

War - combat with participation of the whole of available force by participants

Level of combat in a war is determined my many factors, some of which are: number of troops, area over which the combat takes place, number of supporting units available, and goals or objectives the combat seeks to achieve.

morality of war

this section uses a lot of weasel words, and many of its comments need citations. i propose a rewrite, simply stating the pacifist, just war, and realist (soft and hard) views on the matter. i'll wait for a response, then just go ahead. i'll use the following article as a guideline: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ ---DWRZ 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

introduction

Other terms for violent conflict, sometimes used euphemistically to circumvent limitations on war, include: armed conflict, hostilities, and police action. A time when no formal war is taking place, although there may be international and internal tensions, is sometimes called peacetime or peace. However, some pacifists consider the definition of peace to be more complicated. Baruch Spinoza (1632–77) said, "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."

War almost always results in many deaths. In the wars and conflicts of the 20th century, an estimated 130–142 million people died, of which 51 million occurred after the end of World War II.

I've removed the above. It strays too far from the main topic and includes too much detailed (and slightly POV)for the summary/intro to an article.---DWRZ 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some guy deleted all the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.145.177.253 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 November 2006.

Someone else wrote something about "joos" staring a lot of wars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.200.110.92 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 December 2006.

Vandalisim

Some immature individual has defaced the entire article on War and now it consists only of one word, repeated several times. It needs to be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.114.179.11 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 November 2006.

---

it is fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.64.247 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 November 2006.

Vandals!!!:) --Tomi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.72.195 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 November 2006.

Picture of Nuclear bombing at top

It might be a good picture to begin a section on Atomic bombs or Nuclear War, but perhaps it's a not a suitable way to begin the War section, perhaps a picture more representative of traditional warfare (a tank, a soldier, a battle, etc) should take its place? Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.57.206.54 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 November 2006.

---

COuldn't agree more - I have now removed this - PocklingtonDan 19:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Objectives

This might seem obvious, but i think it would appropriate to have a section in the article with a list of objectives of what a nation intends to achive when going to war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.249.78 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 November 2006.

Intend to rewrite and re-organise this article substantively

The structure of the first section as "morality of war" and the next section being named "causes of war" is perojative and shows an wnti-war bias. The morality of war section should not be so prominent. The causes of war section should be subsumed within or renamed to "objectives for war" or similar - "causes" makes the popular assumption it is a negative thing - diseases have causes, medicines don't. Also, there is clearly a need for a "history of warfare" or "historical development of warfare" section even if this is covered elsewhere, noting how warfare existed only on a small scale until groups stopped hunter/gathering and became settled on tracts of land permanently. Its shameful that such a key article is in such a poor state. Any objections to this/ideas towards this? I will probably perform the rewrite in a sandbox and substitute contents all at once. Comments? - PocklingtonDan 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think that the term "cause" violates neutral point of view. Other mass political phenomena that some people think of as positive and others think of as negative - like revolutions - are also described as having "causes," as are morally neutral natural phenomena, like thunder. The reasons that we don't use "cause" to describe the source of medicine is that we can attribute its creation to specific inventors. War is usually to complex to blame specific individuals; most of the theories under discussion are about structures and institutions, so "Causes of War" is exactly the right terminology to describe them.LauraHW 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dan Pocklington that this section is badly organized and out of shape. I disagree that morality should be stuffed down at the end and out of sight. Morality is one of the fundamental human characteristics. Almost all humans (regardless of culture or historical age) have it. Moral reflections on war are not a condemnation of it. Humans reflect with moral feeling on the important events of their lives. Wars are important events.

Types of war and warfare

Guerrilla isn't the cause of any war, it is a type of warfare which can be used in any war caused by Extortionate and the other reasons listed. Mr.Clown 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction needs to be changed (would edit it myself, but am *very* busy tonight, might take a crack tomorrow.) It jumps right into types of war and related terms, without ever stating what war is. As a simple fix, at the very least, it *needs* to start like every other article on Wikipedia, with a sentence of the form "War is <insert quick definition of a war here>." Endersdouble 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"By cause" section: guerilla

I have been concerned about the "By cause" section listing various conflicts as being caused by guerilla action. I have removed the Vietnam conflict several times with edit summary, because in my (very limited) view, while much of the conduct was guerilla, the cause was a much more complex mix of politics and other factors. However, it is repeatedly reinstated, without any edit summary. Could someone indicate whether I am right or wrong here? I guess if it does not fit, maybe the line could be deleted rather than left empty as an invitation. Notinasnaid 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed the comment above. Should probably be removed from the table. Notinasnaid 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The term "Guerilla War" was coined because of the Peninsular War in Spain against Napolean. Why don't we just put down that as an example for Guerilla War. Ledzeppelin321295 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

as with most things zeppelin, you are absolutely correct. As an example of guerilla warfare the peninsular war is a great example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.227.243.16 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 29 December 2006.

• I observe that it has been so added. But this section is called "Cause". Was "guerilla" the cause of this war? It isn't about conduct. Similarly, is "civil" a cause, or a type, of war? Notinasnaid 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion of wars

Just a thought, but having said so much about the theoris of why and how wars begin, and conducted, is it not out of place to write something on their conclusions? --Mrg3105 12:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

there's still some silly hedgehog poopy stuff in the section below Termination of War, but i'm not good enough to know how to revert certain sections to old versions, i always just Undo stuff i find. Murderbike 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Large numbers of individuals

"A war is a conflict between two or more groups that involve large numbers of individuals". Is this true? Is it thus wrong to say two bitter individual rivals engaged in some form of conflict are not "warring"? Are we not thus incorrect if we were to tell someone who has intensely displeased us, "This means war" to forewarn prolonged revenge? In my opinion, a war only usually involves large numbers of people. Should the intro be changed? VolatileChemical 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so, no. This article is on "war" itself, not "warring", which is a different concept/idiom, and can relate to two housewives disagreeing over a boundary. I don't beleive this article should be extended to cover that, since "warring" is really just a synonym for "disagreement" in that instance. A war necessarily involves relatively large numbers of people. Armed contention between smaller groups is not normally called a war. - PocklingtonDan 08:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You disagree with my suggestion? Well, I hope you know this means warring. VolatileChemical 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Could be go a little deeper?

And theorize how warfare is essential for human evolution? For humans to jump and leap in change (social and technological) and revaluat ones self and surroundings? I think the imprtance of warfare in the develpoment of mankind needs to be stated.

-G

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 January 2007.

Current religious statements on war

I don't think this section should be here, can we delete it?

• I find it cumbersome that every article from war to dinosaurs is being tagged with sections on "christian perspectives on...". The idea of the encyclopedia is to give a summary of the topic and notable ideas about it. The perspective here adds nothing that is not already covered in the mention of pacifism.
• The article would be absurd if it had to have a "perspective on" section for every religious or other organisation on the planet.
• It is hypocritical to mention the current Christian stance towards war without mentioning Christians' long historical fondness for it. - PocklingtonDan 08:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Seriously though, I don't know what this section is doing here. I am deleting it for the time being. If someone wants to make it into a decent encyclopediac section, they should go for it. What's there, though, probably shouldn't be. ILikeThings 10:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

I found this phrase in the "demographic theories" section:

" often have no access to a legal sex life before a career can earn them enough to provide for a family."

I may just be demonstrating a severe lack of literacy, but what the leaping prostitutes does that even mean??? Could someone with an IQ higher than mine rewrite that? --132.69.234.73 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalism

User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.31.15.94 deleted the entire article and replaced it with the single word "yo." Reverted to previous. Carthago delenda est 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Here's the age old question. Why is there war?

....

That is outside the purview of an Wikipedia entry on this topic, and is more appropriately addressed under the topic "Philosophy." Carthago delenda est 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Prose

For a " Core Topic" there is some horrendous prose in this article. Such gems as "How a war affects the political and economic circumstances in the peace that follows usually depends on the "facts on the ground"." are not really shining examples. — MichaelLinnear 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Termination of War

The last paragraph under termination of war in the Conduct of war section seems to be irrelevent to that section, and it's kind of confusing. It reads:

"Even though we think the only wars do involve guns and spears and such, war could be anything that two people argue over. When two people always argue and always fight. Another term is "an uphill battle" this means how ever hard you try you will end up working twice as hard."

I'm going to delete it since it doesn't really make sense and doesn't belong there --Fastman99 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved this to the end of the page, for ease of reading Thanks for removing that; it looks like clear-cut sillyness. Good eyes. Skittle 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Demographic Theories: Youth Bulge

Quote from that subsection:

"It was also contradicted by the post-World War II Baby Boom, which saw great opposition to war amongst the so-called Youth Bulge (See Youth culture)."

My take on this statement would be that the western post WW II babyboom was a mini-youth bulge that never reached the critical mass of 30-40% of the population. Youth bulge theory doesnt say that surplus males necessarily result in war. It says more generally that they will - if well fed and well educated - create SOME type of social unrest (see the list in the article), and rebellion such as that the babyboomer counterculture movement practiced might be seen as a mild form of such social unrest corresponding to the mini-size of the postwar babyboom "youth bulge".

It should be interesting to note that the then developing "youth counterculture" did indeed develop their own forms of unrest, "resistance" and even some forms of violence (with its most probably violent branches in the german "Red Army Faction", whose origins can be traced back to the West German student protest movement in the late 1960s).

And maybe the fact that most of the excess males of that mini-youth-bulge could be absorbed into the job system could be seen as the main factor that eventually made the counterculture movement a harmless part of the commercial mainstream of western society. It never sufficed to provide enough excess males to fill up both the job system and armies that could have been used for expansionist warfare. Rather, the vietcong threatened the U.S. army in Vietnam by the sheer number of young men they could send into guerilla warfare.

Also, the mini youth bulge created by the post world war II baby boomers was never able to reverse the long term trend of falling birth rates (usually termed "demographic transition") observable in all western nations (which youth bulge theorists might identify as the main "pacifying" factor of western european nations who had, in their own youth bulge period, been excessively expansionist and colonialist). It should be interesting to note that almost all of europe shows sub-replacement fertility rates by now, the U.S. still being at replacement level (2,1 kids per woman´s lifetime), but with a longterm trend downwards.

I would conclude that the post world war II babyboom does not contradict youth bulge theory - this belief is due to imprecise perception - but that it rather supports it. Thus, I think the sentence I quoted at the beginning could be deleted from the article; but there might also be a need for a separate, more extensive article on "youth bulge theory". Thewolf37 15:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

War: Definition

I don't know if this was discussed before (point me in the right direction) but...

I think that the current definition of war is somewhat inadequate. War is a human activity much more complex than just "violent conflict between two or more groups that involve large numbers of individuals."

War is not even on the same plane with an individual or a group of individuals for that matter. People is just one of the many areas war involves.

I searched Google for the definition and found one which, I guess, was here before and which is, in my opinion, much more fitting for this article:

War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organisations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of violent, physical force between combatants or upon civilians. Other terms for war, which often serve as euphemisms, include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action (see limitations on war below). War is contrasted with peace, which is usually defined as the absence of war.

I would also add some of the many areas war touches such as politics, economics, science, culture etc.

Any thoughts? --Zealander 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this at the very least needs some extended discussion. Just by way of example, I was reading an author critical of the current conflict in Iraq who brought up the suggestion that it does not meet the definition of war and thus should not be considered in the category of war. He cited an academic who had a book length treatment of the subject (that is, the definition of war), but I don't have the reference handy right now. The idea of "war" for some connotes some sort of moral acceptability which is not given to other things like "fighting", "murder" etc. The current definition on the page seems a bit too broad, and its breadth can be construes as providing that moral acceptability to actions which some would dispute as properly belonging to the category of "war". ````Paul Baxter <paulthepianoman@yahoo.com> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.79.76.247 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

what about some pictures?

I'd add some pictures from various conflicts taking example on the German wikipedian article on war. First of all it is mutual mass murder, isn'it? I was thinking of random photos of less-known 20th century wars and some historical miniatures. 84.167.200.25 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Teen "Vandalism"

User 69.70.123.170´s edit had me rofl ... and made me think, maybe this could be read as a hint that this article (and maybe the disciplines researching war) suffer from a lack of conceptual clarity. Imagine yourself as a teen having to write a paper on the subject of "war" and being confronted with an article such as this one.

I don´t believe in oversimplification ... but in this case, I sympathize with this user´s desire for SOME simplification. A theory should be as simple as possible (occam´s razor) ... but not simpler.

If this kind of edit is more frequent ... it MIGHT be a hint that the article (and maybe the scientific disciplines concerned) lacks conceptual clarity. Seen this way, this kind of edit wouldnt represent "vandalism", but useful feedback :-) --Thewolf37 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Death toll in wars

what is the death toll in each war, and in total? 75.25.104.42 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

for a start and some hints on literature, try

* The 66 most lethal conflicts after 1950 (sorted by number of people killed)

* Wars and Casualties of the 20th Century (sorted chronologically)

* Genocides 1900-2000 (sorted by number of people killed)

--Thewolf37 00:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is credible? -G

Matthew White has a Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century online and discusses the credibility of the numbers - maybe another useful starting point for finding sources that might fit your criteria for credibility. --Thewolf37 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest moving DEATH TOLLS IN WARS to a new page, and then providing good references for each war. Right now this section is pretty weak. --Dylanfly 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are modern wars some of the worst polluters in the world?

I've heard that wars that we are waging today can seriously pollute the environment due to the bombs and missles. Jramirez23 March 13, 2007 7:43 PM UTC

..

How about a cite? And "I've heard" doesn't count. Carthago delenda est 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

nah the current weapons have the potential to do some real damage but realy arent used often enough if say china russia uk france the usa got into an actual full scale non nuclear war that could do some extreem enviormental damage but war does seem to do alot of littering--Ggohtrin 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall Lack of Clarity

I agree strongly with TheWolf37 above. This article is badly thought out and badly executed. The causes of war are not well understood - why spend many, many long paragraphs explaining all the different ways that wars may start? Do we focus in minute detail on how forest fires may start? Is there some other topic in Wikipedia in which the main article goes on exploring various unproved theories about the phenomenon's origin?

Perhaps the question (of how wars start) deserves its own article, but the main article here is certainly out of whack. Let's rethink. How do you deal with a topic in an encyclopedia? How are other social phenomena that matter dealt with in Wikipedia? What, besides its origin, matters about war? WardHayesWilson 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

War matters because it can destroy civilizations. It can create or destroy countries. War matters because it can kill civlians in shocking numbers. War matters because it is an important human activity that seems to occur again and again with great regularity. War is frequently a part of human history.

(What's interesting in this regard is that war is rarely an insitution - like the church - that is constantly present. War is one of the very few important human occurances that is intermitant.)--WardHayesWilson 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This needs more citations, espescially under "psychological theories". This sounds like Original Research.

23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

American "Civil War" was not a civil war at all.

Under the "By Cause" section of "Types of War and Warfare" I attempted to remove the American "Civil War" from the "Civil" row because by definition, it was not a civil war: a civil war is a conflict in which two more more factions fight for control of a nation's government.

ok. move to where? and union thought as civil war even though south didn't.

The English Civil War of the 1640s and the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s involved two factions that sought to control the governments of their respective countries. The seceding Southern states were *not* trying to take over the United States government; they wanted to declare themselves independent. It was not a civil war, and should not be labeled as such. - Quigley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.44.118 (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Incorrect. They were trying to take over the United States government... just not in all the areas it controlled. They were very much attempting to replace it in the South. It is labeled correctly. Two or more factions fighting to control a nations government... so you mean, like the Blue and the Grey fighting over the government of the South? Civil War. Unorthodox perhaps, but still fits the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dying soldier calling for his mother

where would be the article to learn more about this phenomenon? The Umbrella Corporation 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

bob was here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.48.215 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro

"War is a prolonged state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people."... shouldn't that read "War is a prolonged state of open, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)