Talk:War

2008 Alliances

Is that image still up to date? If so can we list it as 2009? Cs302b (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (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)

War need not be violent, as in the case of economic was, or war on illegal cigarette importers, and can even be beneficial to humanity, such as war on obesity ;) I speak from experience of having participated in voluntary and mercenary capacity in several recent campaigns on bureaucracy, ignorance, and intolerance. Currently serving in the Fourth War against Federal Bureaucracy, in the Postal Services campaign, counter-franchise special operations unit ;)--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are Two Dictionary Definitions

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=war :

1. S: (n) war, warfare (the waging of armed conflict against an enemy) "thousands of people were killed in the war"
2. S: (n) war, state of war (a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply) "war was declared in November but actual fighting did not begin until the following spring"
3. S: (n) war, warfare (an active struggle between competing entities) "a price war"; "a war of wits"; "diplomatic warfare"
4. S: (n) war (a concerted campaign to end something that is injurious) "the war on poverty"; "the war against crime"

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/war : 1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c: variance, odds 3

Both clearly differentiate between the original meaning - armed conflict - and the evolved meaning, any kind of conflict. Current article definition does not clearly make these distinctions, is rambling, has some POV and questionably sourced (no page numbers) info. And what's with this "organisms"?? I'll suggest a shorter more accurate and clear one soon. Including after I look at past definitions in history of this article. Carol Moore 13:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

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)

It's worth putting in a total death toll section, with various estimates. The upper limit of the listed wards is just under 0.5 billion, which sounds plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fig wright (talk • contribs) 08:58, 8 July 2008 (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)

There is DPU, environmental damge, fires, relatively maximal pollutants in such fire, oil being a strategical target, industry and transport being that, (un)exploded munition, woodcut, usually there is a deposit of war_byproducts, otherways useless extreme chemicals and materials must be produced,etc. etc., and it all uses maximum amounts of fuel with minimum regulations. maintaining armys elsewhere, evrything to do with war, pollutes. militairy industry is more then 60% of us export, as such something in the ordre of 6-18% of the worlds pollution is produced for that only. I do think that military industries these days apply practical environmental knowledge where they can at low cost or to great effect. It is not so that it is a sector that deserves to be cheered for it's environmental prestations. Untill perhaps 2000 the military complex was especially backward in that respect. Although in europe some industry became better regulated somewhat before that through general regulation. Elsewhere probably military industry and activity has similar priority, as a result the situations there will be probably worse then here, limited even less by investment and more to the technological advance. 62.194.105.42 (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted about your link on genocides of the 20th Century, that genocide is more specific than merely being a campaign which results in the death of many people, it refers specifically to an attempt to wipe or destroy an identifiable group, including practices and policies which do not include outright killing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.36.40 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2008 (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)

You could say the same thing about any social problem, such as crime. Entire books have been written on different theories for what causes crime, without emerging on a single definitive answer. Does that mean that half the criminal justice curriculm is worthless? Almost everything about war 'matters' because war has pretty much defined the political, technological, and social landscapes of history as we know it. Pick up any history book and you'll see that the periods of the greatest change and upheaval surround eras of war. 208.79.15.102 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2009 (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)

Not being American (Aussie actually) - wasn't it technically a war of secession called the "Civil War"? (Seriously - I've never really studied the causes etc of it in detail - just the tech, battles etc.)Akitora (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Akitora on this one although i must admit that my knowledge is also patchy being a devilish redcoat! The South wanted their own government that was seperate from the Northern one. (User:Willski72)Willski72 (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Akitora has a point. As wars of secession have become increasingly common, this article should note that the war in America called, variously, the Civil War and The War Between the States, is actually an example of a war of secession. Like most such wars, it was unsuccessful. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be daft! At essence a war is about states, what for their time and place constitute states, contending through organised physical violence. The Civil war in America 1861 - 65 was between two governments contending for the control of Souther Society. This is still a war. what distinguishes it as a civil war is that the contending parties were both drawing support from the same society. Hm, I hope that makes sense. What this article needs more than anything else is a decent definition of what constitutes a war. Something that can differentiate War from other conflicts and from pseudo wars where the term is used as a metaphor to dramatise a situation.The Unclean (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unclean (talk • contribs)

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, young men, 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)

Vandalism

Someone added this edit, "barbie invaded the hawaians and captured hawain ken and they lived happily ever after," under the demographic theories section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.98.121.2 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. It really happened. Hawain Ken FTW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.16.9 (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Evolutionary Psychology

I welcome rewrites to what I posted in this section as I recognize that writing in the proper encyclopedia style is not my strong suit. What had stood as the "Evolutionary Psychology" view of war however was both incorrect and not nuetral and I felt it needed to be changed. The source was one published paper in Mankind Quarterly, which is not an Evolutionary Psychology journal, and the paper does not conform to established methodologies in the field. As I point out in my post the content also is not consistent with the Theory of Evolution and so it cannot be consistent with Evolutionary Psychology. Finally the published paper does not cite any other sources on the topic within Evolutionary Psychology. It is just the views of one person who claims it is based on Evolutionary Psychology. He does attempt to use some EP theoretical sources, but this is far short of what makes a true EP theory of war.

My attempted correction is based on one recent book published by a professor recognized as working within Evolutionary Psychology and using its methodology and sources and one still unpublished paper which is my own. The paper has been presented at a Symposium on the Psychology of War and postered at a Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference (the EP conference). I think a look at my references http://theroadtopeace.blogspot.com/ compared to the references of the other paper http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 will be illuminating as to which source is a serious scholarly effort, which is required for such a topic, and working within Evolutionary Psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribalypredisposed (talk • contribs) 12:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthropological explanations

This section has no citations, could someone please verify or trim? SedatedGodzilla 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Box

There is a box at the bottom of the War page that needs editing (the dates of Alexander the Great are wrong, for example). The box seems to be in the wrong place, and I cannot discover how to edit it. Help? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Quest for Neutrality

War has been with the humanity since we had family groups attacking each other for the same resources of food and water. With the invention of farming, culture, as some call it, the groups grew bigger. The human population of the world has been growing at an exponential rate for the last few hundred years, while it was fluctuating in a low but steady number for over 500 hundred years, and back in antiquity, had been before the invention of farming some 10000 years ago. A hundred thousand years ago the number of humans on Earth was in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands.

They had to compete with each other for the same scarce food and water there was, and so do we today, only through proxy. There's not enough for all of us, so wars occur. Either because of a good reason, or only because people want to compete. It's not about survival, it's about competition for survival. That's why people make short term choices that in the long term turn out to be mistakes. They only look at what's in it for them in the short term.

Oh, did I say neutrality? I meant objectivity, but that's beyond the scope of this wiki. Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.201.80 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

it was not thousands a hundred kA ago, there have never been only 1000s of chimpansees or even tigers or lions, excempting catastrophical ecological niches (and then still) there have logically been 100000(s) already for millions of years, considering something like 120k lions for africa is low.62.194.105.42 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Feminist Theories?

Surely we should mention that there has been speculation upon the connection between war and masculinity. In fact, I don't see anything gender-related here at all, despite the masculinity of the vast majority of heads of state.

Bleedingcherub (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

War is not really connected to masculinity. It is due to the fact that many leaders both present and past were men. If you look there were also wars started by women, though most were small due to the lack of influence they held in those times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtGeneral Snow (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't answer the point that there is a body of theorising from feminist perspectives about war.The Unclean (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LC move

I have no objection to the move, but a cited reference is not uncited. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

edit wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Jafar

the current article got wrong facts. HumayunMirzaJR (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this paragraph be added to the morality section?

The killing of other human beings for gain or benefit is always morally wrong, and this transcends cultures. However, when war happens, it is not about right or wrong, but win or lose, victory or defeat, live or die. In this scenario, anything goes, until the losing side is either annihilated, surrendered, or fled to a place the victor does not care about chasing after. When soldiers engage in fierce combats, they do not care about dying anymore, but about living by the second and killing as many of the enemy as they can. The goal is to inflict as much damage on the enemy and end the war in the shortest time possible, and it is often this reason that atrocities are committed. Whether the actions are morally justified is not considered in the heat of the moment during battle, but after the war has ended. In battle, it is morally justified to kill the other person to save one's own life, because everyone knows they would have done the same thing had they been placed in the same situation.

It's a logical conclusion and should be included.--24.63.227.223 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is based on a number of assumptions and there is nothing 'logical' about it. The problems start with the very first sentence that states 'the killing of human beings for gain or benefit is always morally wrong, and this transcends cultures.' This is neither proven, nor logical, nor objectively true. It is an opinion, and is therefore not a 'logical conclusion.' The second big problem is your assumption that soldiers do not care about living or dying, but only killing, and that morality goes out the window. This is blatantly false, and it is clear that you have never been a soldier, or have ever even spoken to a soldier who has been in combat. All told, it sounds like you wrote this after playing a video game. Regardless, this content is not verifiable, encyclopedic, or logically conclusive, and it has no place in Wikipedia. 208.79.15.102 (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously misleading

The current definition of war is unsatisfactory. Whoever created the definition "War is any violent conflict on a large scale" did not read the discussion page before making this change.

War is not any violent conflict on a large scale. Certainly the violent competition between hundreds of men in which people are regularly hurt and occasionally killed fits the definition above. It also, however, fits the National Football League. The Chicago riots of 1968 also fit the above-defintion. The reason we have words like 'riot' and 'donnybrook' and 'melee' is that it is possible to have a variety of large-scale conflicts which are not war.

In addition, no one would describe a conflict fought with bare hands as a war, no matter what the scale.

One might argue that the violent suppression of rebellion was not war, yet it certainly involves violence and can have large scale. Does the Armenian genocide, for instance, fit this definition?

This simple definition has admirable brevity and is conceptually clear. It does not, however, adequately describe the phenomenon and must be changed. WardHayesWilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

11/08/2004, contact address, jonathan.dowdall@kcl.ac.uk, (User talk:jdowdall) "War is any large scale, violent conflict" It has been noted that this phrase 'simply will not do', and comments have been made as to what needs to be changed. Here are a few thoughts on both the opening statement and the comments left by other users.

This opening statement, and subsequent attempts at a more accurate appraisal all fall far short of a satisfying defintion. Comments already suggested include references to "Nation State", "Polity" and even more perplexingly, land ownership as a pre-requisite for the armed forces required to define war as seperate from conflict or violence. Furthermore, the inclusion of "large scale", indicating size is a factor, raises questions about which scale is best used. (Many wars have seen very small casualties for some sides and a great many for the other, so scale would seem subjective, and best avoided. Also, scale is rarely referenced elsewhere in the article, so it seems out of place in the opening statement.)

All such points negate some fundamental elements required to appreciate the meaning of war, though they are relevent in varying degrees.

As a starting point, I would suggest referencing, Clausewitz, Carl Von, (1976) "On War", (Princeton and New Jersey Press). This is the better of several English translations of the text and the copy verifyed for academic use at the War Studies Department of Kings College London. It's classic idiom "[War is] a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means." (pg.87) summarizes succintly a complex topic, whilst aptly bypassing needless complications in defining the exact nature of the political units involved.

To press the point that it is not the existance of, but the nature of, these political units which matters when discussing war, I would then suggest refrencing, Keegan, John, (1994) "A History Of Warfare", (Pimlico). A study of warfare both ancient and modern, a staggeringly short-handed summary might read as follows. (not a direct qoute) 'Warfare is a cultural entity defined by many possible factors.' It might then be useful to list the possibilities, such as technology, religion, population density and geography, the underlying message being the universality of warfare in concept, but its infintiely variable manifestation based on the societies which wage it.

This would seem a wiser introduction to the historical run-down which the article contains, as in each era we see radically different applications and forms of war.

I would happily draft an alternative opening paragraph based on these thoughts if there are no immediate objections?

Sino-Japanese War

Under the death tolls section, the Sino-Japanese war is listed as 1937-1945 - but most of this was actually part of WW2. Could someone add a note to this article clarifying whether death tolls for the Sino-Japanese war are overlapping with WW2?

Also, I'm sure there's been discussing on this, but it doesn't seem right to include Spanish Flu death as part of WW1. Considering that millions dies in places that saw no combat (the USA), it seems that these are two separate events that simply happened at the same time.

the epidemic was directly linked to the millions of mal-nourished and filthy soldiers who picked up and carried the Spainish Flu from the fields of Europe to their families around the world. The mass movement of population which caused the outbreak, and the poor hygiene and health of the war strained population, directly added to the strains severity. If the figures for ww2 deaths can include starvation in Russia, then the Flu Epidemic of ww1 is equally applicable as a direct result of war.

2nd September. 2008 jdowdall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowdall (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The information on deaths that occured in the Sino-Japenese war is also included in the death toll for World War II. Basically, we are counting the same deaths twice. We either need to only include deaths that occured prior to 1939 in the Sino-Japenese War totals or completly delete the information and make a not on the WWII total that says, including the Sino-Japanese War.

ie: World War II (including Sino-Japenese war) or Sino-Japenese War (prior to 1939).

But the total deaths would need to be changed to reflect the new annotation, if we do the later. I would prefer to delete the Sino-Jpanese War info in favor of just having it all fall under the headline "WWII".--Jojhutton (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese War is always a part of World War II, it just didn't occur in Europe; WWII started early for China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.67.53 (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical causes of war edit by 71.188.7.72

I'd like to discuss this rather massive edit. While it is not without merit, some of the discarded previous content seems to be unnecessarily discarded--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Amarah

In editing the above article, Battle of Amarah, which lasted two days, the question is raised...is this a war or does its brevity, alone,hinder the use of "war" to descibe it in an encyclopedia...(I don't want to get into an editing war with either side)--Buster7 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

"War is the state of prearranged conflict that creates an environment conducive to combined hostile efforts between two engaging parties in order to facilitate the transfer of power."

This sentence is thoroughly confusing compared to the otherwise coherant opening paragraph defining war. The number of variables placed upon War, whilst clearly designed to remove ambiguity, actually obscures the nature of war behind endless inaccurate provisions. For instance,

"Prearranged conflict." - I presume this attempts to allude the idea that War is a recognised legal and societal condition recognised by both parties. However, that is now what "prearranged" really indicates. Does prearranged mean both parties agree to carry out a conflict before it starts? What about surprise attack at the opening of war? "Prearranged fails" to convey the understanding that war is a recognised societal norm by indicating something about prior knowledge in an individual conflict.

"Environment" - War does not create an environment, it creates a legal, political and moral condition that stands apart from peace. Condition would be the word used by realists and liberals alike to descrubes war's unique standing in international relations. Environment is not satisfactory and unnsessecarily distorts clear thought on the subject of war.

"Combined hostile efforts" - It would seem this attempts to make clear that war (to qoute Clausewitz) "is not an isolated event." War takes more then a single blow, making co-ordination nessecary. However, who is combined in this effort and in what sense are their actions "combined"? Does it mean that war is only war if everyone fighting on each side works together? The word "combined" is a poor choice. Presumabley the use of the word combined is in fact supposed to indicate reciprocity. the meeting of two forces leads to a reciprical application of force, as otherwise it would not be war but an occupation, genocide or simply murder. To used the word "combined" and not reciprical is too completely miss the point.

"Two engaging parties" - A good attempt at avoiding a state-centric definition of war, but perhaps "units" would be a better term to use regarding the literature on this subject. Also, why two? War may involve more then two engaging parties.

"Facilitate the transfer of power." - Just plain wrong. Firstly, is all war about facilitating the transfer of power? Is not some so called "primitive warfare" about taking hostages or woman? Was not some feudal warfare fought over religious beliefs linked to goals exterior from the physical world, such as the salvation of the soul during the crusades? Moreover, why transfer of power? Can it truely be said that power changes hands at the end of a war? Or is it more clear (using Clausewitizian logic) to say that in losing a war one side is disarmed, and thus rendered powerless, so that the other side can subject them to its will using its power. Power is not transfered, but one side is reduced so that the other can force it under its remaining power. The point about power and War is the gap between a units will, its intentions and desires, and its ability to make others do its will. The gap between a unit which desires another to submit to it and the actual practice can be achieved many ways, but rendering them powerless through war is a historically proven method. War is a method, a means, to WHATEVER POLITICAL GOAL A UNIT HAS. That goal could be anything, from feudal religous faith, to tribal feuds to Imperial domination. "Power transfer" is hopelessly inaccurate to encapsulate such an idea.

In short, the later paragraph qoutes Clausewitz and Keegan in its definitions, two concise and intelligent theorists on war. However, this opening sentence captures none of their logic and none of their clarity. It is convoluted and inaccurate, and needs to b changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowdall (talk • contribs) 11:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the obsession with consistent edits about scale being a fundamental attribute of the parties which may wage war! Do they intent to ellaborate by defining which size group constitutes a party which may wage war? Is ten people enough? is five? Or is the scale irrlevant, and the important element is that warfare is the manifestattion of a political will into violent means by a political community towards an external end-goal? Scale. Is. Irrelevant.

I agree totally. The lede was much better a long time ago. The guardians of the gates have been asleep on guard duty. Fix it, please. Just be careful that your definition does not apply to a)a riot or b)battles between police and criminals (such as those in the US during prohibition).Rick Norwood (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The important element is the political unity of the actors involved, and their representation of a political community. As long as you maintain this distinction other forms of violence cannot be confused with war, despite passing simalairities between means etc.

A few intro changes I added

I added in the following blurbs

"With the aspects of warfare (weapons, strategy, etc.) always changing, the battlefield doctrine on way wars have been fought have been almost absolutely ratified before, during, and after every major war. This was clearly evident in the 18-20th century where the industrial revolution had a major influence on the art of the military where the techniques of gunpowder warfare was nearly erradicated by the year 1900.

Organizations and Nations abroad may take extreme measures to both prevent and instigate warfare. This may take many forms including espionage, sanctions, embargos, and protests"

"A proxy war is a war that results when two powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each other directly."

"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."

"War is still hell anyway you look at it" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt igor (talk • contribs) 02:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit these at your will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.139.229 (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

War reenactment link?

Could we add a link to American Civil War reenactment to show that if men still want war, they can pretend to die & kill others? Stars4change (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Spurious French-English-Persian connection

"The French word 'Guerre' and the English word 'War' and their equivalents, are believed to have been taken from the Persian word 'Kar', meaning war"

This is a complete nonsence. Kar is cognate to German kreig, but not to English war. It can be verified through any etymological dictionary, such as American Heritage. I suggest to remove this nonsence.--79.111.84.169 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is a link between the middle-lowgerman `Ur-luig´ (modern dutch: orlog) an `war´! This conjunction aims to an unpublished abbreviation-theory of mine, which combines the early writing of `uuarre´, `uuerre´ a.s.o. to the first part of the saxon `Urluig´ - which means the `contractless status between communities´. The modern-german `Krieg´ established in the 15th century and means every possessional struggle between two parties. So, maybe `War´ is just a relict of an older anglosaxon form of `urluig´. Besides: After this explanation, `War´ would be also the archetypical meaning for a runic symbol (Ur) (excuse my `kraut´english)--139.30.24.119 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was able to find this on Take Our Word For It:

As for the English word war, it comes from Old North French werre "war," a dialectical form of Old French guerre "war." In the early 12th century it was wyrre in English, then uuerre, and then werre. The Old North French term comes from prehistoric Germanic *werra "confusion, strife."

Dictionary.com confirms this. If you scroll down the page, the American Heritage Dictionary (AHD) entry indicates that Germanic "werra" derives from the Indo-European root "wers-" meaning "to confuse, or mix up." I tried to look it up on the AHD's list of Indo-European roots on Bartleby.com, but that reference doesn't appear to exist anymore. Anyway, I hope this helps.--Pariah (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Morality of War

The sentence 'One major depression, the Great Depression, was ended because of World War II,' is highly POV, and without citation. Can someone who supports this viewpoint find a cite, and reword this as a cited opinion, not a fact? Most historians agree that, in the US at least, FDR ended the Great Depression, and by the time WWII came around, the economy had recovered completely.Loverevolutionary (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this statement needs rewording and a citation. It is important to remember that there may not be a consensus opinion to relate here, and in this case there probably is not one narrative that "most historians" would agree on. Given enough wine, a hundred years and a locked room, we might be able to get a group of historians to settle on an ending date to the Great Depression. There are certainly those who argue that war is an economic booster and those who argue the opposite; we need to cover those arguments in this article, though probably not in very great detail. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition

"War" can mean a variety of things; this is not well explained in the article's definition. I suggest that the article is made a disambugation page stating that it may refer to - a type of social relationship (aka 2 entities being "at war" or "[[Being in conflict|in conflict") - the duration of a conflict; aka a period of conflict

At the Being in conflict page, it may be described that a conflict or war can be solved by either in a armed or unarmed fashion (the latter being divided into "talking it out" or "fighting it out; using unarmed combat"

Finally, it should be mentioned that the opposite of war isn't peace (the latter being essantially a period of no conflict, it is "finding practical solutions to ensure that no conflicts can arise" (see http://gracetopia.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/the-opposite-of-war-isnt-peace-its-creation/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.66.161 (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote

Perhaps include this quote:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. -Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi