i need 2 question answer Response each 150 words due in 1 hour

a) How is war accounted for in determinist models and in non-determinist models, respectively?

Ans

Determinist models seem to be about forces or movements that are inherent and beyond the scope of most people’s ability to largely affect it.  For some, the tides of war and peace are a cycle that is ever different and ever the same. For others it is a steady march forwards in which some things seem the same but are not.  Certain parts of the determinist models, such as the environmental/geographic is beyond the ability of humans to change and can affect the rise and fall of nations.  Others seem inherently human and yet still unchanging, such as the way theological rites, issues and powers constantly guide humans but are all despite protest, inherently the same with regards to good and bad perceptions.

 Non-determinist models rely on humans and instances to shape our history and future.  That it is the choices people on an individual scale that can affect history throughout the world.  That it is one person in the right place and time that either change things for the good or the bad.

In some ways I think that these two models really reflect either the Eastern pattern of thought or the Western pattern of thought. At least that is my observation at this time.

b) What is "non-rational causality" in the origin of wars when it comes to government leaders? What are some of the "non-rational" elements that might lead to war? Consider the work of Jack Levy, Robert Jarvis and/or George Quester.

 Ans

Domestic sources of war include economic variables, domestic politics and other causes at a society level. Jack Levy seems appalled and confused as to why political scientists who are interested in causes of war don’t seems as interested in the societal variables that affect a country that goes to war.  On the contrary historians are now putting an emphasis on the domestic causes of war.  One example given by Jack Levy is the “national attributes… which suggests that the attributes of states may constitute important variables contributing to war.” (pg 83)  Although important many scholars are more interested in the way the differences between the states causes war not the characteristics of that state.  To name a few of the other elements Jack Levy writes about: Democracy, economics, nationalism (this is one that I feel most correlates to the likelihood of war) and the scapegoat hypothesis.

 

I found Robert Jervis’s idea of misperceptions to be interesting and frankly of a non-determinist nature.   Of interest was this quote “Excessive military optimism is frequently associated with the outbreak of war.” (pg 102)  Which is an interesting way of saying that if somethings they can win the war then they are more inclined to go to war.  Also; “Scholars general focus on misjudgments of intentions rather than misjudgments of situations.” (pg 103)  What we are looking at is the ability of a nation and its leaders to know the facts and judge a situation to the abilities and values of the country.  One over calculation might be the example of the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor.  They had expected different results than what followed.  However it is hard to judge those who made decisions based on the information they had at the time, not the information we now have after the actions and consequences have been accrued.