War

War and Terrorism SOCY 3720-E01

Global Perspectives on Social Issues

Summer 2019

War and Terrorism Part I: War

 For this first part of the lecture we will be covering these main points:

 War  Trends  Theories of War  International Context of War and Peace  War and Its Effects  The Golden Age of Peace in an Age of Conflict

War

 A war is defined as “a major armed conflict between nations or between organized groups within a

nation in which 1,000 or more people are killed” (Renner 1997).

 “Modern warfare is no longer confined to opposing armies facing each other on the battlefield. Not is it

merely a matter of nuclear powers confronting each other with the thread of mass destruction. Rather the

small armaments that have flooded the world can be used by dissidents to destroy a nation’s

infrastructure” (Lauer & Lauer, 2008).

 Civil war and terrorism have also greatly contributed to different global struggles and a violent climate

in many countries and for many people.

 “The bloodiest wars in recent years have been civil wars and wars just involving two nations” (Renner,

1999).

 Over 1.5 million (97% of them civilians) died during Sudanese civil war and another million deaths

were recorded during the Mozambican civil war from 1981 until 1994. Four million perished during the

1998 war in Democratic Republic of Congo and approximately 1.5 million died between 1978 and 1992

while the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. (Lauer & Lauer, 2008).

 In the end, wars not only diminish quality of life, but also can include many sociocultural, sociopolitical,

and socioeconomic factors that contribute to the problem. (Lauer & Lauer, 2008).

 “Although the end of the cold war has somewhat lessened the threat of global war and nuclear holocaust,

the spread of advanced weapons around the globe, the rise of smaller nuclear powers such as North

Korea and Iran, and the worsening of the environmental and ethnic problems have increased the threat

of wars of all kinds in many parts of the world” (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

Trends

 Warfare remains a global scourge claiming the loss of millions of lives around the world (Kornblum &

Julian, 2012).

 Many people keep being displaced by different conflicts and this creates unique issues affecting

different people, societies, and countries in different ways. Refugee and asylum politics are highly

debated and they can also be highly divisive for different groups.

 Another war and terrorism trend is preventing some nations from producing nuclear weapons and to

keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist groups’ possession. This is a worldwide effort in many aspects

(Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

Theories of War

 Destruction scales have increased over the centuries due to armament and weaponry technology.

 The threat of nuclear holocaust is not necessarily remote anymore and the United States is still the only

country that has used nuclear bombs in war while also threating the use of nuclear weapons, at least, 11

times since 1946. Some of these instances include the Berlin crisis of 1961, the Cuban missile crisis of

1962, and in two different occasions during the Vietnam War (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Due to the immense stockpile of regular and nuclear weapons that many nations have around the world,

many people have started to study the causes of war with the primary focus of promoting peace

(Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Most theories about war cannot fully explain each war, but they mostly take on the narrow definition of

war as a conflict between nations (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Ethological and Sociobiological Theories:

 Ethologists and sociobiologists believe that “a predisposition to aggression may have been transmitted

genetically from one generation to the next” (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 The typical notion is that during early stages of human evolution, aggressive behavior usually improved

the chances for survival and therefore became ingrained in our genetic codes.

 Konrad Lorenz linked aggression with territoriality. He studied animal behavior and advanced the notion

that just as animals defend their nests humans fight to defend their nations (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Sociobiologists also “believe that humans have inherited a predisposition to engage in warfare.

However, they are also well aware of the influence exerted by culture” (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Critics of this approach argue that the motivation to fight can be a learned response to different stimuli

and that warfare is more complicated than fighting among animals. Behavior can be learned responses

and critics use this argument to deny genes influencing human behavior in general and in warfare

(Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Clausewitz - War as State Policy:

 In 1832 Carl von Clausewitz proposed one of the most influential theories about war.

 Clausewitz focused “on the role of the monarch and described war as an alternative to diplomacy,

engaged in for the purpose of gaining land, prestige, and other benefits. War is strictly a means to an end

to be used only if its benefits outweigh the costs. The resources of the whole nation should be mobilized

for just one purpose; victory” (Rapoport, 1968).

 Hence why Clausewitz tried to explain war as rational decisions of monarchs instead of irrational

elements of human nature such as the predisposition for aggression (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Marx and Lenin:

 Vladimir Lenin furthered Karl Marx’s ideas in order to present another theory for war. One that focuses

on the bourgeoisie controlling the means of production and the proletariat working for the bourgeoisie in

order to survive (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Lenin believed that the competition for resources and for building new colonies for Britain, France, and

Germany during the nineteenth and early twentieth century led to World War I (Kornblum & Julian,

2012).

 “The basis of war, then, is economic competition among national ruling classes. Lenin contended that

the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat would eventually remove this motivation for

warfare” (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Institutional and International Perspectives:

 Social scientists believe that non-economic factors are also to be considered when trying to explain war.

These explanations can be grouped into two types:

 “The first takes the individual nation as the unit of analysis and looks inside societies at the relationships

among institutions like the military, government, and business.

 The second group of explanations focuses on institutions and patterns of behavior that cut across

national boundaries.

 Organizations such as the United Nations, as well as international treaties and trade networks, are among

the factors that influence the likelihood of war or peace” (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

International Context of war and Peace

 Several organizations and socioeconomic forces have an effect on war and peace.

 There are plenty of sovereign states nowadays, each with its own specific set of interests. Since there is a

limited supply of natural resources, power, and prestige nations will compete with each other.

International cooperation is a conflict resolving force and it can be achieved through different

organizations such as The League of Nations or The United Nations, both examples of international

organizations that promote cooperation. Another major function of these organizations is the very

important role in the settlement of disputes (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 A second influential force in relation to war and peace is international trade.

 This practice tends to promote peace and “when influential citizens benefit economically from peaceful

relations, support for war is diminished. Moreover, trade promotes a common outlook as well as

common interests; trading partners are usually political partners” (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 As we develop a global economy with many different key players and world regions, market economies

and global competition will also increase. This will make the role of these international peacekeeping

organizations and international laws of paramount importance (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

War and Its Effects

 Between 1100 and 1925 it is estimated that approximately 35 million soldiers perished in some 862 wars

in Europe. (Sorokin, 1937).

 Another war death toll calculation includes approximately 29 million soldiers killed in 33 European

conflicts between 1816 and 1965. (Singer & Small, 1972).

 For World War I it is estimated that 8 million soldiers died along with 1 million civilians. (Kornblum &

Julian 2004).

 Approximately 17 million soldiers and 35 million civilians were killed During World War II. (Kornblum

& Julian 2004).

 Between the years of 1986 and 1999, 1.3 million political refugees were granted asylum in the United

States. (Kornblum & Julian 2004).

 Soldiers can experience nonfatal wounds that require medical care for several months or even longer

while many sustain injuries that prevent them from holding a job or returning to a normal way of life.

(Kornblum & Julian 2004).

 Think about all the necessary disability laws that were passed after the Vietnam ‘conflict,’ when this

country suffered so many human losses and so many wounded retired veterans needed all the

accommodations that many people with physical disabilities have nowadays.

 Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), “can occur after you have been through a trauma. PTSD can

happen to anyone. When you are in the military you may see combat. You may have been on missions

that exposed you to horrible and life-threatening experiences. These type of events can lead to PTSD”

(www.ptsd.va.gov).

 The recent statistics being reported as of May 2012 pointed out to 18 veterans committing suicide per

day. A new report from February 1, 2013 conducted by a Veterans Affair researcher points out to 22

veterans committing suicide every day and this number is still relevant today. This represents a rise of

20% since 2007. In 2012, the United States lost more veterans to suicide than military combat.

(www.va.gov)

 Dr. Janet Kemp, the VA’s National Mental Health Director for Suicide Prevention released a January

2014 study report where the same number of suicides per day (22) is still being reported (that constitutes

8,030 suicides per year).

 She did add that “young male veterans under the age of 30 are three times more likely to commit suicide

when compared to civilian males in the same age bracket” (Kemp, 2014).

 She also stated that “the number of veteran suicides largely remained unchanged between 2009 to 2012,

but the number of male veteran between the ages of 18 to 24 who committed suicide increased by a rate

of 33 per 100,000 over the three year period” (Kemp, 2014).

 The study also found that “overall, male veterans between the age of 18 to 24 and female veterans were

most likely to commit suicide. About 70 percent of male veterans who committed suicide took their

lives with firearms, while nearly 80 percent of female veterans died as a result of poison or firearms.

Racially speaking, 87% of suicides were committed by Whites” (Kemp, 2014).

 Estimated Number of Veteran Suicides per day by Year

Source (Kemp, 2014)

The Golden Age of Peace in an Age of Conflict

 In our past and present international sociopolitical environment one of the most crucial issues has been

and will continue to be war.

 Statistics about war can be very alarming, but the trends in war data, especially data gathered by the

Correlates of War Project (COW) can convey good news and bad news (Cashman & Robinson, 2007).

 The Good News:

 “It is generally believed that since the sixteenth century interstate wars have become less frequent,

though there was an increase in such wars in the twentieth century” (Cashman & Robinson, 2007).

 “Since the number of new states in the international system has increased faster than the number of

wars, the average number of wars per state has declined substantially from 0.744 in the decade after

1890 to 0.171 in the 1990s” (Sarkees, Wayman, Singer, 2003).

 “Not only have purely interstate wars been less frequent in the post-World War II era, but violent

interstate conflicts of all kinds have steadily decreased since 1945” (Pfetsch & Rohloff, 2000).

 “This is largely accounted for by the disappearance of ‘extra-systemic wars’ such as imperial and

colonial wars, now that most colonial states have become independent” (Sarkees, Wayman, Singer,

2003).

 The Bad News:

 The level of possible destruction that has been achieved through military and weaponry technology can

be a powerful reassuring factor for some and for others it is unthinkable and even unjustifiable.

 Whether these weapons are considered to be ‘peacekeeping’ weapons or not, to put it in perspective

“nuclear bombs more than 1,600 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima have now

become standard in the weapons system of the major world powers” (Kornblum & Julian, 2012).

 Another example points out to what the Natural Resource Defense Council reported when stating that

“the 192 missile warheads on one U.S. Trident submarine – constituting less than 3 percent of the

existing U.S. arsenal – could cause more than 50 million casualties if programmed to hit major urban

areas of a nation” (Barry & Thomas, 2001).

 As Cashman and Robinson mention “the worst wars of the present age are really considerably worse

than those in the past.

 Although the great powers do not go to war as often as in previous centuries, when they do, the resulting

conflicts have been increasingly more deadly.

 Of all those who have died in wars of all types since the year 1000, 75 percent are believed to have died

in the twentieth century and 89 percent have died since 1800” (Cashman & Robinson, 2007).