( Eight minute read) 

Endeavours to understand the nature of war, to formulate some theory of its causes, conduct, and prevention, are of great importance, for theory shapes human expectations and determines human behaviour.

If the source of a conflict doesn’t go away, however, there is every possibility that the conflict will erupt again, violently or otherwise.

However war is an extremely complex social phenomenon that cannot be explained by any single factor or through any single approach. The first thing to remember is that people have a penchant for violence so the causes of a war are usually numerous and can often be intertwined in a complicated way.

Although the theoretical understanding of the various causes of wars is developing well, and there are innumerable case studies of war and analyses of particular conflicts, systematic empirical work that analyzes the origins of wars across many cases is still relatively lacking.

A richer understanding of the origins of wars would help further advance the theory, and would help in sorting more frequent and important causes, from those which are less so and ultimately would help in developing policies aimed at avoiding the costs of conflict.

You could say that the above is a load of crap.  After all War is War and only stops when one side sumits to the other.   

Here is my theory. 

Wars in the main are caused by Inequality. 

Once the military function became differentiated and separated from civilian ones, a tension between the two became one of the most important issues of politics.

Why? 

Because the military strive for war, in which they attain greater resources and can satisfy their status seeking and, sometimes, also an aspiration for direct and full political power.

It’s not World War III yet, but there are more wars raging across the globe today than there have been since 1945. Foreboding figures from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) reveal the number of people globally engaged in deadly conflict shot up a staggering 97 percent in 2022 – sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And since the October 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel, yet another major war to a growing list of 57 major and smaller conflicts.

As we begin 2024, if wars weren’t worrying enough, international storm clouds are coming with the US and the Uk Elections, both now engaging the Huti in Yemen, while the Libyan and Iran and Iraq are more and more likely to get involved in a widening the current war. 

For 16 years, Israel’s illegal blockade has made Gaza the world’s biggest open-air prison – the international community must act now to prevent it becoming a giant graveyard.

Decades of impunity and injustice and the unprecedented level of death and destruction of the current offensive will only result in further violence and instability in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

We are now looking at a potential expansion of Israel’s campaign in Gaza, which has already devastated much of the territory and forced 1.8 million people from their homes, killing at least 23,968 people, mostly women and children. As the world watches on helpless, because of American and British support.

Is there anything that you can do?  Yes boycott buying any Israel products.

 WHAT CAN THE UNITED NATIONS DO? 

At the moment, there is a lot of talk about warfare—and very little about peace solutions.

Along the road to ending apartheid in South Africa the Security Council, in 1963, instituted a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, and the General Assembly refused to accept the country’s credentials from 1970 to 1974. Following this ban, South Africa did not participate in further proceedings of the Assembly until the end of apartheid in 1994.

We may as well add the Israeli-Palestinian War (or genocide), since grounds were set in 1994 for a true Palestinian state. Israel first took over their water supply, then their best agricultural lands, and has been forcefully encroaching themselves further and further into Palestinian territory ever since.

Someone who did not condemn Hamas for the brutal massacre of 1,200 Israelis … but instead condemns Israel, a democratic country that protects its citizens, cannot serve in the UN and cannot enter Israel!”

At least 130 UNRWA staff have been killed in Israeli bombings throughout the war. This is the highest number of UN personnel killed in a conflict in the history of the organisation.

Why not suspend Israel? 

The United Nations General Assembly passed more resolutions critical of Israel than against all other nations combined in 2022, contributing to what observers call an ongoing lopsided focus on the Jewish state at the world body.

The UN Security Council is unable to act because of the lack of unanimity among its five veto-wielding permanent members, the Assembly has the power to make recommendations to the wider UN membership for collective measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, unlike Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, meaning that countries are not obligated to implement them.

Unless they agree to their own expulsion or suspension, permanent Council members can only be removed through an amendment of the UN Charter, as set out in Chapter XVIII. 

Impose a comprehensive arms embargo on all parties to the conflict given that serious violations amounting to crimes under international law are being committed. States must refrain from supplying Israel with arms and military materiel, including related technologies, parts and components, technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance. They should also call on states supplying arms to Palestinian armed groups to refrain from doing so.

Pressure Israel to lift its illegal 16-year blockade of the Gaza strip which amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s population, is a war crime and is a key aspect of Israel’s apartheid system.

Wars have been a part of human history for thousands of years, and have become increasingly destructive as industrialization and technology have advanced.

Literature on war and its causes assumes security is the principal motive of states and insecurity the major cause of war.

Whatever the other reasons for a war may be, there is very often an economic motive underlying most conflicts, even if the stated aim of the war is presented to the public as something more noble.

When war breaks out the basic questions are however the same:

What are the interests of the actors involved? What positions do they hold?

Of course these can be more than complex when deep rooted religious beliefs are involved. They can lie dormant for decades, only to re-emerge in a flash at a later date. Nationalism in this context essentially means attempting to prove that your country is superior to another by violent subjugation.

This often takes the form of an invasion.

Related to nationalism is imperialism, which is built on the idea that conquering other countries is glorious and brings honor and esteem to the conqueror. Racism can also be linked to nationalism. Revenge also relates to nationalism, as the people of a country which has been wronged are motivated to fight back.

Of course, the points of view differ greatly. As long as opinions exist, there will always be conflict.

Most wars are fought with the intention of beating the enemy and effectively imposing peace on the victor’s terms. Unfortunately, this can lead to an endless chain of retaliatory wars being set in motion which is very difficult to stop.

Today none of these motives are effectively served by war – it is increasingly counterproductive – and that there is growing recognition of this political reality. In the modern world, where military aggression is more widely questioned, countries will often argue that they are fighting in a purely defensive capacity against an aggressor, or potential aggressor, and that their war is therefore a “just” war.

Of course, the viability of any solutions will depend on the course of the wars in the days and weeks ahead.

We have created Nato a war Pact disguised as a peace pact, with increased military preparedness may result in increased tensions and thus indirectly lead to the outbreak of war. This is why admitting the Ukraine into Nato will cause world war three.  

As technologies advance, wars can be fought increasingly with automated weaponry, such as drones and missiles, with less and less need for a traditional army. Cyber warfare is also on the rise.

Although industrialists in all the technologically advanced systems are undoubtedly influential in determining such factors as the level of armaments to be maintained, it is difficult to assume that their influence is or could be decisive when actual questions concerning war or peace are being decided by politicians. Attacking them before they inevitably attack us.

Consequently, although modern war technology depends heavily upon scientists and although many of them are employed by governments in work directly or indirectly concerned with this technology, scientists as a group are far from being wedded to war.

On the contrary, many of them are deeply concerned with the mass destruction made possible by science and participate in international pacifist movements.

————————–

Finally if one looks at war from a philosophically point of view, how can one own what one did not create?

No human created the universe. How can human own parts of the universe?

The phenomenon of war must, therefore, be analyzed at the universal level.

Regional integration is an important advance toward reducing the incidence of war. Even if it were to become generally successful, however, regional integration would simply shift the problem of war to a different level: there would be fewer possibilities of war because interregional conflicts would be contained, but interregional conflicts could still give rise to wars of much greater scope and severity.

International law, although they differ fundamentally from municipal law because no sovereign exists who can enforce them. It concerns itself largely with two aspects of war: its legality and its regulation.

On multiple occasions that international humanitarian law was being violated in the war between Israel and the Palestinian armed group Hamas.

Hence, what the procedures really offer is a means of slowing down the progression of a dispute toward war, giving reason a chance to prevail. 

We have Russia claiming that the Ukrainian state is an artificial entity,  China claiming that Twain is not a state but is part of China, and we have Israel a Western manufacturer state, denying statehood to Palestine.

The apapity of Americans (now living in the only world democracy that is unable to transfer power with an election) is going to face the amber of a civil war if Trump get elected or not elected at the end of the year. 

If individual states in competitive situations are governed by a short-term conception of their interests, acute conflicts between them will occur and will show a strong tendency to escalate as future wars caused by climate change, will be fought more often over fundamental essentials, such as water and food.

It is thus possible that international organizations can contribute to the prevention of wars by devising and institutionalizing alternative, peaceful techniques for the settlement of disputes and by persuading the states to use them.

The scope of this approach is limited, for states are notoriously reluctant to abide by impartial findings on matters they regard as being of vital importance.

War’s can only be abolished by a full-scale world government to the prevention and mitigation of war with all the means at their disposal. 

Nations have not managed to agree on an unequivocal definition of aggression, have not in practice accepted the principle that aggression must be acted against independently of the identity of the perpetrator, and, therefore, have not established the international collective security force.

If they were to establish such a force that concentrates upon forestalling violence by bringing to bear an overwhelmingly superior international force against any aggressor. It would not work without the use of nuclear weapons which might see the demise of the Human species and the end of wars. 

Ask yourself, looking at today’s conflicts across the world, is it more likely that that number grows or reduces?

What can be done?

Governments place sanctions, you can place #boycotts.  THERE ARE NO LAWS TO STOP YOU doing so.  

Whether you like it or not the Gun rules the world and there are thousands to choose from,  Kalashnikov- MG24 – BREN-VICKER-THOMPSON-STEN – LEWIS  – LUGER- BERETTA -LUSSO to mention a few that have killed thousands all with nice names. 

ALL HUMAN COMMENTS APPRECIATED. ALL LIKE CLICKS AND ABUSE CHUCKED IN THE BIN

CONTACT: BOBDILLON33@GMAIL.COM