Category: War

On the night of August 2, 1990, Iraqi military forces invaded the territory of the neighboring state of Kuwait from the northern border. The main reason for this invasion was the Iraqi sides claim to Kuwaiti territory as a subject emirate (Moger, 2021). This military conflict between the two states resulted in a significant two-year war between Iraq and the United Alliance, representing the military forces of several dozen nations, including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, and the USSR. The historical notoriety of this conflict stems from the extensive use of aviation as an additional force, causing severe damage to enemy forces, including infrastructural and human casualties. This essay seeks to examine in detail the air defense artillery role in this war.

Air military forces were predominantly employed by the Alliance. It is reported that the U.S. Air Force alone flew more than 59% of all combat sorties, which enhanced the attack on enemy military and civilian infrastructure (DAF, 1991). Meanwhile, the Iraqi Army also used military aircraft, which posed threats to Alliance forces. In order to effectively protect its resources, the Alliance had to use air defense. The central ADA systems used by Alliance forces were the Patriot missile system and the Avenger (Shepherd, 2020). The Avenger air defense system had a short range, mainly used in small areas. The advantage of the Avenger was its comparable mobility, which allowed the installation to be deployed quickly and aimed directly at an approaching projectile. The Patriot missile system was used primarily to destroy approaching enemy missiles and warplanes. Each Patriot air defense system consisted of a radar system and command and launch facilities. The Patriot radar could detect approaching missiles, while the command unit intercepted the projectile and destroyed it. It is not known precisely how each of these air defenses destroyed many Iraqi missiles, but it is known that these systems have proven highly effective and usable on the battlefield.

It is fair to say that Alliance air defenses have effectively deterred attacks but have not repelled all combat arrivals. In particular, several Iraqi missiles could reach their targets in Saudi Arabia, passing the Patriot air defense defenses, with three casualties (Army, n.d.). This is just one example, but the Alliances existing air defense resources needed improvement. Therefore, the ADA used additional units, not just Patriot and Avenger. Such air defense systems used during the Gulf War include the Stinger and the first used MIM-104 Patriot, a portable air defense system for defense against warplanes and cruise missiles (Moger, 2021). The ADA has also been known to use signal jamming and distortion on enemy radars to ensure invisibility to its missiles and to disrupt approaching enemy missiles (Creighton, n.d. ). In other words, many devices and systems were used in the ADA arsenal during this military conflict, each addressing practical objectives.

The extensive use of air artillery system attacks and the use of air defenses to defend against enemy missiles demonstrated the high importance to the victory of the Alliance forces. According to the executive director of The Army Historical Foundation and a U.S. Army veteran, the strength of such air defenses consisted not only of their ability to repel attacks effectively but also to put psychological pressure on the enemy (Creighton, n.d.). Many air defense systems were used for the first time in the Gulf War, which put pressure on Iraqi forces.

Thus, the primary role of air defense during the Gulf War was to protect combat arrivals from Iraq, and the U.S. Air Force showed the greatest effectiveness. In this military conflict, some installations, like the MIM-104 Patriot, were used for the first time, creating psychological pressure on Iraqi forces. The effectiveness of these systems was critical to the success of coalition forces because they effectively protected coalition forces from the Iraqi air force, while electronic warfare systems disrupted enemy radars and communications systems. Many technologies of the time were unique and primitive in their application, but they do not seem surprising in the current context of military engagement.

References

Army. (n.d.). The Patriot air defense system [PDF document]. Web.

Creighton, W. A. (n.d.). The Gulf war and European artillery. Web.

DAF. (1991). Air force performance in Desert Storm [PDF document]. Web.

Moger, J. T. (2021). The Gulf war at 30. Army History, (118), 6-25.

Shepherd, C. M. (2020). Army air and missile defense: Preparing for the future requires a joint force solution [PDF document]. Web.

There are a variety of opinions regarding the causes of the World War I (the Great War, the First World War, or WWI); however, the consensus has been reached that WWI resulted from the expanding military power, imperialism, and nationalism. This meant that the desire to serve ones country led to the desire to hate another, and the aggression of some European leaders towards foreign countries fueled the rise of nationalism.

Pan-Slavism and German Nationalism

The role of Pan-Slavism in fueling WWI has often been put in the center of discussions about this historic event. Pan-Slavism can be defined as a social and political movement that emerged in the nineteenth century; it implies the recognition of the common ethnic background between different Slav nations (Eastern and East Central Europe) for the purpose of uniting them for the creation of mutual political goals and even a unified political force. The Russian government had been tremendously inspired by the idea of a great state; historians alleged that the World War I was the most violent tendency of the Slavs toward union and the preliminary step toward their general movement westward (Levine, 1914, p. 665). The ideas of Slav nationalism contributed to the tensions in the Balkans; fuelled by Pan-Slavism, Russian policymakers pointed to the need of enhancing the countrys commitment to Serbia through taking over the actions of the Austro-Hungary (Snell, 2015). Particularly after the Balkan Wars, Russia paid enhanced attention to what Austro-Hungary planned to achieve in the Balkans.

In the German-speaking world, such an image of Pan-Slavism was painted in dark colors particularly in order to encourage the nationalism that would oppose that coming from the East. There was a corresponding expansion of nationalist attitudes in Slavic and German countries, which then led to the development of WWI. For instance, the Pan-Slav propaganda encouraged the Russian troops while also targeting the Austro-Hungarian soldiers in order to recruit them as the allies of the pro-Slavic movement. On the other hand, Germany used the Pan-Slavic ideas as a threat to the national identity, leading to the severe persecution of Slavs before and during WWI.

Role of Alliances

Alliances have always been made at the beginning of wars to unite the divided powers and heighten the tensions that existed between the rival powers. This means that the creation of alliances also played a role in the ultimate outbreak of WWI. For instance, at the wake of WWI, Britain competed with Germany after the formation of the Triple Entente (Russia, France, and Great Britain), leading to the improved readiness of the nations to participate in WWI. Another point to mention with regards to alliances contribution to the First World War is the appearance of nations suspicions about plans due to the increased secrecy of details related to alliances.

Such suspicions contributed to the inability of diplomats to develop viable solutions to overcome the crises that preceded war or occurred during it. In addition, since alliances were made between several national powers, any conflicts that appeared within the two camps meant that the other parties of the camp were also involved (e.g., the conclice between Serbia and Austria-Hungary led to WWI). Alliances led to war because the powers involved in them lacked the desire to settle disputes peacefully since their military allies could support them if needed. Lastly, it is important to mention that the formation of the Triple Entente became a significant threat for Germany, which was encircled by several enemies, leading to the country creating an aggressive military and politic policy to destabilize the unification of the three powers.

Role of the US and Woodrow Wilson

Despite managing to maintain neutrality in the World War I (although indirectly supporting Britain), the United States entered the conflict. President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed neutrality in the wake of WWI due to the vast support of the public in maintaining the countrys non-involvement (Folly & Palmer, 2010). Ethnicity played a significant role since around a third of American citizens were of European descent, and despite sympathizing with their allies, they chose to remain neutral to protect the prosperity of their families.

The position changed with Germanys attempt to quarantine the British Isles, and the country was the USs key trading partners (U.S. proclaims neutrality in World War I, n.d.). In addition, Germanys announcement of unrestricted warfare against all ships around Britain led to concerns that American ships would also become targets. The inevitable sinking of an American ship and the attack on Lusitania (a passenger vessel that had 128 Americans on board), led to the shift in the public opinion away from sustaining neutrality. Even the first attempts of the US to fight in WWI were characterized by Wilsons desire to remain neutral while fighting off the submarines. However, the United States could not maintain its neutrality due to the direct threat from its immediate neighbor, Mexico (Tuchman, 1996). In January 1917, Britain encrypted a message from Zimmerman (Germanys Foreign Minister) to von Eckhart (German Minister in Mexico), in which the former proposed an alliance between the two countries in the case when the US joined WWI to support the Triple Entente.

The USs entry was a significant force in ending the Great War. For instance, the appearance of the large supply of new American soldiers that were at a significant advantage was extremely demoralizing for German troops. However, the efforts on the battlefield were not the only factors in ending WWI; the entire US economy mobilized to help the allies and the national troops. Ranging from the governmental propaganda that captured citizens morale to the efforts to grow more produce to feed the soldiers, America did everything in its power to prevent Germany from reaching its military goals.

The Treaty of Versailles was the official document that ended the First World War on June 28, 1919 (Goldstein, 2013). However, the ratification of the treaty was significantly undermined by the US Congresss criticism of the Article X, which implied the military support of member state in the case of their allies going into war. Critics saw such a condition as an attempt to violate the US sovereignty; in addition, some believed that the Article X would lead to another war. Thus, the Congress refused to ratify the treaty despite Wilsons attempts in its negotiations. This meant that the US did not become the League of Nations member. Despite the fact that the war was won, the two decades that followed were characterized by extreme isolationism characterized by the USs attempts to be less involved in global affairs, closed its borders for immigrants, and avoided any factors that could undermine the political stability of the country.

References

Folly, M., & Palmer, N. (2010). The A to Z of U.S. diplomacy from World War I through World War II. Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press.

Goldstein, E. (2013). The First World War peace settlements, 1919-1925. London, UK: Routledge.

Levine, L. (1914). Pan-Slavism and European politics. Political Science Quarterly, 28(4), 664-686.

Snell, J. (2015). Pan-Slavism and the origins of the First World War [Blog post]. Web.

Tuchman, B. (1996). Zimmerman telegram. New York, NY: Random House Publishing Group.

U.S. proclaims neutrality in World War I. (n.d.). Web.

Introduction

World War I was one of the most destructive warfares in history. It did not start because of an accident or a diplomatic mistake since it resulted from cooperation between the governments of imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary, who sought to start a war hoping Britain would stay away. When gigantic fighting broke out in Europe, the U.S. government immediately declared neutrality and maintained this status until 1917 (Dyer, 2005, 05:05). The entry of the United States into the war undoubtedly improved the Ententes prospects for victory, at least in Washington leaders were convinced that America was called upon to play a significant role in the post-war settlement (Dyer, 2005, 06:30). World War I ended with the complete defeat and capitulation of Germany and its allies; the Versailles Peace Treaty was signed. The United States played one of the most critical roles in World War I, which ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

Analysis

Generally, the origins of World War I are multifaceted. Among them, one should primarily emphasize the struggle between the leading powers for sales markets and resources, the desire to weaken the competitors in economic and military development, and the willingness of the states to solve domestic problems through war. At the same time, each country had its own goals. Although, formally, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife is considered one of the main origins of this event. World War I was inevitable, and the Sarajevo incident brought it closer since contradictions between the great powers began to grow earlier than 1914 (Farmer, 2018). The countries leaders tried to reach an agreement but were already at the stage where it was impossible to find a compromise.

Based on many critical aspects, it seemed unlikely for the United States to maintain neutrality during World War I due to escalating German aggression. According to Dyer (2005, 02:30), neutrality works if nations or belligerents respect it. Germanys move to unrestricted submarine warfare, in which civilian merchant ships could be sunk without warning, provided Woodrow Wilson an excellent opportunity to motivate the reasons for the U.S. entry into the war (Dyer, 2005, 05:45). The U.S. president was forced to take such measures because of Germany behavior, which violated the laws of the civilized world and America fought for their protection.

Indeed, America should have entered World War I to achieve its goals regarding democratization and freedom worldwide. It is no secret that the U.S. played its part in the war, demonstrating true American principles as opposed to European power politics (Dyer, 2005, 05:55). The United States has become a great example of democracy and a role model, supporting Europe and its citizens. Woodrow Wilsons help was crucial to the Allies victory in this case. Moreover, the practicality of the liberal-democratic restructuring of the entire system of international relations became especially noticeable after the end of World War I. Thus, the nation has moved away from traditional gender roles, and women have proven that they can cope at home and work, including those intended for men.

Most importantly, the Treaty of Versailles failed to achieve lasting world peace. Notably, this document was humiliating and punitive for Germany (Farmer, 2018). It dictated challenging conditions for its citizens, especially forcing them to take full responsibility for initiating World War I. Versailles led Germany to crimes, colossal migration, growing discontent, and radicalization. Promises of rearmament, the return of German territories, especially in the East, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, and the restoration of a prominent position among European and world powers after such a humiliating defeat and peace-fueled ultranationalist sentiments contributed to the underestimation by average voters of the more radical principles of Nazi ideology. However, Hitler did not hide that his goal was world domination, and he would return the prestige of the country, the power of the army, and a stable economy to the German people. The Treaty of Versailles laid the groundwork for World War II.

Undoubtedly, the U.S. Senate should have approved the Treaty of Versailles and joined the League of Nations. Primarily, most American soldiers died to protect their country and its allies. By signing the Treaty of Versailles, America would prove that it continues to defend its vision of world order and help to build the best for the citizens of many countries. Furthermore, due to this decision, America would unite with other states to ensure peace and promote democratic principles, preventing World War II. Therefore, with Americas help, the League of Nations could create a formidable standing army to counter potential opponents.

Conclusion

Summarizing the above, it should be remarked that the First World War became one of the largest and bloodiest in history due to the contradictions of two groups of powers competing in the struggle for economic and political influence in the world. The United States could not maintain neutrality for a long time and subsequently, in 1917, became a participant in this war to establish and preserve world democracy. The war ended with a number of countries signing the Treaty of Versailles, but America refused to accept the terms of the document. However, if the American government had agreed to this decision, it would have been more likely to avoid the discontent of Germany and the subsequent World War II.

References

Dyer, J. (2005). Transforming America: U. S. history since 1877, a war to end all wars: Part 2 [Film]. Dallas TeleLearning.

Farmer, B. (2018). The Treaty of Versailles and the rise of Nazism. The New American, pp. 33-38.

During times of war, the fighters are usually motivated to be victorious. All of the parties usually boast of past successes and enormous egos. Yet, in the end, only one winner is announced. There is a significant aspect of most inter-state wars: a weak states military strategies on the battlefield can make a strong states influence worthless. If the availability of resources implies success, then the weak states ought not to be successful against their enemies, particularly when there is a huge difference in supremacy. Paradoxically, history suggests that strong states have lost wars against weak ones despite their military superiority (Meron, 2003, p.14; Dye, 2007, para. 1). How are they able to achieve this?

Asymmetric warfare takes place when protagonists of marked unequal abilities engage in combat (Cassidy, 2000, p.41; Taylor et al., 2000, p.79). They may have different capabilities in military strength, strategy, or tactics. The smaller or, the weaker power often takes advantage of geography, timing, or other weak points of the more powerful enemy to be triumphant. The weak forces often strive to desist from direct confrontation with their opponents strengths. They prefer to interrupt or impair the normal command functions of the enemies or work against their logistics. These strategies are aimed at the more powerful opponents to prevent them from efficiently utilizing their huge resources during combat. The smaller or weaker forces often attempt to discourage or demoralize their opponents from making use of their great strengths.

The difference in the nature of the actors may be a reason why democracies lose small wars. The authoritarian states are more likely to succeed in war since most of them do not have the political susceptibility of a democracy. The authoritarian regimes authority for making decisions is limited to one person or a small group of individuals, they restrict the public awareness of international issues, and any attempts to criticize the regimes are usually disastrous. These attributes of the regimes have significant effects during asymmetric conflicts. They are able to drum up support faster from the public than the democratic regimes since they literally control their citizens. Soldiers who refuse to fight are threatened with violence. Finally, their soldiers engage in brutal warfare due to a lack of political responsibility (Arreguin-Toft, 2010, p.7).

In most asymmetric conflicts, a states relative determination of interest may elucidate whether it is going to lose or win. The more determined state ultimately achieves the success, notwithstanding the superiority of the opponent. This determination can be established by evaluating the structure of the war relationship. Power asymmetry explains interest asymmetry: the greater the gap in relative power, the less resolute and hence more politically vulnerable a weak nation is (Arreguin-Toft, 2010, 13). Strong nations always lack interest in becoming successful since their existence is not at risk.

Nevertheless, weak states have an increased interest in becoming successful since success will prove their existence to the whole world. Superior states consequently are defeated in wars due to frustrated publics who fight for an early exit from the wars. In authoritarian regimes, wars are lost due to countervailing elites who advocate for an early military pull out before success is achieved. Interruptions and reverses during conflicts will ultimately motivate the war-fatigued publics or avaricious elites to compel their top officials to desert the combat zone. This situation may be true for a number of wars, but not for others.

This argument can be applied to the case of the United States military intervention in Vietnam to elaborate on the results that were not expected from the war. According to the argument, the U.S. did not succeed because it was less at risk compared to Vietnam. The U.S. did not succeed in coercing North Vietnam. Ultimately, the angry and disappointed Americans compelled their countrys top officials to abandon the conflict prior to realizing its key political aim of having a productive, autonomous, and noncommunist South Vietnam.

However, this argument has at least two problems. First is that once a strong state is engaged in war, its determination to be successful may increase significantly. Secondly, it fails to explain why some asymmetric warfare usually lasts longer than expected. In general, this argument is less convincing when explaining a states interest as a component of relative power. However, it is most convincing when explaining a strong states defeat due to political vulnerability.

Strategic interactions during wars can give a better explanation of why big nations lose in small wars. This explanation assumes the conditions under which political vulnerability makes strong states to lose in conflicts and asserts that interactions of the states strategies in the battlefield dictate who wins the wars. Superior states are more likely to lose asymmetric warfare when they employ poor strategies as compared to their weaker enemies. In this instance, strategy, not power, implies victory in conflicts. The strong states usually attack their opponents by use of direct attack and barbarism strategies.

In defense, weak states use direct defense or guerrilla warfare strategies. Direct attack is the use of the armed forces to disrupt the activities of the enemy forces. Direct defense uses the military to halt the efforts of the opponent to gain control of the war. Weak states usually use guerilla warfare strategy to counteract their opponents strategies by use of military personnel trained to desist from direct conflicts. During conflicts, direct and indirect strategies are most of the time used. Direct approaches are aimed at the opponents military to reduce its ability to fight while indirect approaches aim at thwarting the will of the opponent to fight. The weak states usually use opposite approach interactions such as direct-indirect or indirect-direct in order to take advantage of their strong opponents weak points.

The use of strategic interactions may cause an unanticipated interruption between the dedication of the military and the realization of the full outcomes of the war. In such circumstances, the weak states are usually victorious for two main reasons. First, even though both parties are likely to have increased anticipations of success, strong states are usually more vulnerable to this trouble. Strong states often claim that since they are advantaged in terms of resources, victory is unavoidable.

This makes them increase the use of force in order to meet their anticipations and avoid being branded as incompetent. The costs of the conflicts are thus increased, and their citizens are forced to pay more taxes to cater for the war expenses. Eventually, domestic pressure forces them to abandon the conflicts. Secondly, Strong states also lose small wars when they want to reduce war-related expenses. They then start using barbarism to exploit their opponents. The use of barbarism is risky, and it can lead to domestic and external intervention to end the war.

Another theory to explain this paradox is that the diffusion of arms has considerably reduced the aggregate gap that exists between the strong states and the weak ones. This trend especially accelerated after the Second World War. During the war, allied and axis forces strove to conquer one another in the weak states. The powers transported sophisticated weapons to these countries and trained their indigenous soldiers on ways of using them. When the war ended, these weapons remained in the weak states. This trend has continued, and the weak states are still equipping themselves with modern weapons. Therefore, even the weaker states are more likely to win in these circumstances.

Strong states usually lose in asymmetric conflicts because they find it hard to escalate the level of violence to that which can enable them to be successful. Most of them are kept in check by their domestic structure and especially by the creed of their most articulate citizens. Their institutional makeup endows citizens with immense opportunities to oppose the moves of their governments. Other nations are not susceptible to failing in small wars. However, their failure is probably because of realistic reasons. Additionally, strong states though prone to fail in small wars, are not likely to lose in other wars. In summary, then, the profound answer to the paradox involves the nature of the domestic structure of the strong states and the methods through which they interact with ground military conflicts in insurgency situations.

Works cited

Cassidy, Robert M.Why great powers fight small wars badly. Scribd. U.S. Army. 2000. Web.

Dye, Lee. Superpowers often lose small wars to weaker nations. ABC News/Technology. American Broadcast Television Network. 2007. Web.

Arreguin-Toft, Ivan. How the Weak Win Wars: A theory of Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 2010. Web.

Meron, Gil. How democracies lose small wars: state, society, and the failures of France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Travis S., et al. An introduction to planetary defense: a study of modern warfare. Florida: BrownWalker Press.

Four Most Important Tenets of the Just War Theory of Cicero

There are seven major principles of the Just War Theory. For a war to be just, it should be the last resort, it should be waged by a legitimate authority, it should be for a just cause, based on the right intention, the violence must be proportional to the injuries suffered, there must be a rational probability of success, and force should not be used on civilians (Calhoun, 2001). Discussions regarding the ethics of war can be traced back to the Romans and Greeks.

Cicero was a foremost Roman philosopher who argued that the only acceptable reasons to wage war were self-defense and justified revenge. He also argued that war could only be justified if publicly declared. The four most important tenets of Ciceros theory of just war include the right intention for the war, the announcement by an appropriate authority, fighting for a just cause, and the proportionate response of declaring war.

According to Cicero, the only reason for declaring war is so that people can live in peace. He added that it was necessary to spare individuals who avoided barbarous and brutal methods of a combatant during the war. He maintained that a war is just only if it has been announced publicly or if it is preceded by a warning. According to Cicero, war should only be fought for a just cause.

How the Four Tenets Justify the Use of Force

In the Just War Theory, armed forces are allowed to use force that is proportionate to the end they wish to achieve (Primoratz, 2002). In the case of self-defense, it is reasonable to use force because of the high risk of suffering an injury in the hands of the enemy (Primoratz, 2002). Therefore, fighters must apply the force necessary to subdue the opponent. On the other hand, if the war is waged based on the right intention such as improvement of security or restoration of honor, then the use of force is justified (Calhoun, 2001).

Cicero considered restoration of peace as a good enough reason to start a war. In that regard, it is reasonable to use force to restore peace and keep people away from harm. The philosopher was very clear on the use of physical force. He argued that there were two ways of resolving conflicts namely, discussion and physical force. He maintained that physical force should be used only if the discussion between conflicting parties failed (Christopher, 2004).

In his understanding, the discussion was characteristic of human beings and the physical force of animals. The US used physical force in Iraq after discussions failed to bear fruits. Saddam Hussein refused to allow the US to conduct on-site inspections of its biological and chemical projects (Christopher, 2004). The continued violations of international law by Iraq warranted the use of force.

Application of Tenets in the Invasion of Iraq

The invasion of Iraq has been described by many scholars as a just war because it fulfilled several principles of the Just War Theory. First, the war was waged for a just cause because the US wanted to get rid of Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction and free its people from his tyranny. Also, Husseins rule was a threat to world peace and stability (White, 2011). The United States had given Iraq warning that it would attack if it failed to surrender its weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the war was publicly announced and waged by an appropriate authority. The people of Iraq had suffered for many years under the leadership of Hussein.

The use of force was justified by claims of enforcement of international law and retribution for non-compliance (Christopher, 2004). However, the argument was described as a political move because Iraq had declined to comply with international law for 12 years. Therefore, the attack was based on political and not moral reasons. Americas decision to wage war on Iraq was justified even though the aftermath was catastrophic.

The war caused massive suffering on civilians who were under great pressure from international financial sanctions and the effects of violence and terrorism. The American government failed to justify its attack on Iraq because there was no evidence that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction that it planned to use (White, 2011). In that regard, the US responded to a vague threat and waged a war that caused more harm than good.

Before the attack, the Bush administration had succeeded in convincing Americans that Iraq was a threat to world peace. However, the government failed to provide compelling evidence that the danger was present and looming. The Bush administration launched pre-emptive attacks on Iraq. The US did not possess accurate intelligence to prove that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (White, 2011). The attack was made null and void after a report revealed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and had no connections to terrorist groups. Scholars argued that the attack was a preventive measure against a harmless nation that did not pose any danger to the US or the world.

References

Calhoun, L. (2001). The metaethical paradox of Just War Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 4(1), 41-58.

Christopher, P. (2004). The ethics of war and peace: introduction to legal and moral issues. New York, NY: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Primoratz, I (2002). Michael Walzers Just War Theory: some issues of responsibility. Ethical Theory and Moral practice, 5(2), 221-243.

White, J. E. (2011). Contemporary moral problems: war, terrorism, torture and assassination. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Reasons behind the Outbreak of the War between the United States and Japan

Primary Factors for the Aggravation of U.S.-Japan Relations

From a contemporary perspective, it is clear that the development of relations between the United States and Japan, which led to the outbreak of war between the two countries, was a very complicated process. According to ONeill (2002), three primary factors influenced the aggravation of these relationships. First of all, Americas open door policy in China created significant tension with Japan due to the Japanese expansion in China (ONeill, 2002). Second, the United States implemented economic pressure on Japan (ONeill, 2002). And third, the series of events in the European theater of the war also impacted the acceleration of the Asian Crisis (ONeill, 2002). The following sections will discuss particular aspects of the growing tension between the two countries.

Japanese Expansion into China

These events cannot be properly understood without taking into account that China had been an important region for the global economy for a long time, and in the first half of the 20th century various colonial forces were interested in the economic potential of China (ONeill, 2002). Another aspect that is important to consider is the role of Japan in the Asian region. Japan had been a hermit kingdom throughout its history, but since the 19th century, it had begun to expand in terms of political and economic power (ONeill, 2002, p. 51). Accordingly, one of the primary regions of interest for Japan was China, where the United States had implemented an open door policy (ONeill, 2002). This policy aimed to mediate the competition between different stakeholders, and thus it conflicted with the interests of Japan.

Japanese Aggression in China

Japans growing economic and political interest in the Chinese region inevitably led to the outbreak of military conflict (ONeill, 2002). The first notable example of Japanese aggression in China was the invasion of Manchuria, nominally owned by China, in September 1931 (ONeill, 2002). Because these actions provoked global concern, Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson decided to implement a policy of non-recognition, which aimed to isolate Japan politically by persuading other global powers to deny diplomatic recognition to Manchukuo (Japanese term for Manchuria) (ONeill, 2002). However, in 1937, Japan decided to start a full-scale invasion of China, which included the Panay incident (ONeill, 2002, p. 55). At this point in history, Japan became a significant threat to the Asian region.

New Order Declaration and Asian Crisis Acceleration

After the invasion in 1937, Japan occupied the majority of Chinese territories (ONeill, 2002). Accordingly, in November 1938, Japan declared the creation of a new order in East Asia (ONeill, 2002). The essential aspect of this policy was the closing of the open door policy, even though it was protested by many Americans. The main aim of the new order policy was to establish Japan as the economic and political leader in the Asian region and continue its domination (ONeill, 2002). The United States responded with an unofficial sanction on aircraft and denial of credit to Japan (ONeill, 2002). Also, American directly helped China by offering a $25 million loan (ONeill, 2002). However, the Asian Crisis was accelerated by a series of events in the European war. In general, the impact of these events was that Germanys military success in Europe weakened the position of most colonial powers that had interests in China (ONeill, 2002). Therefore, Japan saw an opportunity for further expansion.

Economic Pressure and Road to War

The next step caused by the aggressive Japanese expansion was to isolate China economically and geopolitically by cutting ties between China and the outside world and demanding that Allied countries shut down their shipping of supplies to China (ONeill, 2002). The United States responded by declaring an embargo on aviation fuel and some metals on 25 July 1940. Also, America sent the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor. The tension continuously grew as Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy in September 1940 in an attempt to mitigate the threat posed by the United States. Additionally, Japan started to plan the invasion of Indochina, aiming to take greater control over Southeast Asia. The response of the American government was immediate, as in September 1940 the conditions of the embargo were made more severe by adding steel to the list of goods banned from trade with Japan.

Pearl Harbor and the Outbreak of the War

In July 1941, Japan moved troops to southern Indochina. At this point, the prevalent opinion among the citizens of the United States as well as the majority of political stakeholders was that Japan represented a significant threat to America and should be stopped. Negotiations on freezing the current situation in China did not have a strong influence on the development of the conflict as the United States government learned about Japans plans that were about to be set in motion on 25 November 1941 (ONeill, 2002). Subsequently, on 7 December 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked, and the United States entered World War II.

The Revision of the Neutrality Acts as the Path of Americas Involvement in World War II

The United States Policies toward War

The goal of this essay is to investigate how American foreign policy before World War II was influenced by the experience of involvement in World War I. It is also essential to identify the factors that had a primary impact on the entrance of America into World War II even though the American government did not initially plan to enter the war. It is possible to identify two primary stages in the development of policies leading up to the war: before the outbreak of World War II, and during the beginning of the war from 1939-1941.

ONeill (2002) states that, due to the historical peculiarities of the establishment and development of the United States as a country, isolationism appears to be one of the prevailing ideas in the American political paradigm. Primarily, the policy is determined by its geographical location, as the country is naturally separated from Europe. It should also be mentioned that the policy of isolationism was reinforced by the involvement of the United States in World War I, which had numerous negative consequences for the country, primarily in terms of economic burden and casualties. Therefore, in the decade before World War II, the U.S. Congress considered the balance of power in the world to be irrelevant for the United States and implemented a policy of isolationism.

Avoiding the Mistakes of World War I

As previously mentioned, the prevailing climate of public opinion concerning foreign policy was significantly influenced by the experience of World War I. The primary and most evident embodiment of this social and political climate is the series of four Neutrality Acts, which were passed between 1935 and 1939. In general, these acts were based on the idea that involvement in any war would have significant negative consequences for America, and thus they should be avoided.

The provisions of these acts were largely based on the avoidance of the factors that were, according to the views expressed by members of Congress, the initial reasons that led the United States into World War I. In particular, the Neutrality Acts included the following aspects. The provisions of these acts banned such activities as giving loans and credits to belligerents as well as shipping arms, weapons, and other ammunition to them (ONeill, 2002, p. 15). Also, the Neutrality Acts banned American citizens from traveling on belligerent ships and vessels along with arming American merchant ships. In contrast, non-military trade was largely supported by Congress. Thus it is generally valid to state that the American government was not interested in involvement in any military conflict. However, from a modern perspective, it is evident that these policies were only beneficial in the short term.

Arsenal of Democracy

Even though isolationism was the prevailing political opinion in the United States, there was a continuously growing awareness of the threat represented by the Nazis in Germany as well as by Japanese economic and political ambitions (ONeill, 2002). By 1938, America had acquired an understanding of the importance of preparing for the upcoming military conflict in Europe. Primarily, this preparation process was initiated and largely promoted by Franklin Roosevelt, whose election to a third term in 1940 was one of the most influential factors in terms of Americas further involvement in World War II.

Nevertheless, Roosevelt was not willing to enter the war openly. Instead, he promoted a policy of military support for U.S. allies, which was known as the Arsenal of Democracy. Several activities were enacted to support the allies. In November 1939, the American government revised its cash and carry a policy to trade arms to Britain. In September 1940, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement was signed with Britain. Finally, the Lend-Lease Act made the United States a non-fighting, yet fully supportive ally of Britain. Each of these actions represented an additional deviation from the policy of isolationism and neutrality, and Roosevelt was widely criticized for them. As the United States became allied with Britain, Americas involvement in World War II was inevitable.

Drift toward War in Atlantic

As was mentioned previously, numerous factors contributed to the United States entering the war (for example, the growing tension in its relations with Japan). The year 1941 saw the logical conclusion of Roosevelts policies of the prior decade toward war. The series of violent encounters between U.S. Navy escorts and German naval forces, most notably in September and October, was the primary reason for the repeal of the neutrality restrictions on November 13. Arming U.S. merchant ships made it possible to carrying cargo to Britain through the war zone, and thus the United States became an active participant in World War II. Based on the factors mentioned here and their underlying causes, it is possible to state that Americas involvement in the war was inevitable.

Reference

ONeill, W. L. (2002). A democracy at war: Americas fight at home and abroad in World War II. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Introduction

Although starting at a local level, WWI quickly embraced the entire world, making nearly every state take sides in the military conflict. The U.S. managed to maintain neutrality for an impressive amount of time, yet even the American government had to define its position toward WWI at some point. It was promoted by Woodrow Wilson, the policy of isolationism that the U.S. had maintained up until nearly the end of WWI. In retrospect, these were the policies of nationalism and imperialism that sparked the development of military actions within Europe, causing WWI to erupt. Being devoid of the specified movements and representing a multinational society, the U.S. abstained from WWI, which allowed it to contribute to the defeat of the Axis powers.

Nationalism, Imperialism, Militarism, and the WWI

When considering the causes of WWI, one must acknowledge the presence of multiple factors that determined the development of the conflict. The militarist and nationalist moods that were brewing in Europe at the time can be seen as the primary factors that led to the evolution of the confrontation within Europe. Specifically, due to the threat that large armies posed to the territorial integrity of European states, there was a strong propensity toward the militarization of the army across European countries (Williamson, 2015).

Similarly, the tendency for European states to consolidate and develop the policies that focused on fighting for the privileges of the dominant groups, thus producing Nationalism and Imperialism, led to the aggravation of the conflict (Höbusch, 2016). In a similar vein, other states such as Prussia developed Nationalism due to previous failures in the political field and the need to prove their worth as political entities (Williamson, 2015). In some countries, such as Russia, the specified phenomenon took the shape of imperialism (Höbusch, 2016). Thus, the increasing levels of enmity between European countries have affected the development of WWI.

Events That Drew the United States into the WWI

While the U.S. viewed the imperialist, nationalist, and militarist views of Europe as alien at the time when WWI erupted, the American government had to take actions at some point to support the Allies and prevent the Axis forces from gaining any further influence. Particularly, it was the invasion-based military strategy of German military forces and the threat for the global well-being that made the American government finally intervene (Béland, Howard, & Morgan, 2015).

In addition, the political connections that the U.S. had at the time implied that the government should support the states with which it had developed a strong bond. Specifically, the American government had very strong ties to the British Empire. In addition, the fact that the German submarines engaged in military actions toward the U.S. and the Allies indicated that America could not stand neutral any longer.

Specific Events That Led to Americas Entrance into the WWI

Despite the initial policy of noninvolvement and neutrality, the U.S. had to enter WWI under the pressure of several circumstances. Specifically, once the U.S. started sending ships to Britain in order to provide it with the necessary assistance, German submarines sank these ships. The destruction of William P. Frye, one of the private vessels sent to Britain, was the last straw for the U.S. After the specified event, the American Senate votes for entering WWI and declaring war against the Axis powers (Béland et al., 2015). In addition, after the German fleet attacked Britain, the U.S. demanded reparations from the German government, which was met with disdain. Thus, America became involved in one of the vastest global military conflicts in history.

Role of Ethnicity in Americas Neutrality

The U.S. maintained the policy of neutrality nearly up until the end of WWI, which can be explained by the lack of concern for the concepts of imperialism and nationalism that gained significance in Europe. (Fulwider, 2016). However, there were some issues in encouraging the ethnic minorities of the U.S. to support the specified policy. For instance, German immigrants voiced concern for the well-being of their country of origin, thus supporting it and the Central Powers.

Similarly, the Irish population of the U.S., as opposed to the policy of Great Britain, viewing it as the oppressor of Ireland. Finally, some of the Jewish immigrants in the U.S. could not consider the presence of Russia in the ranks of the Allies as a positive factor, which made them support the Central Powers (Fulwider, 2016). As a result, while technically being immune to the ideas of imperialism, militarism, and nationalism, which tore Europe asunder, the U.S. was also filled with contradictions.

The defeat of the Treaty of Versailles: Analysis

On June 28, 1919, the Allies and the Central Powers signed the Treaty of Versailles, which implied the defeat of the latter and the creation of a healthier climate for international relationships. The specified step was preceded by the Paris Peace Conference, during which the conditions on which the peace treaty was supposed to be signed were discussed. Before the treaty was signed, numerous disagreements had to be settled. Specifically, some of the countries, namely Italy, did not agree to the terms that the treaty contained, such as the control over the Adriatic (Williamson, 2015). Nevertheless, the treaty was finally signed, and peace was restored.

Conclusion

WWI was defined by the growing propensity toward nationalism, militarism, and imperialism in Europe, which was intrinsically alien to the U.S., thus ensuring the latters neutrality during the war. Being the precursor to another devastating war, WWI did not settle major issues that caused its development in the first place. However, during the confrontation, the role of the U.S. as the peacekeeper and the supporter of the Allies was established.

References

Béland, D., Howard, C., & Morgan, K. J. (2015). The Oxford handbook of U.S. social policy. Oxford, UK: OUP.

Fulwider, C. R. (2016). German propaganda and U.S. neutrality in World War I. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Höbusch, H. (2016). Mountain of destiny: Nanga Parbat and its path into the German imagination. Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer.

Williamson, D. (2015). Access to history: War and peace. International relations 1890-1945 (4th ed.). London, UK: Hachette UK.

Introduction

Involving countries in military conflicts always implies certain circumstances that directly affect the specific interests of states. World War I is an example of how political ideologies and movements can influence the course of history and peoples perception of current events. The participation of different countries in this global conflict was due to a divergence in many views on the world order. The role of the United States in this war also proved significant, despite Americas temporary neutrality. The force-based methods of resolving political disagreements may lead to serious consequences, and the example of World War I proves that alliances for fighting opponents can be crucial in the context of conflicts outcomes.

Prerequisites of War in the Context of Nationalism, Imperialism, and Militarism

The growing demand for the supply of raw materials and new markets forced the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Japan, and the United States to enter the intense competition (Morrow, 2016). The purpose was the final division of the world space into the spheres of influence. It was largely explained by purely internal social problems in the Western European states where the labor movement spread.

Therefore, imperialist foreign expansion was considered by many politicians not only as a means of accumulating capital and raising the rate of profit but also as a fail-safe way of solving the social issue within the country. Despite rather developed industry systems in the aforementioned countries, the lack of resources led to the need to look for new ways of gaining credibility. As a result, disagreements led to hostilities, and the world became involved in the global conflict.

Political Movements and Their Effect

At the beginning of the last century, united Germany that was not modernized capitalistically turned into a formidable force. A strong militaristic structure multiplied by broad national-chauvinistic sentiments among people advanced this European country to the path of open military aggression. Morrow (2016) gives the example of continental imperialists, in particular, Pan-Germans and Pan-Slavs (p. 10). The purpose of raising these movements was to rally the people of the same ideology for the sake of strengthening common views and ideas. Both in Eastern Europe and in the German-speaking states, there were different approaches to the perception of an ideal society.

World War I was the first total conflict that was provoked by the national-chauvinistic and militaristic ideas of those who refused to live according to the principles of liberal democracy. According to Morrow (2016), the Great War is a landmark history that firmly places the First World War in the context of imperialism (p. xi). As a result of mixing all these political movements, serious contradictions acquired an open forum, and a significant part of countries became embroiled in military actions that had severe outcomes.

Impact of the Alliance System

Unification with the purpose of achieving goals at any cost led to the emergence of large alliances, and it was this system of military operations that were maintained throughout the global conflict. As a result of the separation of views and rivalry, two major political associations emerged. Germany created the first in Europe military-political block  Triple Alliance that included Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary (Morrow, 2016).

The representatives of the other side were Russia, France, and the USA that joined the latter, and the name of this group was Entente (Morrow, 2016). Due to the fear of isolation, all the members of the unions sought to establish a system of mutual assistance to the allies. The use of such a system greatly influenced the course of the war and its outcomes.

Americas Role in World War I

When the hostilities of gigantic proportions broke out in Europe, the US government declared its neutrality immediately and maintained this status until April 1917 (Brock, 2015). This situation was due to several factors, for instance, an isolationist tradition deeply rooted in the minds of Americans and the relative weakness of the military component of the US power. The countrys armed forces, in particular, the land army, were clearly inferior to all the great powers.

However, most importantly, neutrality was extremely beneficial to the United States. According to Brock (2015), huge military supplies to Europe allowed the US to turn into a worldwide creditor by the end of the war, brought profits to American corporations, and helped to solve or at least significantly alleviate many social problems. While the war exhausted the countrys main competitors in the international arena, the United States, while not participating in the war, strengthened its position as one of the leading world powers steadily.

The US Contribution and the Defeat of the Treaty of Versailles

By the end of 1916, the attitude of the American leadership to what happened in Europe began to change. Woodrow Wilson won the presidential elections for the second time in November 1916 (Link, 2017). Later, he began to incline to the fact that the victory of Germany in this war would not be in line with the interests of the United States. Using all possible means, Wilson started to prepare public opinion for the fact that opponents extremely aggressive behavior and their disregard for the rights of neutral states forced the United States to seek adequate measures to protect its interests.

America entered the war in April 1917; however, Wilsons administration had to solve the whole complex of challenges (Link, 2017). The first block of questions was related to the implementation of mobilization measures. The second one concerned those principles that were necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the economy in the emergency conditions of wartime. Quite soon, it became obvious to the US authorities that without the strict regulation of various economic aspects, it was impossible not to cause the aggravation of social problems. The federal authorities took over the regulation of the markets for food, raw materials, fuel, and labor relations.

The entry of the USA into the war improved the prospects for the Entente to win. As Link (2017) notes, in January 1918, Wilson made the public statement of the American plans for the postwar world order until 1930. The proposal to create the League of Nations was the key point of this program. The committee was planned as a universal international organization designed to ensure the stable and sustainable development of the postwar system of international relations.

Years after the war were marked by crises in European countries and, in particular, in Germany. According to the results of the Versailles Treaty, significant restrictions were imposed on the country, but ultimately, the pact was defeated, which resulted in the further development of nationalist ideas (Neiberg, 2017). Many countries considered this Treaty to be demeaning; therefore, it could not receive enough recognition, and America continued to be one of the world leaders.

Conclusion

In accordance with the analysis of the political situation in the world on the eve and during World War I, it can be noted that alliances were the typical practice of fighting with opponents. The USs role in the victory was tangible, but the country did not enter the war for a long time. Important proposals were made by President Wilson regarding the strengthening of peace and the creation of an advanced control system over the violation of established procedures. The spheres of influence changed significantly, but such political movements as imperialism, nationalism, and militarism continued to exist in the future.

References

Brock, P. (2015). Pacifism in the United States: From the colonial era to the First World War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Link, A. S. (2017). Woodrow Wilson and a revolutionary world, 1913-1921. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books.

Morrow, J. (2016). The Great War: An imperial history. New York, NY: Routledge.

Neiberg, M. S. (2017). The Treaty of Versailles: A concise history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

Over the centuries of the human experience, war has changed in technological, ideological, and psychological ways. Gone are the days of young men seeing war as a personality building adventure. Although we are living in the most peaceful times, this peace is incomplete, and it was preceded by some of the most inhuman and deadly conflicts in the history of warfare. Often, an idea of a faceless war is discussed in relation to how one side always tries to dehumanize the other. I propose a project that will cover not only this point of view but also how warfare can deface the victims of war, both soldiers and civilians, as well as the technological side of this idea that became relevant these days with the advance of drone warfare.

Description

I believe that this project should focus mostly on the wars in the last 117 years. I think some time should be dedicated to the origins of early ideas about warfare, like the notion of war as a journey that builds a young mans character, but to keep the project focused it would be useful to focus on the evolution of the so-called modern warfare. This choice is due to the proliferation of propaganda that became a critical part in the dehumanization of people during wartime. Nations quickly realized that media could be used to turn the populace against the opposing country through posters, books, films, etc. (Welch, 2015).

Subsequently, the never before seen numbers of casualties during the first and second World Wars led to dehumanizing of not only the enemy combatants but everyone who died during these wars. Perhaps, because the numbers were so incomprehensible, the idea of every digit in these figures being a unique person became detached from the number itself. Only people directly affected by those losses still have a proper perspective on this situation (Cohen, Daniels, & Eyal, 2015).

Technology is the third aspect of the faceless war that I would like to include in my project. With the invention of gunpowder, people have gotten farther and farther from seeing the people they fight on the battlefield. Even the first pilots had no way of seeing the faces of the enemy, and with time this disconnection has only grown. During the Second World War whole cities were erased from maps through bombings, with only a few bomber pilots realizing the consequences of their actions. Same thing could be said about artillery. An artilleryman almost never sees the enemy. Therefore they can only perceive them as an abstract idea of an enemy, rather than people. This situation eventually evolved into the ultimate horror of the 20th century  nuclear war. End of the world could have happened with a press of a button.

Weirdly enough, these stakes have weakened the effect of dehumanization. There was no guarantee that an ICBM operator would be willing to launch the missile knowing that it would only lead to more deaths, and would not prevent deaths of his friends and family (Lovekin, 2016). Recent years have presented a new kind of technology that was previously only imagined in science fiction. Unmanned and even autonomous weapons have become a reality with flying drones being used for air support and recon, and automated defense systems being used by South Korea on the DMZ. We live in a world where people have been killed by algorithms. There is nothing more dehumanizing than removing the human out of the equation (Podins, 2013).

Conclusion

I believe the evolution of dehumanization is the central controversy of this project. It is possible to see how people went from dehumanizing enemies to dehumanizing their armies through technology. I would like to address those rarely talked about aspects of it and present the most current perspective on this issue.

References

Cohen, I., Daniels, N., & Eyal, N. (2015). Identified versus statistical lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lovekin, D. (2016). Technology and perpetual war: The boundary of no boundary. In J. Shaw & T. Demy (Eds.), Jacques Ellul on violence, resistance, and war. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Podins, K. (2013). 2013 5th international conference on cyber conflict (CYCON 2013). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

Welch, D. (2015). Propaganda, power, and persuasion. London, UK: Tauris.

The Korean War lasted three years between 1950 and 1953, during which the communist portion of North Korea, reinforced by the support from the USSR and China, fought against the anti-communist population of South Korea. The war started when North Koreas army invaded across the thirty-ninth parallel, which was the line dividing the North and the South established after the Japanese lost in World War II. Under Trumans administration, the US joined the Korean War to withstand the communist regime, help the South stand against the oppressor, as well as forcefully liberate North Korea from communism. It was the first military action within the Cold War opposition. The war was among the most immensely destructive military conflicts in the modern years, with around five million fatalities, as well as a more significant rate of civilian deaths than the Vietnam War or WWII (Korean War, 2020). Even though the US did not want to initially insert itself in a military invasion, the course of events caused the government to change its course. Specifically, the denotation of the USSRs first atomic bomb, as well as Mao Zedongs announcement regarding helping Chinas North Korean allies fueled the USAs desire to stand behind South Korea.

The Vietnam War lasted longer than the Korean War; it started in 1954 and ended in 1975, two years after President Nixons order of US troops withdrawal (Vietnam War, 2020). The communist versus non-communist agenda was also the reason for the war as Vietnamese communists (Viet Cong), led by Ho Chi Minh, began their attack on the Southern government (Vietnam War, 2020). The conflict was exacerbated by the tensions associated with the ongoing Cold War, which was draining the US and USSRs military capacities. The reason for the USs involvement in the war was linked to the Domino Theory, which suggested that if one country in South Asia were communized, many other countries in the region would follow it (Vietnam War, 2020). As a result of the fears of the possible threats, the administrations under Kennedys and Johnsons leadership deployed more troops to provide support to South Vietnam so it can stand against the attacks of the Viet Cong. A landmark event that increased the USs involvement was the North Vietnamese attacking US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin, with the country having to send more troops to the South as a retaliation (Vietnam War, 2020).

Thus, both the Korean and Vietnam wars occurred because of the civil war over the government as to communism versus democracy; the US involved itself in the conflicts to stop communism from spreading, while China and the USSR supported the communist regimes in both countries. Although it remains a controversy as to whether the US was justified in entering both wars, the decision to get involved was based on preventing a global expansion of communism reinforced by authoritarian regimes. One cannot argue that either Vietnam or Korea bore importance to the US; however, it was the high risk of the countries falling under the communist regime that prompted the US to get involved. Moreover, after the end of WWII and the surrender of Japan, the US had an implied obligation to protect and support South Korea, thus, the unification of the country by communists conquest was not a viable option for the US.

References

Korean War. (2020). Web.

Vietnam War. (2020). Web.