Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Finally, war "ought" to be national, in the sense that its objective should be to advance the interests of a national state and that the entire effort of the nation ought to be mobilized in the service of the military objective. He later characterizes the philosophy behind the Vietnam War and other Cold War conflicts as "Neo-Clausewitzian".
The belief that to avoid a nuclear war, the United States must stay on the offensive, ready to strike at any time, is the same reason that the Soviet Union would not give up its atomic weapons either. During Eisenhower's time in office the nuclear holdings of the US rose from 1,005 to 20,000 weapons. [11]
Over the course of time, different arguments have gained and lost support as new evidence has become available and as studies have been completed. A primary focus has been on whether the bombing should be categorized as a war crime and/or as a crime against humanity. There is also the debate on the role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and ...
Discover the latest breaking news in the U.S. and around the world — politics, weather, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, sports and much more.
Relief at the entrance of the Cultural Center of the Armies in Madrid, showing the Latin phrase "Si vis pacem, para bellum.". Si vis pacem, para bellum (Classical Latin: [siː wiːs ˈpaːkɛ̃ ˈparaː ˈbɛllʊ̃]) is a Latin adage translated as "If you want peace, prepare for war."
'Peace through strength' easily enough becomes 'peace through war. ' " [35] Jim George of Australian National University used the term to describe part of what he argued was the Straussian and neoconservative foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration .
War making resulted in state making in four ways: [66] War making that culminated in the elimination of local rivals gave rise to one centralized, coercive strong state power that had a large-scale monopoly on violence. Eventually, this large-scale monopoly on violence held by the state was extended to serve the state's clients or supporters.
Pro-war rhetoric is rhetoric or propaganda designed to convince its audience that war is necessary. The two main analytical approaches to pro-war rhetoric were founded by Ronald Reid, a professor of Communication Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Robert Ivie, a professor of Rhetoric and Public Communication and Culture at Indiana University (Bloomington).