The Pros And Cons Of Total War

A total war is a conflict which involves bringing together resources; this includes both industrial and military resources aiming at having an output that the enemy will not overcome at all (Castellano, 2016). The biggest difference that exists between a total war and a normal war is that there is really zero difference between those fighting in the same war and the civilians in this period; all these people are considered an enemy.

War is a scandalous topic where peoples’ views differ as to what war is. Some people see it as pure evil and wicked while others think that it is brave and noble of what soldiers do. Looking at poems which had been written by people affected by war help show the messages which are portrayed. The two sets of poems which show different views of war as well as some similarities are “the Charge of the Light Brigade” by Alfred Lord Tennyson, “To Lucasta, on Going to the Wars” by Richard Lovelace and “Dulce Et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen, “The Song of the Mud” by Mary Borden. Both these poets use linguistic devices to convince the reader of their view of what the war is. Tennyson and Lovelace show how war is worthy

Total war is the idea that there are no restrictions on weapons used, territory or people involved, and the laws of war are generally disregarded. In total war, “there [is] no difference between civilian and soldiers” (118). Many people believed that since, “It was war and we had to expect it” (117) and by it they meant the worst.

Inventions have been accomplished due to the vast technology that is in place. Technology has led to the advancement of warfare in most parts of the world. The same technology has resulted in inventions that range from gunpowder to the atom that is splitting the environments across the borders. These inventions have led to some countries being able to leap over other weaker countries when it comes to war. Among all these inventions, the atomic bomb stands out as the most lethal weapon. The splitting atom has launched the whole world through its conventional warfare that led the world to change their perspectives to ushering in a new era of the nuclear age. The world atomic bomb is so vivid to the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (Madaras 99). When one mentions these two places and the splitting atom, a person is able to picture a city that was torn apart and the masses of people that were killed by the United States ' actions of using the bomb in these two cities. Thus, this paper tries to examine if it was necessary for the United States to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to bring an end to World War II.

As we all know, the Second World War left a huge impact on the world, and populations that suffered in the past are still healing from all the wounds caused by this destructive war. That is why the Historical Committee on Warfare is still searching for resolutions and is trying to deal with the consequences of the war.

The act of war is something that should not be done for obvious reasons. Yet for centuries mankind has fought over everything and anything. Often it is idolized and great war stories are told throughout the ages, yet the Story All quiet on the Western Front by Erich Remarque takes a different view. He looks closely at the extreme physical and mental stress it had on the soldiers. Although the story revolves around one german soldier, many on both sides experienced very similar conditions and psychological stress. Because of such profound information, at the original release of the book, the Nazi officials banned the book to prevent their propaganda from being distorted with the truth. All quiet on the Western Front not only shed truth into the lives of civilians, it educated the civilians with the physical and mental stress war had on human beings.

The humanization of the enemy also depicted anti-war in that it allowed us to see how leaders in political power could order war and gain all the benefits from winning, yet rarely partook in actual combat or felt the everlasting grief and pain it caused. While on the other hand these young soldiers were the ones who suffered and sacrificed all for no gain. “A word of command has made these silent figures our enemies; a word of command might transform

World War I was one of the most destructive wars in recorded Human History and it was only 100 years ago. The book, All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque proves that war is very destructive. The people we are looking at are Paul Baumer, Albert Kropp, and Detering. These people are brainwashed and are told that they are the “iron youth” and are coerced to join the army during World War I. Then they go into the war and see that war is not glorious, but see an ugly reality that is war. War is very destructive of physical places, emotionally, and can cause a loss of a generation, and this book shows this very well.

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

To a civilian, war is a simple and glorious thing, but to a soldier who is fighting and experiencing the war, it is brutal and terrible. The contrasting views of war between civilians and soldiers is stressed in Erich Remarque's war novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, which puts an emphasis on the realities of war. Patriotism and nationalism led civilians to believe that it was one’s duty to fight for their country, prompting men to enlist for the war. These men knew nothing of what life would be like out on the front.

World War Two, a conflict that involved six continents, three great oceans, scores of countries, and billions of people, epitomizes the perception a war unlike any other. It completely revolutionized modern man’s perception of total war on a global front, where the scale of mobilization, utilization of resources, and the deployment of military personnel the world had never seen before. The aftermath of this war is, in fact, still being felt to this very day, where the ripple effects are far-reaching and ever so subtle. World War Two drastically altered our global landscape through major shifts in our technological, political, and social dynamics.

The comprehension of the term ‘total war’ has had great significance towards the understanding as to how wars are fought, affect society and differ from other conflicts. The main issue that arises is conclusively defining total war and is continually differing between both historians and military combatants alike. Roger Chickering defines states “total war is distinguished by its intensity and extent. Theatres of operation span the globe; the scale of the battle is practically limitless” all the while adding “total war requires the mobilisation not only of armed forced but also of whole populations” This definition, while not quintessential is a good starting point for a definition due to its broadness and acceptance of the idea of the incapability to fully mobilise a society’s entire resource. David A. Bell states that it is often defined as ‘a war involving the complete mobilization of a society’s resources to achieve the absolute destruction of an enemy, with all distinction erased between combatants and non-combatants’ . However, he notes the limitations of such an idea including the inability for societies to meet such criterion, in particular, the ability for a society to completely utilise its resources towards the war effort. Ultimately, Jeremey black, while not giving a conclusive definition for the term, total war, does acknowledge different definitions by various individuals distilling many of their arguments and consequently outlining main characteristics of

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)

War is a seen by those who are against it as the most devastating and dreaded type of human interaction ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517Hedges (2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges (2003). In the society, we leave in, discussions about war are held and preparations for warfare are a normal day-to-day occurrence. Proponents of war argue that nations get a meaning from war and not just carnage and destruction in it way. ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517Hedges (2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges (2003) argues that war gives life a meaning and purpose there by giving people a reason to leave. According to Hedges, with war an excitement hangs in the air. War provides a cause and a resolve to a country as it allows its citizens to be noble ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517(Hedges, 2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C( HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges, 2003).

What is the ‘Principles of War'? An answer for this can be said that the ‘Principles of War' apart from wars itself can aid to understanding strategic rules that can be used in conducting military operations, law, business and life on the hold. This has stood the test of practice, experimentation and analysis by a Chinese philosopher called Sun Tzu, circa 500 BC who captured the essence of his philosophies in a book called ‘Sun Tzu on the Art of War'. To any country or state the ‘Art of War'