In world history, war has always been prevalent in all cultures. But the manner of fighting and the types of war has also been changing with times. The twentieth-century war differs from the colonial wars. In my essay, I will illustrate the difference in the manners of the two wars. The twentieth-century wars have a reduced size of the union army which took place after the civil war (Karen 190).
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The modern total war has diverted from the past conduct of war where it is more of cultural and political baggage. In the modern, the liberal superpower democracies do not engage each other in war as opposed to the past. This is on the defensive ground where these democracies support each other over a certain attack. The new world aims to rescue war for economic gain as opposed to the past when they used to make war (Hew 344).
In the twentieth-century total war, the military force is used against the enemy’s civilian population whereas the past wars were between armed forces and thus a change of concept. The main aim for this is the mobilization of resources and the competition over new inventions as demonstrated in the United States civil war. The change of war concept and the invention of nuclear weapons with the targeting of masses have led to the confiscated international relations. Nuclear war has turned to be very threatening and leads to massive bloodshed and also long-term disadvantages (Hew 360).
But war has no inherent limitation and usually leads to total bloodshed and violence. The extent of war is dependent on the level of achievements on political objectives and thus limits its course (Karen 213).
The strength of the defensive should be purely on military terms. But war has no particular objectives but these are set by the political objectives and the rationality which led to nuclear deterrence (Hew 347).
Different nations views war on a different basis where some acknowledge war as the form for political development where they argue that “politics and war belong on the same continuum.” But many of the countries are against this where most of the war-capable countries are not involving in war-related activities. The countries are proving the war results as not heroic (Karen 199). This led to the rejection of the use of nuclear weapons after the end of the world war. But different countries differ with this where countries like India and Pakistan joined the nuclear countries in the twenty-first century. Superpower countries are also denying to sign the arms control treaties and the nuclear disarmament (Hew 372).
Modern wars should differ from total war. Modern society is running after technological innovation and the mobilization of resources. The effects of total war are de-modernizing and lead to the sucking of generated resources.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
These are both obstructed by the total war and therefore one should negate the adoption of this. Societies are mobilizing on the greater efforts to advancement and industrialization (Hew 351). The targeted phase is not the cause of war and hence the modern war that is short, economical, and bloodless is the best kind of war. Why should one target the innocent masses? The rejection of total war was a welcome for human rights.
Hew, Strachan. On Total War and Modern War. The International History Review. 2000
Karen, Hagemann. Nation, War, and Masculinity in the Age of the Prussian Uprising against Napoleon. Cambridge University Press. 1997