War is Inevitable

954 words | 4 page(s)

Introduction and Thesis
Despite the fact that states are deeply engaged in global politics and international agreements, they primarily operate as sovereign units strategically protecting their national identities and pragmatic economic interests. Given the protectionism on the international geopolitical arena, interstate clashes are inevitable any time soon. Based on the counter-argument, the essay holds that the war is not inevitable. Finally, the analysis applies Realist, Liberal and Marxist theories to balance both arguments.

Thesis: From the practical viewpoint, it is very likely that today’s world will soon sink in a global war conflict. The future world war is inevitable given today’s inter-state clashes as well as shrinking global resources.

puzzles puzzles
Your 20% discount here.

Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"War is Inevitable".

Order Now
Promocode: custom20

Inevitability of the War
The ego of today’s world leaders is being explained with emotional steps that assume tactical and strategic geopolitical mistakes. Further hazard comes from global terrorism, which is the major cause of innocent deaths and is highly likely to provoke massive international war conflict in response. History of the 20th century teaches us that both World Wars were provoked by comparatively insignificant events. Nonetheless, these minor provocations caused uncontrolled international warfare (Gray 29).

Today’s regional wars are fought by domestic groups in Syria and across the Middle East. The international diplomacy on the highest political level, including the UN, just cannot stop the long-lasting war conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen and other hot spots on Earth. Since the Cold War, tensions and hostilities between the United States and Russia are rising on all possible levels. Unfortunately, the diplomatic compromise between the two nuclear superpowers cannot be achieved. NATO is only able to protect the security of its member-states. North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons despite the tensions and sanctions imposed by the United States. Meanwhile, China and Russia are trying to make the best use of the conflicting situation. While a denuclearized Korean Peninsula is a geostrategic goal for the United States and South Korea, Russia and China oppose the presence of the US troops near North Korea and China’s borders.

War is not Inevitable.
From the logical stance, however, the war-oriented course of action is in no one’s geopolitical interests. What stops nations from direct involvement in a global war conflict is global trade, which has closely interconnected national states within international trade agreements, as well as financial and commercial organizations. Since the end of WWII, trade relationships serve as effective mechanism to reduce global poverty (Merkel 488). This is of vital importance considering the rapidly shrinking natural resources, as well as the lack of basic necessities (including food and water) particularly in the Third World countries. Another anti-war counter-argument is that no single national state has an absolute nuclear advantage. This means that no single nation will use the nuclear power against other states. The final counter-war argument concerns the rise of international diplomacy. Even often ineffectively, the international diplomacy still works through such powerful bodies like the UN. Open communication often helps to ease the tensions and prevent the development of armed clashes.

Realist, Liberal and Marxist Theories
According to the Realist Theory, individual state behaviors on the international arena are mostly driven by their national interests. Realists reduce the international politics to the “self-help” mode. Hence, realists fear that the global security is destined to fail while every single state holds its own intentions and pragmatic interests unknown to the rest of the world. Realism assumes the stability achieved through the checks and balances of power. This contrasts with the radical ideas that ground on continuous struggle and the resulting state of war.

The Liberal Theory articulates various social interests and values cherished by the national states. The liberal approach assumes the variety of options for foreign policy developments. Essentially, liberals take globalization as a cornerstone of the international politics. They argue that individual nation states have always been interested in promoting their pragmatic economic and socio-cultural interests beyond their national borders. This highlights the common logic of ‘give-and-take’ that allows winning competitive advantages or gaining substantial benefits on a global, regional or domestic scale. Hence, liberalism is not derived from the position of power or war conflicts.

Finally, the Marxist Theory focuses on the causes of war. As applied in international relations, Marxist theory involves the interests on an individual, the state, and the international system. Marxism can be, therefore, used as a proper background to understand the major causes of war. In particular, the globally dominant capitalism system divides society into owners and workers, rich and poor, haves and have-nots etc. The very distinction is just enough to provoke the massive class conflict that can turn into the world war. This is especially relevant considering the exponentially shrinking natural resources and the lack of basic necessities in various regions across Asia and Africa. From the Marxist position, these parts of the world are most likely to spark the new global war (Fukuyama 34-36).

Russia, North Korea and China are among the most likely states that would readily prefer warfare to diplomatic relationships with their major rivals. Driven by ego, anger and pride, the political leadership of the world’s superpowers makes serious mistakes. This indicates that nobody is safe from the occurrence of the Third World War. At the point when the emotions will intervene with unpredictable events, a number of global developments may go out of anyone’s control. This is when the state leaders, backed up with armies and weapons, are most likely to start the new world war.

  • Fukuyama, Francis. “There Are No Shortcuts to the End of History,” New Perspectives Quarterly, 23(2) (2006), pp. 34-38.
  • Gray, Colin. “War, Peace, and International Relations: An Introduction to Security Studies,” Oxon: Routledge. 2007. Print.
  • Merkel, Wolfgang. “Democracy through War?” Democratization, 15(3) (2008), pp. 487 – 508.

puzzles puzzles
Attract Only the Top Grades

Have a team of vetted experts take you to the top, with professionally written papers in every area of study.

Order Now