“War, what is it good for.” These words, sung by Edwin Starr, characterized American youth during the 70’s. The Vietnam war had been raging since 1955 and most Americans were sick and tired of reasons behind the conflict. As Muhammad Ali, who refused to engage in the Vietnam War, was immortalized with his quote “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.” However, wars have existed in some form or other since the dawn of human history. Why do societies go to war, and what is the best explanation for this behavior?

The answer lies inside the history of war, throughout all of its incarnations and propagators. First, humans are not the only species to engage in warfare. Ants and bees are both seen engaging in large scale aggression against …show more content…
If war exists because of states, which don’t really exist, does war really exist? Is the whole concept of war socially constructed to define the massive slaughter and destruction carried out by a people through order from their state? When a state loses its legitimacy, do the people consider it as war if it orders the assault against their neighbors? This is best described when governments will declare war against another state. The state can already be launching attacks against the nation and not be at war with them. Every modern American president has used the benefits of “executive action” to carry out hostilities around the globe, regardless of a Congress declaration of war. If war isn’t solely the activation of hostilities, what is it? This reinforces the exotic constructivist idea of mental constructs. War only exists when the individuals involved feel they are engaging in war, only then is the term reinforced and strengthened. Because war is relevant, how can it be prevented or eliminated? This question leads us back to the legitimacy of state …show more content…
However, in the place of a state there would be a different organization under a different name, because the entire deconstruction of all organizations would lead to primordial chaos (Mingst 9). States do not require eradication or demolishment. The ideas behind the state need to be reorganized in order to eradicate the idea and notion of war. The ability for one monarch or a military council to order millions of people to attack an enemy, which they have never met, would be considered insanity by a subjective observer. Do these leaders have massive mind control over their subjects, why do they obey willingly? It all lies inside the legitimacy of states… once humanity decides that states lack the legitimate right to declare war against other peoples will war be eradicated. War can’t be eradicated if the systems for propagating it exist. The ability for monarchy or mob rule to demand people engage in hostilities against individuals which have shown no actual aggression toward themselves or their neighbors, exposes the insanity of war. Insanity can only be cured by education. Arms races, collective security, transnational institutions; all of these realist and liberal safeguards mean nothing in preventing war (Mingst 289,294). The only way to eliminate war is to eliminate the blind authority which people subject themselves under a leader. When people refuse to fight a war, the war is only a feud or a duel