Editing War (section)

==Why do we go to war?==

{{topquote|War is merely the continuation of policy by other means. We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.|[[Roboute Guilliman|Carl von Clausewitz]] in his military treatise, Vom Kriege (On War)}}

{{topquote|[[Ogre#Shrek|Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make.]]|Any ruler worth his crown in History.}}

<span style='color:green;font-size:115%'>BECOZ IT'Z A ZOGGIN' GUD TIME, DATZ WHY!</span>

Okay, seriously, why do we go to war? You might have heard philosophers, politicians, artists, thinkers, or even people on the street saying that war is terrible and should be avoided at all cost. Even military officials highly suggest to not apprehend conflict at all. As it seems that War brings more bad than good. But if that is so obvious, then why do people '''still to this very day''' fight to the death? It has been a very frequent subject of debates and researches. Despite the disapproval of war as a concept, it is ever omnipresent in our media and culture. Even games! How many tabletop games do you know are based around the concept of war? Isn't that enough proof that despite the odds, there is an interest in the matter of conflict? 

Over the years, many explanations for war were given, but none really serve as a definitive answer.

*Natural resources have been a frequent one in the early days of civilization. The Euphrates river, for example, has been the theater of a metric ton of conflicts and battles over the water the river provided. And given how it was one of the only sources around in Ancient Mesopotamia, you better believe people were going to fight over it. With the first development of agriculture and infrastructures made to circumvent problems created by the river, the disputes lasted until the establishment of the first Akkadian civilization.
**Later down the line, natural resources kept being a main motivation for war; but instead of it being based on its literal rarity, most cases were economic matters. Say a country is doing a blockade on certain trades and another needs said trades to complete certain megaprojects. In most cases, negotiations were cut short in favor of a simple cut to the throat. In desperate times, men can get very violent. Or repress with a lot of violence.
**Additionally, said wars can not be just merely for seeking more favorable terms regarding resources, trade access, and political prestige at another’s expense but also conquest and annexation of land and subjugation of people inhabiting it (whether it be for labor, tax sources, or pacification of unruly neighborhoods). Even nomadic migrations of armed displaced people or nomads is a thing as seen with the Mongols, German Barbarian Migrations, the steppe Khanates, and the Sea People. 
* Following the "realist" political theories, war is the result of nations trying and failing to produce stability with their neighboring nations by maintaining a balance of military power with each other (while ideally to their mutual benefit, at worst, in their self centered interests); often by using coercive actions to warn neighbors to take their considerations into account when all other options (such as tense diplomatic negotiations, embargoes, tariffs, and blockades) are either nonviable or failed. If that does not work out (say, because one nation is believed to be [[Nazi|developing nuclear weapons]] and [[USA|we'd rather be the ones holding that particular trigger]]), war happens to try and balance it out so war can be avoided in the future. This also works with other resources; if a country is in need of water, oil or other necessities, war becomes more likely as their desperation rises (see current east-European/Russian relations).
* If you're an authoritarian regime, war is one of many ways to keep your regime propped up. This serves multiple purposes; it provides the populace with jobs in the form of industry and conscription, it directs people's negative sentiments towards an external foe and away from the state itself, and if the war is successful, gains the state prestige and resources (which are intended to not only offset the cost of the war but also grow the state's overall power). The threat of an external foe also justifies an increase in the state's power, such as cracking down on civil liberties. That being said, if the state is already unstable or overextended and you fail to make any meaningful gains, people will start questioning the legitimacy of the ruling class.
* Ideology may be a major dividing line between two opposing forces; while political ambitions and desire for power usually coincide as motivating factors, a major ideological difference can make it intolerable for two different groups of people to live with each other due to the fundamental incompatibility with their ways of life. This dividing line can be further exacerbated by ongoing bad blood between the two different factions, making long-term reconciliation difficult.
* Sometimes wars are because diplomacy can be a huge clusterfuck. Let's say you're Country A, a mercantile power who has a vested interest in keeping your home region nice and stable and not constantly mired by war. Country B, meanwhile, is a very militaristic power that's looking to increase its power and prestige, potentially by gobbling up smaller countries C, D, and E. Were this to come to pass, not only would you lose many trading partners, but country B would also be in a much bigger position to boss you around, so you form an alliance with C D and E, telling B that if they were to attack any of you, you all go to war with them. Well, B decides to call your bluff and attacks C. If A doesn't go to war with B, then other countries won't want to form any more treaties with A, and B will look for new ways to throw its weight around. This is WWI and the alliance system in a nutshell; while the intention is to prevent war, it has no power if the threat has no follow-through.
* Civil Wars usually start with some segment of the population being upset with who's in charge of the nation, be it an interest group, a socioeconomic class, or a particular head of state. This can take a number of different forms, occasionally multiple of these at once:
** Rebellion - A group of people are unhappy with the current state of affairs and want to set something on fire about it. Rebellions are, if we're defining things for categorization here, mostly just an outlet for pent-up frustration or some unbearable conditions, not a fully formed attempt to establish a new order. You don't need a manifesto, just a brick. They tend to be the prelude to something more serious.
** Coup d'Etat - The rebel faction wants to replace the current ruler. Generally, this happens as a conspiracy by military officers, government officials, the nobility, or some outside force that's gotten the ear of any of the previous three.
** Succession Crisis - more common in a [[Monarchy]]; if it's unclear on who will be the next ruler, if the heir apparent is deemed unfit to rule, or if the next in line is someone that everyone absolutely can't stand, the different claimants will fight each other for the throne.
** Secession - The rebel faction wants to splinter away from the country to form their own country. This undermines the authority of the previously united national government, leading to high tensions even if the secession itself is peaceful, and often leads to war afterwards when the seceding party throws the emperor's diplomats out a window, finds a big strong friendly nation with a vested interest in building a canal, or starts a war in a fit of jingoistic arrogance then cries about losing for the next 160 years.
** Revolution - The rebel faction wants to change the system of government entirely. These are, generally speaking, The Big Ones. Since the concept of a revolution in the modern sense, beginning in the late 18th century, revolutions hardly ever stay in one country. Power bounces around into new and unknown hands, long-established societal norms are challenged openly, and more often than not the neighbors start to get nervous about it and decide to help, quietly or in full force, one side or the other. No matter the outcome of one single revolution, in a world that has grown ever more interconnected, it's bad news for the powerful and unpopular everywhere when the barricades and banners start showing up.
** Failed State - If the central government fails altogether, local populations will start fighting each other to reestablish a new state; usually with different warlords wanting to eventually defeat the rivals and become the new ruler of the country.
*** Partition - if a country (often a buffer state) between neighbors is unstable to the point of having conflict spill over national borders, then said neighbors may consider such a state as an existential threat and should be split between each other for the sake of keeping their realms in order. Oftentimes, this means mutually agreed annexation of land at the expense of the locals (whether it be via political marriage, puppet states, or plain old forced population transfer).