War Theory, Thursday, 4th Period
As the students entered the room, they would have spotted Admiral Harrington standing before the board. Three words began to take shape: power, total war, security dilemma. Once this was done, she moved back to her usual position at the front of the room; Nimitz crawled up and took his position on her shoulder, his scimitar-shaped claws digging into the reinforced shoulder of her uniform.
The bell rang, and Honor got down to business.
"Okay, people, I want you to take out a piece of paper and a pen," she said, levelling a gaze at each student in turn. "Examine the words I've written on the board. Write down what you think each one is. Once you've done that, pass the papers to the front of the rows. I'll collect them, and we'll go over them before we jump into the lecture."
She walked up and down the rows as the five minutes ticked past. Her eyes occasionally glanced toward the clock and, when the five minutes were up, she called time. The papers were handed to the front and she collected them. Discussion centered around the improvised definitions for a while. Honor then moved on to the lecture.
"We already know these three terms play a large role in warfare; the idea of power as a motivating factor in warfare was a topic of hot discussion. But in order to truly understand war, we need to examine some threats to peace. The first term we're going to look at is total warfare."
Honor moved and took a seat at one of the empty desks toward the front of the room. She turned so that she could face the students. "Centuries of warfare have left horrible images of the destructive nature of war in our collective memories. Here on Earth, some of the most memorable images spring from World Wars I and II, the first total wars to be seen on a global scale. For the purposes of this class, a total war is warfare that mobilizes every part of society for the war effort. Examples of this might be women in the factories during World War II, or the Hitler Jugen in Germany during the same time period. Some thinkers have theorized that this image has left 'civilized leaders' -- and I use this term with reservations -- seeking less costly means to settle conflict.
"Other theorists believe the expansion of economies have changed the definitions of power, meaning that economic prowess has replaced large militaries as the accessories of the era. Each strong economy then has more to lose, and shifts away from war as a means of doing business. To quote one author I recently read, these countries seek 'less costly ways of achieving prosperity.'"
She paused, pursing her lips. Nimitz took the opportunity to place a paw on the top of her head, turning to peer at the students over it. Honor swatted playfully at him with a wry grin, and he returned to his perch. She resumed her lecture.
"So if war is more costly, financually and in terms of life, why do it at all? There are many different answers, but we're going to focus on three: the 'democratic peace theory,' hegemony, and the security dilemma.
"The 'Democratic Peace Theory,' in its basic terms, states that democracies don't fight wars. This is something of a fallacy: History has shown that democracies are just as likely to fight wars as non-democracies. The caveat is this -- democracies are less likely to fight other democracies. A difference of ideals with non-democratic nations, from day-to-day politics to morality issues, can sometimes lead to war.
"It's also possible that the nature of a democracy can change over time. Thus, the democratic tendency to compromise can be obscured, leading to war on ideas where they might otherwise have compromised.
"The idea of hegemony plays on the democratic peace theory -- especially as we look at our case study. For those that don't know, hegemony can be defined as the constant influence or leadership by one, larger nation over another. Between 1945 and 1991, there were two distinct hegemonic powers: the United States and the Soviet Union. Together, they formed what is called a bipolar system -- the United States exerted influence on the West while the Soviet Union sought to exert influence over more Eastern countries, absorbing many smaller countries into it.
"In 1991, however, the Soviet Union dissolved, breaking back up into its component parts. The argument can be made that, without the unifying force of the Soviet Union, many nations took on the opportunity to fight wars which had been brewing for centuries, wars that had been kept dormant by the use of fear by the Communist party: Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and even the more 'modern' troubles in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan can be blamed on the destabilizing affect of losing a major hegemon.
"Last, we come to the idea of the security dilemma. In the international community, a security dilemma exists because anything that strengthens one country's security, in turn threatens another. This then affects the level of power they may be able to project, and can be a source of conflict."
Pushing herself out of her seat, Honor moved to the front of the room and picked up a packet of papers. "I have one last thing for you before we leave. This packet I'm handing out to you is a copy of the Melian Dialogue from Thyucidides' recounting of the Peleponnesian War. Take a look at this for next time. We'll be discussing it, so come equipped with at least one question to pose for your classmates."
Having passed out the papers, she then returned to the front of the room, placing any leftovers onto the desk. "And with that thought, you're dismissed."
[I'll be posting links to a "Cliff Notes"-type summary of the Melian Dialogue so you won't have to read it if you don't want to. If I can't find one, I'll write one. I realize not everyone loves the subject matter like I do. =)
For now, wait for OCD. Shouldn't take as long today. Done!]
[Sorry for the delay in picking up pings. Got totally swamped at work yesterday. SP definitely extended through the weekend, for those who want to participate.]
The bell rang, and Honor got down to business.
"Okay, people, I want you to take out a piece of paper and a pen," she said, levelling a gaze at each student in turn. "Examine the words I've written on the board. Write down what you think each one is. Once you've done that, pass the papers to the front of the rows. I'll collect them, and we'll go over them before we jump into the lecture."
She walked up and down the rows as the five minutes ticked past. Her eyes occasionally glanced toward the clock and, when the five minutes were up, she called time. The papers were handed to the front and she collected them. Discussion centered around the improvised definitions for a while. Honor then moved on to the lecture.
"We already know these three terms play a large role in warfare; the idea of power as a motivating factor in warfare was a topic of hot discussion. But in order to truly understand war, we need to examine some threats to peace. The first term we're going to look at is total warfare."
Honor moved and took a seat at one of the empty desks toward the front of the room. She turned so that she could face the students. "Centuries of warfare have left horrible images of the destructive nature of war in our collective memories. Here on Earth, some of the most memorable images spring from World Wars I and II, the first total wars to be seen on a global scale. For the purposes of this class, a total war is warfare that mobilizes every part of society for the war effort. Examples of this might be women in the factories during World War II, or the Hitler Jugen in Germany during the same time period. Some thinkers have theorized that this image has left 'civilized leaders' -- and I use this term with reservations -- seeking less costly means to settle conflict.
"Other theorists believe the expansion of economies have changed the definitions of power, meaning that economic prowess has replaced large militaries as the accessories of the era. Each strong economy then has more to lose, and shifts away from war as a means of doing business. To quote one author I recently read, these countries seek 'less costly ways of achieving prosperity.'"
She paused, pursing her lips. Nimitz took the opportunity to place a paw on the top of her head, turning to peer at the students over it. Honor swatted playfully at him with a wry grin, and he returned to his perch. She resumed her lecture.
"So if war is more costly, financually and in terms of life, why do it at all? There are many different answers, but we're going to focus on three: the 'democratic peace theory,' hegemony, and the security dilemma.
"The 'Democratic Peace Theory,' in its basic terms, states that democracies don't fight wars. This is something of a fallacy: History has shown that democracies are just as likely to fight wars as non-democracies. The caveat is this -- democracies are less likely to fight other democracies. A difference of ideals with non-democratic nations, from day-to-day politics to morality issues, can sometimes lead to war.
"It's also possible that the nature of a democracy can change over time. Thus, the democratic tendency to compromise can be obscured, leading to war on ideas where they might otherwise have compromised.
"The idea of hegemony plays on the democratic peace theory -- especially as we look at our case study. For those that don't know, hegemony can be defined as the constant influence or leadership by one, larger nation over another. Between 1945 and 1991, there were two distinct hegemonic powers: the United States and the Soviet Union. Together, they formed what is called a bipolar system -- the United States exerted influence on the West while the Soviet Union sought to exert influence over more Eastern countries, absorbing many smaller countries into it.
"In 1991, however, the Soviet Union dissolved, breaking back up into its component parts. The argument can be made that, without the unifying force of the Soviet Union, many nations took on the opportunity to fight wars which had been brewing for centuries, wars that had been kept dormant by the use of fear by the Communist party: Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and even the more 'modern' troubles in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan can be blamed on the destabilizing affect of losing a major hegemon.
"Last, we come to the idea of the security dilemma. In the international community, a security dilemma exists because anything that strengthens one country's security, in turn threatens another. This then affects the level of power they may be able to project, and can be a source of conflict."
Pushing herself out of her seat, Honor moved to the front of the room and picked up a packet of papers. "I have one last thing for you before we leave. This packet I'm handing out to you is a copy of the Melian Dialogue from Thyucidides' recounting of the Peleponnesian War. Take a look at this for next time. We'll be discussing it, so come equipped with at least one question to pose for your classmates."
Having passed out the papers, she then returned to the front of the room, placing any leftovers onto the desk. "And with that thought, you're dismissed."
[I'll be posting links to a "Cliff Notes"-type summary of the Melian Dialogue so you won't have to read it if you don't want to. If I can't find one, I'll write one. I realize not everyone loves the subject matter like I do. =)
For now, wait for OCD. Shouldn't take as long today. Done!]
[Sorry for the delay in picking up pings. Got totally swamped at work yesterday. SP definitely extended through the weekend, for those who want to participate.]