War what does it mean

Definition of war Entry 3 of 4. Definition of war Entry 4 of 4. Examples of war in a Sentence Noun They fought a war over the disputed territory. We need to resolve our conflicts without resorting to war. The taking of American hostages was seen as an act of war by the United States. Recent Examples on the Web: Noun The plight of displaced people was in the public eye, as large numbers of people fled Syria and other countries ravaged by war , just as the U. Liet Kynes, lead ecologist of Arrakis and a power broker amid the warring factions.

First Known Use of war Noun 12th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1a 1 Verb 1 13th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1 Adverb or adjective 13th century, in the meaning defined above Verb 2 15th century, in the meaning defined above. Learn More About war. Time Traveler for war The first known use of war was in the 12th century See more words from the same century.

Style: MLA. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence or intervention.

The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war is usually called peace. In , Nobel Laureate Richard E. Smalley identified war as the sixth biggest problem facing the society of mankind for the next fifty years. In the treatise On War, Prussian military general and theoretician Carl von Clausewitz defined war as follows: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.

Some scholars argue that the practice of war is not linked to any single type of political organization or society. Rather, as discussed by John Keegan in his History of Warfare, war is a universal phenomenon whose form and scope is defined by the society that wages it. Another argument suggests that since there are human societies in which warfare does not exist, humans may not be naturally disposed for warfare, which emerges under particular circumstances.

The ever changing technologies and potentials of war extend along a historical continuum. At the one end lies the endemic warfare of the Paleolithic with its stones and clubs, and the naturally limited loss of life associated with the use of such weapons.

Found at the other end of this continuum is nuclear warfare, along with the recently developed possible outcome of its use, namely the potential risk of the complete extinction of the human species. A wholesale means of making heroes which, if planned in a small way, would produce only murderers. A contest between princes or states, which, not being determinable otherwise, is referred to the decision of the sword.

It may exist without a declaration on either side, and is either civil, defensive, or offensive. A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, either for defense or for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce or acquisition of territory, or for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other. It is the armed conflicts of sovereign powers, declared and open hostilities. Wars are various in their occasions and objects; but in all cases, the aim of each contending party is to weaken and overthrow the opposing party.

At one time, the art of war was supposed to consist very much in wearing out the enemy by a slow process of exhaustion, and thus wars were much protracted. But more recently, the greatest generals have adopted the method of rather endeavoring to strike sudden and terrible blows, by which the war is sooner brought to a termination, and this method, although it may often have been adopted without regard to considerations of humanity, is, in all probability, less productive of suffering to mankind than the other.

Among rude nations, wars are conducted by tumultuary hosts, suddenly congregated, and in general, either after defeat or victory, soon dispersed. But the wars of the more civilized and powerful nations have long been conducted by armies carefully trained and disciplined; and in the case of maritime powers, by means of fleets at sea as well as of armies on land.

Much science and skill are also applied to the conduct of military operations, and the principles upon which they ought to be conducted have been carefully investigated and theories tested by an examination of the history of the most important campaigns. See Strategy and Tactics. The war symbol -- In this Symbols. Song lyrics by war -- Explore a large variety of song lyrics performed by war on the Lyrics.

What does WAR stand for? That, IMO, is the goal- not to make a definition fit what we wish something to be. Nice job Grant! That is shear genius IMO!

We keep wanting to define everything based upon some American standard as if that will be the way the World views the situation or as if that will be the way our Enemies and or Competitors will view the situation. Many Enemies will enjoy the fact that they understand that they are at War with us but we USA keep trying to rationalize somehow that we are not at War It's like an old Miami Cop once told me about Vodoo, if people believe it exist and people act on that belief that it exist than trying to convince everyone that logically that Vodoo doesn't't exist really doesn't matter.

I advise us to avoid saying war "is" something. It "is" a lot of things to different people- defining it in such a deterministic fashion IMO limits our own understanding of it. And what about those wars that do not aim- either practically or theoretically- in a "sufficient" manner to bring about any adherence to anything? I think it is naive to think a nation's will really drives things- I'm not sure what a nation's "will" is- and I would submit war is normally divorced from such a concept- if the concept actually exists I don't think it does- I think it is a chimera we have attached to war to make it seem more just.

In reality there is no such thing- or it is so ephemeral that it means nothing practical. I would submit that the will of the people is always in flux and thus doesn't help us to imagine it - and to pretend that during war "the nation" or a "non-state actor" is carrying out some monolithic "will" will not assist us in understanding different nuances of the environment of "war.

I, personally, would rather we not define war- but attempt to capture all the different ways in which war is defined by others. War- 1 armed conflict between groups of people, 2 state on state armed conflict, 3 declared state of armed conflict between states or pseudo-states, 4 all activities that encompass competition between groups- usually states- that attempt to bring about change, 5 attempts at cultural change, 6 the natural state of the world, 7 an extreme state that is not natural- but exists during times of conflict in which natural and civilized norms are suspended, 8 an organized attempt to force unwanted change on others, others?

Applying coercive means such as economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, information, etc. Our national leaders have always applied all elements of national power in various ways to achieve their national security ends. In fact the proposed definition and recommendations do little at all to help us address security challenges effectively. We still struggle with how to address the threat from piracy, terrorism, WMD proliferation, etc. Just a thought, but many of us in the Western, i.

Europe Centric, world including the US have pent too much time reading the incomplete thoughts about war written by an 19 Century Prussian Army Officer while conducting almost all our significant military operations on the continent of Asia.

Remember, the Middle East is an Anglo term popularized by A. Mahan for Western Asia. A philosophy of life and war better exemplified by the writings of Sun Tzu and many others from that continent. Perhaps that dichotomy explains why we have performed so poorly strategically and that in the end is what matters in that part of the World since the Korean War.

US success in Korea resulted more from the fact that most of the fighting was on a Peninsula and the attacking North Koreans were lead by someone previously a member of the Soviet Army, schooled in their tactics, and leasing a force structured and equipped by the Russian military, and somewhat similar was Saddam Husein's disastrous attempts to imitate the Western way of warfare.

As Admiral Mullen noted while Chairmen of the JCS, our Nation's national debt is the greatest threat to our security -- no small part of which has resulted from our country engaging in strategically meaningless conflicts and employing costly tactics in those theaters. There are too many of Sun Tzu's statements about war that should have guided our executive and our military to repeat here, but as Col. Long noted quoting Sun Tzu, "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence, supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting," and "he will; win who know when to fight and when not to fight.

Clearly, at lest in my opinion, after the last decade of a costly on-going war in which the US has committed to many tens of thousands of conventional forces regardless of their tactical mission against a comparatively small number of non-State terrorists, and having helped drive up the nation's national debt, we have failed to heed Sun Tzu's advice that "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. Once that strategic definition was determined, then our brass should have followed Sun Tzu's statement that "if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding.

Col Long's emphasis is correct, we need a new definition of war. If the military doesn't develop one more in concert with our nation's actual military requirements and budget problems, than the current administration is going to subtly do it for them.

Does the US military not see that the Obama Administration is down sizing the military -- especially the ground forces and concentrating on use of the SF and SOG in small units to fight a counter terror effort sized to the number of actual terrorists there are in this world? Changes in force structure and mission the military never seems to notice up front. If someone finds the redefinition of warfare interesting, and I personally believe there is a lot to it and certainly worth consideration, they might review Unrestricted Warfare by Colonel's Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the Chinese PLA, Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February which in many respects redefines warfare perhaps i the same way.

Even though it is available and over priced in commercial form, it is available free on the web. The comments at Amazon are interesting. I think there is potential here to confuse 'war' and 'competition'. What is it that differentiates 'war' from the normal commerce of nations? Similarly, why do we attempt to limit war to 'nations' - does that mean that we can't fight wars against the Taliban or AQ or that the Civil War was not?

I also have concerns with limiting the use of force definitionally to a last resort. This rests on a number of presumptions about the nature of strategy which are probably untenable. The demand for coherence flies in the face of Clausewitz and is without historical foundation.

Armed conflict is a legal term that enables the categorisation of conflicts to determine the legal frameworks that are applicable. Current definitions of armed conflict are reasonably comprehensive although they still tend to take a georaphic perspective in deference to the historical sources of laws.

However, any definition of war needs to at least encompass the various meanings for armed conflict. The one proffered above does not. A definition that is working its way into Australian joint doctrine at present is that 'war is an attempt to redistribute political power by the application of destructive force'. It would be possible to adorn this definition in a number of ways: to accommodate the negative purpose 'preventing the redistribution of political power' or to acknowledge that the use of force could be latent rather than actual for example but, notwithstanding that, it is reasonably fit for purpose.

In its favour, the definition is comprehensive - covering all actions that could ostensibly be characterised as war - speaks to the view of wars as an extension of politics stoutly Clausewitzian and, by recognising the role for destructive force, differentiates war from political or other forms of competition. War is an armed conflict within a country or between countries.

A battle. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend. To wage or carry on warfare. Of, used in, or resulting from war. Open armed conflict between countries or between factions within the same country. Any active hostility, contention, or struggle; conflict. Military operations as a profession or science.