16422949
| Question | Answer |
| What is a war | Generally a violent conflict between 2 states, can occur within states or with non state actors but normally war refers to states |
| What is the unitary state assumption | Each state is an independent entity which will maximise its own interest above all else |
| What is the problem with the unitary state assumption | States are led by individuals and thus care more about just the national interest as they consider their own and those who influence them |
| What are the two main distinctions that claim motivate war, define them | National and particular interests NI - that which effects the entire nation, the physical security of the nation PI - that which effects a group within the nation, minorities, institutions or businesses |
| Why is the distinction between particular and national interests hard to prove | in most conflicts its a bit f both and people won't freely admit their main motivation American interest in the Middle East might be because without oil the tanks would stop or it might be because protecting oil and starting small wars is good |
| Why are institutions important to war | They determine who and how a country is run and as such how they are influenced can change how they act |
| What are the four main actors who have influence in a state | Leaders - heads of state Institutional interests - diplomats, army, security services Interest groups - business, lobbyists, charities General public |
| How do leaders influence war | As legal commanders in chief they have the authority to wage war |
| How do institutional interests influence war | As they are essentially the state they are necessary to conduct war and may well have an interest in avoiding or engaging in them The military has an interest in fighting wars to justify its funding etc. analysis found that US military advisors encourage larger deployments than civilian counterparts but encourage deployment itself just as frequently |
| How do interest groups influence war | Businesses may have in interest in whether or not a war is fought, and as such will use financial power to influence leaders - legitimately or not AIPAC, Iron triangle, Halliburton and Exxonmobil |
| How do the general public influence war | Depends on type of government but all have to keep a degree of popular support to prevent removal from office, through democracy or force in the extreme |
| Are democracies better at fighting wars | Yes They win 93% in wars they start and 63% of ones they don't autocrats win 60% of those they start and 20% they don't |
| What 7 theories support the notion that democracies are better at fighting wars | Taxation theory Coalition theory Support theory Duration of war Individual soldiering Leadership Organisation |
| Explain taxation theory | democracies have low taxes, which encourages growth and frees up money for the military the US spends more than the next 7 combined but only 3.1% GDP However many democracies spend very little, Japan less than 1 |
| What is coalition theory | Democracies are more likely to have allies willing to assist in conflict however between 1815-1982 80% of wars democracies fought in they were unable to form a coalition NATO is theoretically the ultimate example of this but it has never been tested, but this could be evidence of success in itself |
| What is support theory | because democratic leaders won by popular vote there is likely to be higher national and military morale in their favour and a sense of national unity |
| How does duration help democracies win wars | due to the election cycle democracies tend to fight short wars which are more easily won if the war lasts less than a year democracies have massive odds of success which diminish after 12 months |
| How does individual soldiering help democracies win wars | By having a stake in society soldiers are more willing to make sacrifices |
| How does leadership help democracies win | Democracies tend to have meritocratic armies, whereas others tend to be based on loyalty, moreover initiative is often rewarded and power dispersed so the army is more reactive to situations 1941 red army is a good example of this problem |
| How does organisation help democracies win | through meritocracy people naturally arrive at their most efficient position minimising wasteful bureaucracy |
| Why are democracies ACTUALLY better at wining wars | Slightly better at logistics leaders have initiative Better tech (although this doesn't actually help win) |
| What is selection theory | The claim that democracies are better at choosing which wars they should engage in |
| Why do democracies seem to be better at choosing their enemies | due to the election cycle they are generally risk averse and will only engage in wars they will likely win |
| How does the marketplace of ideas help democracies win wars | Generally their intelligence agencies are more efficient and have better connections with allies Obviously doesn't always work - Iraq |
| What is democratic peace theory | the claim that democracies never engage in war with eachother and as such by spreading democracy you are therefore spreading peace |
| What evidence supports democratic peace theory | dependent on your exact definition democracies have never engaged in war with each other, yet they are statistically just as likely to be involved in a war |
| What evidence contradicts democratic peace theory | The logic is largely based on the threat of losing office however autocrats often face violence and persecution after loss of office and aren't significantly less likely to loss office after a war It is more likely that democratic peace theory is the result of economic interdependence and similar cultures among western democracies making them natural allies |
| What is diversionary war theory and which theorist gave this defintion | By creating an out group in cohesion can be created - SImmel |
| What are the stipulations for diversionary war theory to work (4) and who gave them | Coser - group perception, minimal cohesion, preservation desire and significant threat |
| What is the principle that backs up diversionary war | Rally effect - whereby during a war the nation tends to unite behind a leader significantly increasing their popularity |
| What supports rally theory | Bush post 9/11 saw a 40 point boost, thatcher saw a similar thing in the falklands war Before the Russo Japanese war a russian minister actually said they needed a short war |
| How long does the rally effect last | Normally about a year, can be slightly longer - see bush 3 years - but unless victory seems a short while away popularity falls rapidly |
| What evidence is there against diversionary war | Quantitative analysis has never found clear link wars most commonly start after ecletions, not before them |
| What evidence supports diversionary war | Russo japenese conflict Foster found there was evidence for it in democracies facing a terror threat |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.