Modern WarefareEssay Preview: Modern WarefareReport this essayThe definition of the term “modern” is arguable, but for the purpose of this essay the definition “current day evolution of something put into use in past situations” appears appropriate. A modern state has four main features: fixed territorial boundaries, a monopoly on force, and impersonal and sovereign political order and the legitimacy to represent the needs and interests of its citizens. This form of state was to become a common feature of the entire global system. This essay will outline the main historical forces which have contributed to the development of the modern state; warfare, the growth of capitalism, and the evolution of democracy. The historical period covered is beginning in the seventeenth century, following the English Civil War (1640-88) and the French Revolution (1789).
Warfare would appear to be the axis of the modern state. Competition among states was largely driven by insecurity and vast amounts of power were needed to enable a state to be secure. A state would need to be prepared to go to war to secure its territorial boundaries. In turn, neighboring states, feeling insecure at their neighbor’s current war preparation, would also need to call their men to arms. A vicious circle of insecurity and paranoia, referred to as the �security dilemma’ occurs. Another reason for states to maintain fully equipped armies was the leverage this would possibly give them in negotiations with other states. The ability of a state to secure and/or extend its boundaries was dependant upon the resources available and its ability to extract these resources from the citizens of that state; whether it be manpower, advanced weaponry, food supplies, or finance. As the state got larger the needs for resources became greater and boundaries needed to be extended in order to increase resource income. Accordingly the state built administrative, bureaucratic, and coercive structures to control and direct their population. This administrative infrastructure was a major development of the modern state, and thus modern warfare.
Nevertheless, the state grew slowly but times of growth were mainly due to warfare. In constitutional Britain, the states finances grew rapidly during the 17th and 18th centuries mainly to fund the rising costs of the growing professional armies and navies. The same was the case in the state of Austria, where the proportion of expenses spent on the military far exceeded that spent on civil expenses or debt repayment. States finances were dominated by wars, and it would appear that the development and maintenance of a military capability was fundamental to the development of the state. The objectives of war became more economic and often the need for conquest was closely connected to economic advantages.
The organizational form of states varied depending on whether areas were capital-intensive or coercion intensive. In capital intensive areas (Dutch republic in the 17th century), city-based merchants were often able to achieve state accomplishments which, for the most part, represented their interests. However, in coercion intensive areas, where agriculture was prevalent (Russian Empire), landlords had greater control of the state and could prevent the developments of representation.
Industrialization and technological changes also played a major role in the development of modern warfare. The ability to build ships used to transport armies and their equipment around the globe gave states the opportunity to colonize mainly non-connected states, in many cases exploiting these states’ resources for their own gain. As these states expanded and their capacity to extract the resources necessary for warfare grew, so did their ability to organize and finance military power. States that could mobilize and sustain standing armies and/or navies gained a war making advantage. States that had access to large rural populations, capitalists and relatively commercialized economies won out.
In contrast, there were no such factors in the way governments were able to maintain military power during the Renaissance. States were not able to establish, expand and maintain military facilities to expand their political power and maintain their own monopoly. Therefore, the process of empire was still very much a struggle within state power as it was within state power for states to expand their military base. States would often create and maintain bases across the globe for their own military forces and they would either expand the size and scope of the colonial empire it produced in order to expand its territory, or establish additional bases across the globe. When large geographic resources to which the state had access turned into political power to gain it such forces could be found in almost any area of society. These states, who had a monopoly of military power by the time of the end of the nineteenth century, might not have had the time and ability to organize and build long lasting military machines or power to the point that they would have developed industrial-technological bases for the state power at a later date. However, it was possible to form, expand and maintain military bases across the globe or to build large armies and/or navies by using the new capabilities and power of the new systems to expand its empire. This was an important feature among empire expansion that eventually led to new political movements, political dynasties and military technologies.
This chapter details, for example, the state-centric political philosophy of the United States in the 18th Century. A political theorist who studied the state-centered politics of the 19th Century as well as the new political philosophy of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev set out a view that he saw the republic as an inherently totalitarian state. The state has more power and control over state interests and even its own citizens. Though he did not define the term, he did consider in his view “state democracy”, which was to put the term “dictatorship through authoritarianism” to be synonymous with state power. This would define the relationship between the state, its leaders and democracy of all states, including those that used state power or who attempted to form dictatorships such as China or Kazakhstan. In this view, democracy was a direct result of state power and the state was essentially a tool to impose its will across the entire country, through force, by way of mass assembly or by force of arms. In this view democracies were not inherently totalitarian as they were not inherently authoritarian. In his view, the entire European Union as a whole, including Poland, France and Germany, had a democratic and pluralistic democracy in this context.
The European Union (EU) was defined as in the Treaty of Rome (1942), by which it included the Treaty of Rome on State and Union. Its members include Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The Treaty’s goal was to
In contrast, there were no such factors in the way governments were able to maintain military power during the Renaissance. States were not able to establish, expand and maintain military facilities to expand their political power and maintain their own monopoly. Therefore, the process of empire was still very much a struggle within state power as it was within state power for states to expand their military base. States would often create and maintain bases across the globe for their own military forces and they would either expand the size and scope of the colonial empire it produced in order to expand its territory, or establish additional bases across the globe. When large geographic resources to which the state had access turned into political power to gain it such forces could be found in almost any area of society. These states, who had a monopoly of military power by the time of the end of the nineteenth century, might not have had the time and ability to organize and build long lasting military machines or power to the point that they would have developed industrial-technological bases for the state power at a later date. However, it was possible to form, expand and maintain military bases across the globe or to build large armies and/or navies by using the new capabilities and power of the new systems to expand its empire. This was an important feature among empire expansion that eventually led to new political movements, political dynasties and military technologies.
This chapter details, for example, the state-centric political philosophy of the United States in the 18th Century. A political theorist who studied the state-centered politics of the 19th Century as well as the new political philosophy of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev set out a view that he saw the republic as an inherently totalitarian state. The state has more power and control over state interests and even its own citizens. Though he did not define the term, he did consider in his view “state democracy”, which was to put the term “dictatorship through authoritarianism” to be synonymous with state power. This would define the relationship between the state, its leaders and democracy of all states, including those that used state power or who attempted to form dictatorships such as China or Kazakhstan. In this view, democracy was a direct result of state power and the state was essentially a tool to impose its will across the entire country, through force, by way of mass assembly or by force of arms. In this view democracies were not inherently totalitarian as they were not inherently authoritarian. In his view, the entire European Union as a whole, including Poland, France and Germany, had a democratic and pluralistic democracy in this context.
The European Union (EU) was defined as in the Treaty of Rome (1942), by which it included the Treaty of Rome on State and Union. Its members include Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The Treaty’s goal was to
In contrast, there were no such factors in the way governments were able to maintain military power during the Renaissance. States were not able to establish, expand and maintain military facilities to expand their political power and maintain their own monopoly. Therefore, the process of empire was still very much a struggle within state power as it was within state power for states to expand their military base. States would often create and maintain bases across the globe for their own military forces and they would either expand the size and scope of the colonial empire it produced in order to expand its territory, or establish additional bases across the globe. When large geographic resources to which the state had access turned into political power to gain it such forces could be found in almost any area of society. These states, who had a monopoly of military power by the time of the end of the nineteenth century, might not have had the time and ability to organize and build long lasting military machines or power to the point that they would have developed industrial-technological bases for the state power at a later date. However, it was possible to form, expand and maintain military bases across the globe or to build large armies and/or navies by using the new capabilities and power of the new systems to expand its empire. This was an important feature among empire expansion that eventually led to new political movements, political dynasties and military technologies.
This chapter details, for example, the state-centric political philosophy of the United States in the 18th Century. A political theorist who studied the state-centered politics of the 19th Century as well as the new political philosophy of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev set out a view that he saw the republic as an inherently totalitarian state. The state has more power and control over state interests and even its own citizens. Though he did not define the term, he did consider in his view “state democracy”, which was to put the term “dictatorship through authoritarianism” to be synonymous with state power. This would define the relationship between the state, its leaders and democracy of all states, including those that used state power or who attempted to form dictatorships such as China or Kazakhstan. In this view, democracy was a direct result of state power and the state was essentially a tool to impose its will across the entire country, through force, by way of mass assembly or by force of arms. In this view democracies were not inherently totalitarian as they were not inherently authoritarian. In his view, the entire European Union as a whole, including Poland, France and Germany, had a democratic and pluralistic democracy in this context.
The European Union (EU) was defined as in the Treaty of Rome (1942), by which it included the Treaty of Rome on State and Union. Its members include Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The Treaty’s goal was to
The growth of industrialization was one of the motors which enabled the expansion of capitalism to dominate economic life. Capitalism has a long history in Europe but its beginnings most likely occurred when agricultural production enabled a maintainable level to be traded.
States that had shipbuilding industries were able to establish long distance trade routes. Globalization itself became a major source of expansion of state activity and efficiency, and global connections were achieved among many states and societies. The development of modern warfare was driven by the growing needs for raw materials and other production requirements.
The capitalist economy created a world-wide division of labor and it became necessary for political structures and states to enter into global trade relationships. The state gradually became involved in civil society in order to control policies and secure the income it required to pursue their policies, often of a military nature The more successful the economic activities