War

The main reason for the outbreak of war is the desire of political forces to use armed struggle to achieve various foreign and domestic political goals.

• In its scale, wars are divided into global and local (conflicts).
• The division of wars into “external” (external warfare) and “internal” (internal warfare) is also important (see, for example: Korotaev, Komarova, Khalturina 2007 ).

See also:

• Air warfare
• Naval warfare
• Local war
• Nuclear war
• Colonial war
• Minor war
• Information war
• Cold war
• Network-centric warfare

Behavioral Theories

Psychologists , such as E. Durban and John Bowlby , argue that man is characterized by aggression by the nature of things ^[2] . It is fueled by sublimation and projection , when a person turns his discontent into prejudices and hatred of other races , religions , nations or ideologies . According to this theory, the state creates and maintains a certain order in the local society and at the same time creates the basis for aggression in the form of war. If war is an integral part of human nature, as is assumed by many psychological theories, then it will never be possible to completely eliminate it.

Sigmund Freud considered aggressiveness to be one of the main instincts that determine the psychological "springs", the orientation and meaning of human existence, and based on this position, Z. Freud even refused to participate in the movement of peace activists, since he considered war an inevitable consequence of periodic outbreaks of human aggressiveness.

Although these theories may explain why wars exist, they do not explain the reasons for their occurrence; at the same time, they do not explain the existence of certain cultures that do not know wars as such ^[3] . If the internal psychology of the human mind is unchanged, then such cultures should not exist. Some militarists , such as Franz Alexander , argue that the state of the world is an illusion. The periods that are called “peaceful” are actually periods of preparations for a future war or a situation when militant instincts are suppressed by a stronger state, for example, Pax Britannica ^[4] .

These theories are supposedly based on the will of the vast majority of the population. However, they do not take into account the fact that only a small number of wars in history were really the result of the will of the people ^[5] . More often, people are forcibly drawn into war by their rulers. One of the theories that puts political and military leaders at the forefront was developed by Maurice Walsh ^[6] . He argued that the vast majority of the population is neutral with respect to war and that wars only happen when leaders come to power with a psychologically abnormal attitude towards human life. Wars are started by rulers who deliberately seek to fight - such as, for example, Alexander the Great , Napoleon , Hitler . Such people become leaders at the time of the crisis, when the population is looking for a leader with a strong will, who, they think, is able to solve their problems.

Criticizing this point of view, E. Fromm, using the example of European history of the 15th – 20th centuries, indicates that the number and intensity of wars are not constant values, but increase significantly with the successes of technical civilization and processes of strengthening government power ^[7] . .

Evolutionary Psychology

Scientists studying evolutionary psychology tend to argue that human wars are an analogue of the behavior of animals that fight for territory or compete for food or a partner. Animals are aggressive in nature, and in the human environment, such aggressiveness translates into war. However, with the development of technology, human aggression reached such a limit that it began to threaten the survival of the whole species. One of the first adherents of this theory was Conrad Lorenz . ^[eight]

Similar theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who believed that organized, protracted human wars are significantly different from animal fights - and not just in terms of technology. Ashley Montague ^[9] points out that social factors and upbringing are important factors that determine the nature and course of human wars. War is still a human invention, with its historical and social roots.

Sociological Theories

Sociologists have long studied the causes of wars. There are many theories on this subject, many of which contradict each other. Supporters of one of the Primat der Innenpolitik schools (Priority of Domestic Politics) take the work of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler , who believed that war is a product of local conditions, and that only the direction of aggression is determined by external ones. factors. So, for example, the First World War was not the result of international conflicts, secret conspiracies or imbalances in the balance of power, but the result of the economic, social and political situation in each country involved in the conflict.

This theory differs from the traditional approach of Primat der Außenpolitik (Foreign Policy Priority) by Karl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke , who argued that war and peace are the result of decisions by statesmen and the geopolitical situation.

Demographic Theories

Demographic theories can be divided into two classes: Malthusian theories and theories of youth predominance.

Malthusian Theories

According to Malthusian theories, the causes of war lie in population growth and lack of resources.

So, Pope Urban II in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade , wrote: “The land that you inherited is surrounded on all sides by the sea and mountains, and it is too small for you; she barely provides food to people. That’s why you are killing and tormenting each other, waging wars, that’s why so many of you are dying in civil strife. Take away your hatred, let the enmity end. Enter the road to the Holy Sepulcher; win this land from the wicked race and take it to yourself. "

This is one of the first descriptions of what was later called the Malthusian theory of war. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) wrote that the population always grows until its growth is not limited to war, disease or hunger .

Supporters of Malthusian theories believe that the relative decrease in the number of military conflicts over the past 50 years, especially in developing countries , is a consequence of the fact that new technologies in agriculture can feed a much larger number of people; at the same time, the availability of contraceptives has led to a significant decrease in fertility.

Theory of Youth

The theory of youth predominance is significantly different from Malthusian theories. Her supporters believe that combining a large number of young men (as graphically represented in the Age-Sexual Pyramid ) with a lack of ongoing peaceful work leads to a great risk of war.

While Malthusian theories focus on the contradictions between a growing population and the availability of natural resources, the prevalence of youth focuses on the mismatch between the number of poor, non-inheriting assets of young men and available working positions in the existing social system of division of labor .

The French sociologist Gaston Bouthoul, ^[10] American sociologist Jack A. Goldstone , ^[11] American political scientist Gary Fuller, ^{[12] [13] [14]} and German sociologist Gunnar made a great contribution to the development of this theory. Heinsohn). ^[15] Samuel Huntington developed his theory of the Clash of Civilizations , largely using the theory of youth predominance:

I don’t think that Islam is a more aggressive religion than any other, but I suspect that more people have died at the hands of Christians than ever at the hands of Muslims. The key factor here is demography. By and large, people who go to kill other people are men aged 16 to 30 years .

During the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the Muslim world had a high birth rate and this led to a huge bias towards young people. But he will inevitably disappear. Fertility in Islamic countries is falling; in some countries, rapidly. Islam was originally spread by fire and sword, but I don’t think that Islamic theology has inherited aggressiveness. " ^[16]

The theory of youth predominance was created recently, but has already gained a great influence on US foreign policy and military strategy. Both Goldstone and Fuller advised the US government. The CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson referred to this theory in his 2002 report, The National Security Implications of Global Demographic Change. ^[17]

According to Hainson, who was the first to propose the theory of youth predominance in its most general form, skew occurs when 30 to 40 percent of the country's male population belongs to the “explosive” age group - from 15 to 29 years old. Usually this phenomenon is preceded by an explosion of fertility, when 4-8 children per woman.

In the case when there are 2.1 children per woman, the son takes the place of the father, and the daughter takes the place of the mother. A total total birth rate of 2.1 leads to the replacement of the previous generation, while a lower coefficient leads to the extinction of the population.

In the case when 4-8 children are born in a family, the father must provide his sons not one, but two or four social positions (work), so that they have at least some prospects in life. Considering that the number of respected posts in society cannot increase at the same rate as the number of food, textbooks, and vaccines, many “angry young men” find themselves in situations where their youthful anger spills over into violence.

1. There are too many demographically
2. They have no job or are stuck in an un respectable, low-paying position,
3. Often they are not able to lead a sex life until their earnings allow them to start a family.

According to Hainson, a combination of these stressors ^[18] usually leads to one of the following results:

1. violent crime
2. emigration ("nonviolent colonization")
3. revolt
4. civil war and (or) revolution
5. genocide (to take the place of those killed)
6. conquest (forced colonization, often accompanied by genocide outside the home country).

Religion and ideology in this case are secondary factors and are used only to give violence a semblance of legality, but they themselves cannot serve as a source of violence if there is no predominance of youth in society. Accordingly, supporters of this theory consider “Christian” European colonialism and imperialism, as well as today's “Islamic aggression” and terrorism, as a result of demographic imbalance ^[19] . The Gaza Strip is a typical illustration of this phenomenon: increased aggressiveness of the population caused by an excess of young unsettled men. And for contrast, the situation can be compared with neighboring relatively peaceful Lebanon ^[20] .

As another historical example, when young people played a large role in uprisings and revolutions, the French Revolution of 1789 can be cited ^[21] . In the emergence of Nazism, an important role was played by economic depression in Germany ^[22] . The genocide in Rwanda in 1994 could also be the result of a serious predominance of youth in society ^[23] .

Despite the fact that the correlation between population growth and political stability has been known since the publication of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974 ^[24] , neither the government nor the World Health Organization took birth control measures to prevent a terrorist threat. Outstanding demographer Stephen D. Mumford attributes this to the influence of the Catholic Church ^[25] .

The theory of youth predominance has been the subject of statistical analysis by the World Bank ^[26] , Population Action International ^[27] and the ^[28] . Detailed demographic data are available for most countries in the international database of the US Census Bureau ^[29] .

The theory of the prevalence of youth is criticized for statements leading to racial, gender and age discrimination . ^[thirty]

Rationalist Theories

Rationalist theories suggest that both parties to the conflict act rationally and proceed from the desire to get the most benefit with the least loss on their part. Based on this, if both sides knew in advance how the war would end, it would be better for them to accept the results of the war without battles and without unnecessary casualties. Rationalist theory puts forward three reasons why some countries are unable to agree among themselves and instead start to fight: the problem of indivisibility, the asymmetry of information with intentional misrepresentation and the inability to rely on the promise of the adversary ^[31] .

The indivisibility problem arises when the two parties cannot reach a mutual agreement through negotiations, because the thing that they strive to possess is indivisible and can belong to only one of them. An example is the war on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The problem of asymmetric information arises when two states cannot pre-calculate the probability of victory and reach a mutually acceptable agreement because each of them has military secrets. They cannot open cards because they do not trust each other. At the same time, each side is trying to exaggerate its own strength in order to negotiate additional benefits. For example, Sweden tried to mislead the Nazis regarding its military potential by playing a card of "Aryan superiority" and showing German Goering elite troops dressed as ordinary soldiers.

The Americans decided to go to war in Vietnam , knowing full well that the Communists would resist, but underestimating the partisans' ability to withstand the regular US army.

And finally, negotiations on the prevention of war could end in failure due to the inability of states to abide by the rules of fair play. ^[32] Two countries could have avoided war if they had adhered to the original agreements. But in the transaction, one side receives such privileges that it becomes stronger and begins to demand more and more; as a result, the weaker side has no choice but to defend itself.

A rationalist approach can be criticized in many ways. The assumption of mutual calculations of profits and costs looks doubtful - for example, in cases of genocide during the Second World War, when no alternative was left to the weak side. Rationalists believe that the state acts as a whole, united by one will, and the leaders of the state are reasonable and able to objectively assess the likelihood of success or failure, which proponents of the behavioral theories mentioned above cannot agree with.

Rationalist theories are usually well applicable in game theory , and not in modeling solutions that underlie any war.

Economic Theories

Another school adheres to the theory that war can be seen as an increase in economic competition between countries. Wars begin as an attempt to seize markets and natural resources and, as a result, wealth. Representatives of ultra-right-wing political circles, for example, argue that the strong have a natural right to everything that the weak cannot hold. Some centrist politicians also adhere to economic theory in explaining wars.

“Is there at least one man, even one woman, even a child who does not know that the causes of war in the modern world lie in industrial and commercial competition?” - Woodrow Wilson , September 11, 1919, St. Louis. ^[33]

“I spent 33 years and four months in the military, and most of this time I worked as an upscale bruiser working for Big Business , Wall Street and bankers. Короче говоря, я рэкетир , гангстер капитализма .» — один из наиболее высокопоставленных и имеющих наибольшее количество наград морской пехотинец (награждён двумя Медалями почёта ) генерал-майор Смэдли Батлер (основной кандидат от Республиканской партии США в Сенат ) в 1935 году. ^[34]

В. И. Ленин объяснял первую мировую войну экономическими причинами:

Капитализм перерос во всемирную систему колониального угнетения и финансового удушения горстью «передовых» стран гигантского большинства населения земли. И дележ этой «добычи» происходит между 2-3 всемирно могущественными, вооруженными с ног до головы хищниками (Америка, Англия, Япония), которые втягивают в свою войну из-за дележа своей добычи всю землю. ^[35]

На примере первой мировой войны Э. Фромм указывает, что её причинами были экономические интересы элитарных групп населения всех воевавших стран: экономическое господство и захват колониальных территорий ^[7] .

Теория возникновения войн в политологии

Статистическим анализом войны впервые занялся исследователь Первой мировой войны Льюис Фрай Ричардсон (Lewis Fry Richardson).

Существует несколько различных школ международных отношений . Сторонники реализма в международных отношениях утверждают, что основная мотивация государств — это собственная безопасность.

Другая теория рассматривает вопрос власти в международных отношениях и Теорию перехода власти , которая выстраивает мир в определённую иерархию и объясняет крупнейшие войны вызовом действующему гегемону со стороны Великой державы , которая не подчиняется его контролю.

Позиция объективизма

Айн Рэнд , создательница объективизма и защитница рационального индивидуализма и невмешательства в капитализм, доказывала, что если человек хочет противостоять войне, то он должен в первую очередь противостоять экономике, контролируемой государством. Она считала, что мира на земле не будет до тех пор, пока люди будут придерживаться стадных инстинктов и жертвовать индивидуумами ради коллектива и его мифического «блага». ^[36]

Прямая цель войны состоит в навязывании противнику своей воли. Один субъект политики пытается изменить поведение другого, заставить его отказаться от своей свободы, идеологии, от прав на что-либо, отдать требуемые национальные богатства, территорию, акваторию и другое. Реализация этого стремления невоенными средствами, например, в процессе переговоров, сопровождаемых угрозой применения силы, может завершиться так называемым «добровольным присоединением» одного государства к другому, без применения вооружённой силы. По мнению известного американского специалиста по психологической войне П. Лайнбарджера, война — это своего рода убеждение, дорогостоящее, опасное, кровавое и неприятное, но эффективное, если другие меры не дают желаемых результатов. ^[37] При этом нередко инициаторы войны преследуют и непрямые цели, как то: укрепление своих внутриполитических позиций (« маленькая победоносная война »), дестабилизация региона в целом, отвлечение и связывание сил противника. В новое время, для стороны, непосредственно начавшей войну, целью является мир лучший, чем довоенный. Для стороны же, испытывающей агрессию со стороны развязавшего войну противника, целью войны автоматически становится:

• Противостояние противнику, желающему навязать свою волю.
• Предотвращение рецидивов агрессии.

В реальной жизни часто нет чёткой грани между нападающей и обороняющейся стороной, ибо обе стороны находятся на грани открытого проявления агрессии, и какая из них начнёт атаку первой — дело случая и принятой тактики. В таких случаях цели войны обеих сторон одинаковы — навязывание своей воли противнику с целью улучшения своего довоенного положения.

Исходя из вышесказанного, можно сделать вывод, что война может быть:

• Полностью выиграна одной из противоборствующих сторон — либо воля агрессора исполнена, либо, для обороняющейся стороны, нападки агрессора успешно пресечены и его активность подавлена.
• Цели ни одной из сторон не достигнуты до конца — воля агрессора(ов) исполнена, но не полностью.

Военная добыча

Выкуп Атауальпы

Выкуп Атауальпы , правителя Инков ( 18 июня 1533 года ), считается крупнейшей военной добычей в мировой истории.

Выкуп в физическом выражении составил 5993 кг золота, что на тот момент было в 14 раз больше ежегодного поступления золота из Африки в Испанию.

Согласно концепции справедливой войны , не все войны являются справедливыми и морально оправданными, а лишь некоторые. Основы теории справедливой войны были заложены ещё у Аристотеля и Цицерона .

Некоторые философы видели в войне высший смысл. Так, Гегель видел высокое значение войны в том, что благодаря ей сохраняется нравственное здоровье народов, война «предохраняет народы от гниения». В. С. Соловьёв считал, что «война есть дело святое» и войны были и будут великим, честным и святым делом. И. А. Ильин подчеркивал «духовный смысл» войны, он писал, что «свободное, углублённое искание истины, добра и красоты должны не прекратиться среди народа, вовлечённого в войну, но разгореться ещё ярче». Ницше писал, что «война и мужество сотворили больше великого, чем любовь к ближнему». По Прудону , война — «божественное явление, справедливое, добродетельное, нравственное, святое, особый вид религиозного откровения».

Другие философы придерживались пацифистстких взглядов. Эразм Роттердамский писал что в войне нет ничего святого, она неразумна, является воплощением всех бед и страданий, «словно моровая язва, она разъедает совесть и веру», развязывает всяческие пороки, противна христианским понятиям о братстве, согласии, кротости. И. Кант считал войну признаком варварства и безусловно осуждал её. ^{[38] [39]}

В состояние войны противоборствующие стороны переходят с момента снятия политическим и военным руководством вступивших в вооружённое противостояние сторон ограничений для частей и подразделений своих вооружённых сил на применение личного состава и штатного целесообразного оружия . Как правило части и подразделения вооружённых сил получают приказ на начало боевых действий.

Состояние войны влечёт за собой ряд правовых последствий — прекращение дипломатических и иных отношений между воюющими государствами, прекращение международных договоров и др. Так, например, все договоры между Россией и Японией о разграничении островов ( Сахалина и Курильских ), заключавшиеся в XIX веке , утратили силу в связи с Русско-японской войной 1904—1905, поэтому любые ссылки на них в наше время неправомерны.

Война может завершаться безоговорочной капитуляцией одной из противоборствующих сторон либо мирным договором, частично удовлетворяющим участвующие стороны. В любом случае война заканчивается миром , который обычно определяется как отсутствие войны или состояние снятых противоречий.

Древние римляне говорили, что во время войны законы молчат ( лат. Inter arma leges silent ). В мирное время государства признают суверенитет друг друга, но во время войны само вторжение на территорию противника означает отрицание права противника на неё, его власти над ней.

Однако, с течением времени и с развитием международных отношений, государства пришли к сознанию, что именно во время войны необходимо установить некоторые обязательные для воюющих сторон ограничения их произвола в их же общих интересах. Профессор Мартенс говорил, что только крайние противники и сторонники войны, чтобы не разойтись с логикой, отрицают саму возможность какого-либо права войны.

Первоначально стало общепризнанным запрещение убийства раненных и пленных, затем были признаны гарантии личной и имущественной безопасности женщин, духовенства, паломников, купцов, путешественников и, вообще, всех мирных лиц. Уже с XVI века появились международные договоры, определяющие положение раненых и юридические права пленных. Международное гуманитарное право окончательно сложилось в XX веке ^[39] . Тогда же сформировалось понятие о военных преступлениях .

Устав ООН , принятый в 1945 г., разрешает применение государствами силы только для индивидуальной или коллективной самоообороны или по решению Совета Безопасности ООН в случае угрозы миру.

Until the 19th century, wars had a relatively narrow economic base and were waged, as a rule, by a few professional armies. From the second half of the 19th century, and especially from the 20th century, wars demand enormous strain on the economies of the belligerents (as a result of which the population of the belligerent states sometimes lives in poverty and starvation, more on which below) and draw the multimillion-dollar masses of people into a long struggle. Many countries are participating in a military conflict, thereby turning war into a world war . In World War I , more than 70 million people participated, in World War II - about 110 million.

The role of war in human society is assessed ambiguously.

• The negative consequences of wars, in addition to the loss of life, include the complex that is designated as a humanitarian catastrophe : famine , epidemics. Modern global wars are associated with huge human and material losses, with previously unprecedented destruction and disasters. For example, losses in the wars of European countries (those killed and died from wounds and diseases) amounted to: 3.3 million people in the 17th century , 5.4% in the 18th century , 5 in the 19th and early 20th centuries (before the First World War) , 7, in the First World War - over 9, in the Second World War (including those killed in Nazi concentration camps) - over 50 million people.
• The positive consequences of the wars include the exchange of information (thanks to the Battle of Talas, the Arabs learned the secret of making paper from the Chinese ), a surge in scientific and technological discoveries, and the removal of contradictions (war as a dialectical moment of Hegel's denial).

Some researchers also attribute the following factors as positive for human society as a whole (not for humans):

1. War returns to human society biological selection, when the offspring leaves the most fit for survival, since under the usual conditions of the human community, the laws of biology are greatly weakened when choosing a partner.
2. At the time of hostilities, all prohibitions that are imposed on a person in society at ordinary times are lifted. As a result, war can be considered as a way and method of relieving psychological stress within the whole society.
3. Fear of imposing another's will, fear of danger is an exceptional incentive to technological progress. It is no coincidence that many novelties are invented and appear first for military needs and only then find their application in civilian life.
4. The recovery of international relations at the highest level and the appeal of the world community to such values ​​as human life, peace and so on in the post-war period.

In some opinion, based on data on the life of modern groups of people who remain at a primitive level of development (the Hadza people in Tanzania and the Australian aborigines from the Tiwi Islands), war is not characteristic of people in their initial state. According to Finnish researchers, hunter-gatherers have no incentive to wage war: because of the nomadic way of life, they do not stock up on food that can be taken from their rivals, and the size of the groups does not allow large-scale conflicts ^[40] .

Ancient World Wars

• The aggressive campaigns of the ancient states with the aim of enslaving the tribes who were at a lower stage of social development, collecting tribute and capturing slaves (for example, the Gallic war , the Markoman war , etc.);
• Interstate wars with the aim of seizing territories and robbing conquered countries (for example, Punic wars , Greco-Persian wars );
• wars between the various groups of the aristocracy (for example, the wars of the diadoch for the division of the empire of Alexander the Great in 321-276 BC);
• uprising of slaves (for example, the uprising of slaves in ancient Rome under the leadership of Spartacus );
• uprisings of peasants and artisans ( uprising of the "Red-browed" in China).
• First and Second Judean War

Medieval Wars

• Religious Wars: Crusades , Jihad ;
• Dynastic wars (for example, the Scarlet and White Rose War in England );
• Peasant uprising against oppression (e.g. Jacquerie in France, Peasant war in Germany (Bauernkrieg))

Wars of the Modern and Modern times

• Colonial wars of the capitalist countries for the enslavement of the peoples of Asia, Africa, America, Oceania (for example, the First Opium War and the Second Opium War );
• Wars of states and coalitions of states for hegemony (for example, the Northern War , the Mexican-American War , the Korean War , the Ethiopian-Eritrean War ), the war for world domination (the Seven Years War , the Napoleonic Wars , the First and Second World War );
• Civil wars accompanying the development of socialist and bourgeois-democratic revolutions. Often, civil wars merge with wars against external intervention ( Civil War in China );
• National liberation wars of the peoples of dependent and colonial countries against the colonialists, for the establishment of state independence or for its preservation, against attempts to restore the colonial regime (for example, the Algerian war ; the colonial war of Portugal , etc.).

Post-Industrial Wars

It is believed that post-industrial wars are primarily diplomatic and espionage confrontations.

• City guerilla
• Humanitarian war (some call, for example, the Kosovo war )
• Counterterrorist operation
• Interethnic conflict (e.g. Bosnian war , Karabakh war )

Generations of the Lind Wars

In 1989, an American expert, William Lind, in analyzing the evolution of the tasks of the American Marines introduced the division of wars into four generations. He describes the war of the first generation as being waged by a linear system using smooth-bore firearms; the second generation - positional wars with shelling, machine guns, trenches and other field fortifications; Lind attributed the blitzkrieg to the third generation : the army seeks to surround the enemy and cut him off from communications, the main types of weapons are tanks and aircraft; the fourth-generation war according to Lind is being waged by small groups of soldiers equipped with the latest technology as a series of separate operations.

Descriptions of wars of the fifth and sixth generations are found in the literature, but the content of these terms differs among different authors.

International and non-international armed conflict

Two types of armed conflicts are distinguished in international humanitarian law ^[41] :

• International armed conflict. In such a conflict, war is fought between states .
• Non-international armed conflict. In such a conflict, a war is fought between rebels and the state (or between rebel groups)

It is believed that the shortest was the war between England and Zanzibar in 1896. The duration of this war is 38 minutes.

The longest is considered the “ Centennial War ”, which, in fact, consists of four consecutive conflicts, which are combined into one extended war.

Also, the longest war is considered the 335-year war , which lasted almost three and a half centuries, between Holland and Scilly .

Legally, the Third Punic War , which lasted in 2134 ( 149 BC - 1985 AD ), is considered the longest. Since after the defeat of Carthage by Rome , peace was not concluded, the state of war formally remained, and only in 1985 the mayors of Rome and Tunisia (as a city that was built on the site of the ruins of Carthage) signed a formal peace treaty.

In fact, the Reconquista can be considered the longest - a series of wars for the liberation of the Iberian Peninsula from the Arabs , which began in 718 with the Battle of Kovadong and ended in 1492 with the fall of the Granada emirate .

• Armed conflict
• Declaration of war
• War time
• Belligerent
• The laws and customs of war
• Gods of war

• Preventive war
• Civil War
• Holy wars
• Trade war
• Hybrid warfare
• Cold war
• Nuclear war
• World War
• Military revolution

• Overpopulation
• Militarism
• Antimilitarism
• Pacifism
• Peace movement
• Peace (lack of war)

• War // Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary : in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - SPb. , 1890-1907.
• War // Military Encyclopedia : [in 18 vol.] / Ed. V.F. Novitsky [et al.]. - SPb. ; [ M. ]: Type. t-va I. D. Sytin , 1911-1915.
• Sun Tzu . The art of war = 孫子兵 法 / translation by Konrad N.I. . - Moscow: AST, 2011 .-- 606 p. - ISBN 978-5-17-066178-7 .
• War and peace in agricultural pre-class and early class societies // Pershits A.I., Semenov Yu. I. , Shnirelman V.A. War and peace in the early history of mankind. T. 2. M., Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS. 1994. S. 7-127.
• Korotaev A.V. , Komarova L.N., Khalturina D.A. Laws of history. Centuries-old cycles and millennial trends. Demography, economics, wars. 2nd ed. M .: URSS, 2007.
• Martin van Creveld . Transformation of War = The Transformation of war. - Moscow: IRISEN, 2005 .-- 343 p. - ISBN 5-9614-0280-0 .
• Straten H. Carl von Clausewitz, On War. - M .: AST: AST MOSCOW: Polygraph Publishing House, 2010 .-- 330 p.
• Quincy Wright - Some Thoughts on War and Peace // Theory of International Relations: Reader / Comp. P.A. Tsygankov. - M .: Gardariki , 2003.- 400 S.

• Thomas Harbotle . Battles of world history
• Mikhailov V.N., Brezkun S.T. Good or evil? The philosophy of a stable world (inaccessible link)
• Urlanis B. Ts . Wars and Population of Europe
• The whole history of wars in 5 minutes: 4500 years of battles // Popular Mechanics , 2017