Twentieth Century Conflicts

The individual level of analysis in war includes a basic idea of how human traits cause many of the social outcomes in historical instances, including war and peace. There are variations of this idea as listed in a paper written by Wade L. Huntley, Ph.D. titled Causes of War and Paths to Peace written in May of 2004. Those variations include: basic human nature, varying features of human nature and both perception and misperception. His considerations behind this would include that in factoring basic human nature, people are basically aggressive, loving, greedy and fearful and so forth. People would be of all sorts of types, some aggressive, others peaceful, greedy or generous. Perception and misperception can result as bad decisions are made, especially in times of stress, which continually exemplifies the limits of human understanding of more than just human nature. Now, the question is, why does this series of considerations explain how war can manage coming about According to the text written by Wade L. Huntley, Ph.D. titled Causes of War and Paths to Peace written in May of 2004 that would include such potential motivations as self interest, which would lead to dilemmas in security, the equivalent of fear, protection requirement as a result and then intimidation as a result of those protections. Uncertainty breeds doubt and thus creates misperception and misinterpretation of actions. Wars or conflicts that would figure into this particular style of analysis would include, the Kurds, Bosnia, and Afghanistan in the grand scheme of war analysis because it would be individual conflicts of interest and security involved.
The state level of war analysis includes a basic idea that the key factor is not necessarily based on human factors, but governmental ones in organization and such. The constraints that are created as a result of the basic infrastructure of the country can become a root cause of war. There are two variations to this idea. One is the state’s nature. because each state wants certain things just because they would happen to be states and things like security and unity or nationalism would be inclusive within that. Also, included within this perspective is, like individuals, every state would be different. There would be differences that include purposeful, ideological and structural differences to consider. Much like the man vs. man consideration, this would be, in order revolutionary vs. status quo, capitalism vs. communism and democracy vs. totalitarianism. So, how can we understand such things, well we examine one of the wars on a state level. This would be, in essence, the Vietnam Conflict in which half the country believed strongly in democratic process and the other half would believe strongly in the communist construct. The same could be said for the Korean War.
Understanding the underlying reasons would hardly gain knowledge as to how the individual level of war interpretations would inevitably cause war. Nor, would this actually explain the impetus of war in the fact that uncertainty of the human condition exists. In the State level of war, you have states that control the military, so what happens within a state or affects that state, can affect the military. No matter how good the people are within that state, it hardly would imply that the governing body for that state would be the same. Regardless