Lords of War Simulation

Critics of Smith's and Friedman's theories contend that they neglect the need for cooperation and teamwork in society, and that chaos can be avoided only with heavy policing of self-interested behavior. Proponents of the invisible hand counter that individuals will usually pursue cooperation and self-regulation because it is in their own interest.

Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that region to acquire fantastic levels of wealth, many of these powerful figures have denied these claims, Zinn,in reaction to these claims uses paradigm example, WW1, as a means for discrediting the upper class who incessantly deny profits during war.

By dictionary definition, war is a state of armed conflict between societies generally characterized by extreme aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces. For centuries, war has been used to resolve conflict, but it also has been used to create chaos. In the 70's for example, there was a big revolution against the Vietnam war. As a result of this "double standard" many individuals have multiple opinions about war and its purposes. In the two pieces "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen and "Who's for the Game?" by Jesse Pope, each poet emulates war in various points of views to produces different effects on their readers.

Coming up with a good explanation that can justify the action of this community is not an easy task. However, a simple reason supporting the ideology is that considering this is a tradition that never seizes, people continue to work together to make it happen. Every individual in the society obeys the traditions and work together to make it happen without considering the repercussion of the outcome: groupthink. According to the author, Shirley Jackson, “the hardest thing in the world is to stand against one’s group”. The use of groupthink in the text shows how individuals are intimidated by some events without realizing the outcome. The participation of the groups in making the faulty decisions of becoming winners always deters their thinking ability since they never realize they are losing a member of their family.

The conflict of war and its effects have been debated throughout history. Some argue that there are other peaceful alternatives besides war that would lead to a better outcome, but in reality this is not the case. War is a natural part of human interactions, and even though it brings death and destruction, war will not cease to exist. Wars are the human way of getting one group to look superior than the other. The idea of a passive approach is ideal, but it is almost nearly impossible and may not always lead to the same outcome as if a war had taken place.

He saw firsthand the devastation that is imposed primarily on civilian populations. He speaks about how liberal, well-ordered societies should treat each other and how they should deal with those societies that are non-well-ordered. He has two nonideal theories. “One kind deals with conditions of noncompliance, that is with conditions in which certain regimes refuse to comply with the reasonable Law of Peoples; these regimes think a sufficient reason to engage in war is that war advances, or might advance, the regimes rational (not reasonable) interests. These are called outlaw states.

Neo-liberalism is the economic belief that free market forces achieved by minimising government limitations on business provide the lone route towards economic growth shifting control from the public sector into the

Two fellow students and myself, with the guidance from a Professor developed and introduced to Macquarie University the first War Gamming Scenario. Our goal was to develop a student led program to improve out leadership skills and for fellow students to learn about strategic thinking and asymmetrical violence in a non-traditional environment through the use of games.

For this sense when weaker states join organizations, great powers gain from interactions because they do not have common interest as those of weaker states. Such Realist thinking has occurred thousands of years ago. The Melian Dialogue supports the theory by summing up all of realism, stating “the strong will dictate the term of interaction between states”(Melian Dialogue). Liberals also benefit from international organizations as well. They believe that repeated interactions with other states will be an effective way to collaborate with them and prevent one state from cheating on the other. Transparency, information, and monitoring will provide states to strengthen “global economic ties”(Snyder.59).

Kim Jongun, has mentioned before that he wants the world to look up to his strong country as a nuclear power, rather than just a mere country with multiple sanctions shouting big words. This in the past has led to various consequences from hegemonies all around the world who feel threatened by the implications of a young tyrant in charge of ICBMs. This is a clear example of the security dilemma in which the entire world, the anarchy that it is, has to control minor nations that strive for hegemony at the expense of the larger nations’ security and loss of leverage. Unfortunately, it seems that despite the clear warnings from the superior nations, the North Korean dictator has no interest in abiding by international rules and is far more fascinated with realist ideologies of projections of power.

Neorealism relates to European integration most specifically in terms of the aforementioned balance of power. Nations tend to balance among dominant powers rather than ally with them because they “fear that the powerful ally of today could become the menacing rival of tomorrow” (Collard-Wexler, 2006). This balance, however, should not be confused with cooperation because

One of the stronger points that classical realist theory made is the idea that war is inevitable. For the time period upon which classical realism was thriving, it was much more likely for interstate conflict to arise as there was no strong central system of collective security like the United Nations. A state and a neighboring state could and would co-exist with each other, but realist theory assumes that eventually conflict will arise from power conflicts between them. The real achilles heel of this theory shows here; this just is not the case in the world anymore with worldwide collective security.

As a result of the coevolutionary war gaming process, the group tasked to make the decision will be able to:

Famous Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." which supports the idea of war as a culturally influenced situation that is determined by the political power in control. War is a tool in the arsenal of a successful power to use when debating and non-violent persuasion fail to achieve the goals of the power. War is always waged for a reason, war is not a random act of slaughter. It is consequential to both the attacking and defending parties and no matter the amount of casualties, war comes with a heavy price. The financial cost of war is astronomical and the effects of war can be damaging to the political power. This is why war is usually a secondary resort instead of an impulsive decision coming from instinctive biology and not rationale. Biology has shown us that we do have reflexive, self defense mechanisms built in that serve the purpose of defending us from predators. But instead of fighting for a cause initiated out of respect for our self defense, we find these mechanisms being manipulated by the political power in order to gain public support for a war waged for entirely calculated reasons and not based on emotional expression. Denis Diderot, a French philosopher, elaborates on war as a

Neo-liberalism is a political ideology that suggests that ‘human well-being can be advanced by the maximisation of entrepreneurial freedom, characterised by private property rights, individual liberty, free markets and free trade’ (Geografiskar, A 2006). In today’s modern society neo-liberalism is widespread around the globe with various stakeholders offering conflicting views. Some advocates, namely the capitalistic portion of society argue that a liberal market is