Interesting social sciences/The theory of war
It is necessary to give answers to the following questions in this paragraph:
- Whether the pacifistic ideas about an opportunity to eradicate war from practice of the international relations are true?
- Whether war has benefit for development of humanity?
- 1 Geopolitics
- 2 Utopia of pacifism. The role of the war in history of humanity
- 3 International conflicts
- 4 Ludwig von Misses about the economic theory of war
Sir Alfred Thayer Mahan (years of life: 1840-1914) – this is the American naval theorist and the historian, the rear admiral, the teacher of sea history. He together with the English admiral Philip Howard Colomb has created the theory of "sea power"", considering that naval forces possess a crucial role in armed struggle, and conquest of naval supremacy is the main condition of a victory in war. Philip Howard Colomb has written the book "Sea War" in 1891 . Philip Howard Kolomb predicted that the battleships will play the crucial role in future war during decisive battle, but these forecasts haven't quite come true. The Russian admiral Stepan Makarov was closer to the truth when warned against revaluation of a role of battleships and decisive battle. Really, emergence of new classes of the fighting ships (submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers, torpedo boats) has turned battleships into big and often defenseless target. Aircraft carriers played the crucial role in a victory at the sea in World War II. Thus, forecasts of Philip Howard Colomb haven't come true completely.
Absolutely other destiny expected works and ideas of Alfred Thayer Mahan. He publishes In 1890 the first book "The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783" in which Alfred Thayer Mahan has drawn a conclusion that the wellbeing of Great Britain is based on her sea power and superiority of her military fleet. The book made enormous success. The English reviewers called Mahan's works as "the gospel of the British greatness", and German Emperor Wilhelm II claimed that he tries to learn by heart Mahan's works and has disposed to dispatch Mahan's works in all ship libraries of Germany. President of USA Theodore Roosevelt even considered himself by Mahan's pupil, repeatedly addressing to Alfred Thayer Mahan for council, especially during creation of "the big fleet".
Main thought of Alfred Thayer Mahan: "The nation wishing to govern at the sea has to attack". The book of Alfred Thayer Mahan was intended first of all for Americans since Alfred Thayer Mahan considered that the USA has "a sea destiny" though the USA wasn't included into the category of the advanced world powers yet in his time. Alfred Thayer Mahan predicted for the USA the planetary fortunes, formation by the leading sea power which is directly influencing on the fate of the world. Alfred Thayer Mahan considered the main enemies of the USA as "sea civilization" the continental states of Eurasia, first of all, Russia and China, and in the second turn - Germany. For fight against these countries of Alfred Thayer Mahan suggested to use the principle of "anaconda" which has been applied successfully by the general of northerners George McClellan in American Civil War of 1861-1865. The principle consists in blocking of enemy territories from the sea and on coastlines that leads to exhaustion of the opponent gradually because of the stopping of sea trade and the stopping of supply of weapon from abroad by sea. Having transferred this principle to planetary level, Alfred Thayer Mahan suggested to suffocate in rings of "anaconda" continental mass, squeezing her at the expense of brought out of her control the coastal zones and blocking whenever possible her exits to sea spaces. This strategy was implemented in World War I in support of the Entente by the white movement on Evraaziya's periphery (as the answer to the conclusion by Bolsheviks of the world with Germany). This strategy has been turned against Germany in World War II, Italy and Japan also. But especially accurately this strategy is visible during an era of Cold War when opposition of the USA and the USSR has reached global, planetary scales.
In my opinion, the world history demonstrates that countermethod appears over time against each method including countermethods will appear over time against tactics of sea power too. Germans applied naval tactic Wolfpack consisting of submarines during World War II long time successfully. The German aircraft and torpedo boats caused a big loss to convoys of USA and Britain, the German aircraft and torpedo boats are based in Norway. USA and Britain have managed to win by the German submarines only with help of total control of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. The Achilles' heel of diesel submarines is a need to emerge periodically on the surface of the sea to turn on the diesel and to recharge accumulators, the boat can be found and destroyed at this moment easily. Modern nuclear submarines have no this shortcoming and modern nuclear submarinescan lie at the bottom of the sea on alert very long. Rockets played the large role in modern war , this invention has turned the large ships and big cities of the opponent into a convenient target. The naval supremacy doesn't suffice already for achievement of world supremacy today, it is necessary to have also domination in the atmosphere and in space for this purpose today. Technical progress is infinite in military equipment. sea powers are forced to perform overland operations for a final victory over continental powers and to occupy the territory of overland powers after the victory at the sea of sea powers over continental powers. Big problems begin here at sea powers. Sea powers sustain big losses in manpower during guerrilla war. Americans have lost the war in Vietnam for this reason. Americans have big problems with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq for this reason, today . Big losses in manpower cause protests in America.
Conclusion: despite all these remarks, Russia has to pay to development of navy huge attention. Almost nobody managed to win the war against Russia. Russia walked on corpses of great empires by all own history. The West won't be able to win the war against Russia in the future too. Dissolution of the Soviet Union is temporary success of the West in "cold" war. Dissolution of the Soviet Union happened because of backwardness of the Soviet Union in sphere of economy and policy. The president of Russia Boris Yeltsin drew conclusions from this defeat and Boris Yeltsin undertook necessary reforms – Boris Yeltsin entered the western inventions (system of representative democracy, the market competition and a private property) into Russia. The economic and political system of Russia isn't worse than the economic and political system of the western countries today. Russia did in this way always - Russia studied at the opponents in the course of war always, and then Russia won against the opponents as a result of war. Russia headed by the president Vladimir Putin will recover own sphere of influence in the near future and the West won't be able to prevent it.
Utopia of pacifism. The role of the war in history of humanity
A war was the only effective method of the resolve of the international conflicts because of the territory and the national contradictions until creation of the UN. Experience of World War II has shown that war between the civilized advanced countries with use of thermonuclear weapon and long-range rockets threaten by mankind with death. Therefore prevention of World War III and punishment of aggressors became a main goal of founders of the UN. However experience of a communistic experiment has shown that, contrary to Karl Marx's forecasts, any great invention of mankind including war and border can never "die off ". Every type of the conflict which exist a long time in society including war, have own benefit and perform own function therefore this type of conflict can't be cancelled arbitrarily without damage for society.
The main benefit and the main function of war between the states consists in identification of the most advanced country which and becomes by winner often. Lost and more backward country is forced after war either to die, or to study at winners first of all in military area, and then and in other areas. If war is impossible between the advanced countries having nuclear weapon, then war of the advanced countries against backward countries, not having nuclear weapon, is quite acceptable and even inevitable. Pacifism as the theory about full eradication of wars from practice of the international relations, is a utopia. War, international trade and cultural exchange are the only ways of training of the backward people that to improve their cultural development before the level of the advanced nations. Indigenous people of Africa, America, Australia, Siberia still would vegetate in conditions of a primitive state without war .
The first form of contact with an alien civilization will be shown in the form of war always . Whether it makes sense to send in this case radio signals to alien "brothers on reason"? War of the advanced countries against the backward countries and terrorists is inevitable at least for the reason that terrorists sometimes are capable to attack the advanced countries leaders of which are disoriented by the pacifistic ideas and doesn't want to see real threats. Today the backward regimes have applied against the advanced countries rather effective tactics - global terror and guerrilla war. For example, the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden has arranged the attack to the USA on September 11, 2001. In my opinion, the USA has made a mistake when have crushed Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi's regime in Libya because chaos, civil war, the power of terrorists in the form of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have replaced Gaddafi's and Hussein's regime? but totalitarian regime is smaller of the evils in comparison with the power of terrorists (ochlocracy).
Islamic terrorists have arranged civil war against Russia in Chechnya. Drug traffic and trade of oil became a source of financing of terrorists. Non-proliferation regime of nuclear weapon has to interfere with a possibility of creation of nuclear weapon in the backward countries. Unpredictability of actions of the totalitarian regimes (for example communist regime in Northern Korea) armed by nuclear weapon can put mankind on a death side. The mankind invents counterweapon against any weapon sooner or later. We like it or it isn't pleasant, but frontiers have to remain, immigration has to have certain restrictions, and wars for possession of the territory will take place in the global world .
International conflicts arise, mainly, in the form of armed conflicts. The purpose of armed conflict is fight for possession of the territory, economic resources (mineral deposits, energy resources, precious metals), for control over maritime trade routes, for possession of colonies. Besides the conqueror can lay the won opponent under tribute or contribution. The purpose of war is defeat of army of the opponent and occupation of his territory. Means of war is weapon. That side wins in the war most often which possesses more modern weapon by means of which it is possible to cause more notable loss to the opponent in manpower and the technician. Progress of weapon consists that his destructive power grows. War has grown from hunting for wild animals. People have replaced subject to destruction from wild animals on men in the course of transition from hunting to war. Soldiers have ceased to destroy the won opponents in the war during period of slaveholding, and soldiers began to turn prisoners of war into slaves. Main types of weapon and type of military forces: bow and arrow, melee weapon, chariot, cavalry, catapult, Battering ram, warships, arbalest, firearm, guns, tanks, military planes, rockets, nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapon.
Economic stimuluses are applied in foreign policy except military strikes, for example, providing climate of most favoured nation in trade, soft loans, economic sanctions or embargo on trade are applied. Besides ideological fight and ideological control are applied in foreign policy. The example of ideological control is an imposing by the conqueror to won peoples own religion and culture. The Catholic countries organized crusades against Muslims and pagans with the purpose to impose own Katholic religion. Arabs forced the won people to accept Islam. Russia has received Orthodoxy from Byzantium voluntarily. Greeks bore the high culture (theater, philosophy and poetry) to the people of the Roman Empire. the American culture, production of Hollywood, takes dominant positions in world mass culture today though works of of Hollywood, have very poor quality often.
The new method of fight is as follows. Some backward Muslim nations are able to be at war badly therefore they try to expand on the territory of other countries with help of peaceful migration, to create national areas, to increase quickly the number of Muslim population at the expense of the strong family relations in Muslim family and high birth rate, and then to force out indigenous people and to fight for separation of these national areas from the territory of these countries. Albanians managed to finish this plan in Kosovo, Albanians have forced out Serbians from Kosovo and have achieved separation of this region from Serbia. The similar plan exists at the Crimean Tatars in the Crimea, they aim to force out Russians and Ukrainians from the Crimea and to attach this peninsula to Turkey. Here to what cancellation conducts of such great social invention as national border between the countries under the slogan of broad development of globalization. The same danger threatens countries of Western Europe because of mass immigration of Muslims to Europe. It is also the real "The Decline of the West" about which Oswald Spengler warned.National borders prevents from unlimited migration. The indigenous people has to assimilate a small number of migrants in normal conditions. Immigrants-barbarians can assimilate indigenous people of the country in a condition of unlimited migration. This fact can be as a catastrophe for this country. This demographic problem is the most important problem for the Western countries and Russia.
Some countries seek to dominate in world international trade. They seek to take trade ways, to take priority in construction of sea trade ships and warships, to focus production of craft and industrial goods on export for this purpose.
Examples of the countries which have gained trade power thanks to wars:
- Ancient Phoenicia. She controlled trade on the Mediterranean Sea. List of the main Phoenician goods: glass, bronze weapon, red fabrics. Phoenicia has been crushed and forced out from trade ways by Ancient Greece and then Ancient Carthage (main colony of Phoenicia) has been destroyed completely by Ancient Rome. Phoenicians lost by Greeks in Battle of Salamis, because the Greeks used the fast warship ‐ trireme armed bronze nose (rams or embolon) that to break throw board enemy ship below waterline. Alexander the Great captured the capital of Phoenicia ‐ Tyre, and them Ancient Rome seized and destroy main Phoenicia’s colony ‐ Carthage. Tyre was settled down on the island near the coast of the continent, therefore Alexander the Great has ordered to fill a damb between the city and the coast in the course of a siege of Tyre and Alexander the Great has ordered to apply navy at storm of the city.
- Ancient Greece, mainly, Athens. Greeks sold new goods – iron weapon, ceramics, silver jewelry, olive oil, grape wine and so on.
- Ancient Rome. Romans began to establish catapults on warships.
- Byzantium. Byzantines began to arm by own warships with "the Greek fire" (flamethrower) by means of which Byzantines began to set fire to the opponent's ships.
- Venice. Venice has managed to seize by trade ways on the Mediterranean Sea. Venetians have directed the blow of crusaders to Constantinople which then has been captured by Turks, and Byzantium has died finally.
- Portugal and Spain. The first ocean ships (a caravel and carrack) were invented in Portugal and Spain. Portuguese controlled a way around Africa to India and China, and Spaniards controlled a way to America. Portuguese have brought to Europe the Indian and Chinese goods – spices, silk, cotton, porcelain. Earlier arabs and turks carried these goods from China and India in the overland "silk" way, arabs and turks sold to Europeans these goods at very high monopoly prices. And Spaniards carried the precious metals (gold and silver) from America. As a result of the price of the Chinese, Indian goods and precious metals in Europe have sharply fallen. Naturally Spain didn't buy gold resources from indigenous. The states of aboriginals of America have been won, robbed and destroyed by means of firearms and iron cold weapon .
- Britain. Britain has managed to crush Spanish Armada and to force out Spain and Portugal from trade ways worldwide. Britain has occupied extensive colonies in North America and has made India by own colony, then Britain has forced China to open the borders for foreign trade by means of "opium" wars. China has been divided by the European countries into spheres of influence as pumpkin. Britain has managed to beat also other trade competitors – France and Holland. Machines were invented in Britain for expansion of production of export goods and the steam engine were invented in Britain instead of a sail for increase of speed of the ships. Britain was considered as "the queen of the seas" in 19 century. "the international carrier" and released the most part of goods for international trade. Germany has tried to throw down a challenge to Britain in 20 century and to force out by Britain from the leading positions in world trade. But the USA have moved forward on the leading positions in world trade as a result of defeat of Germany in two world wars what nobody have escaped.
- USA. This country takes the leading positions in world trade today, but the European Union, Japan, South Korea and China have pressed the USA in world trade already. Russia is going to restore own sphere of influence on the international scene, leaning on own army and the fleet. Russia has the big territory and many resources therefore Russia has high potential for economic development. Peter the Great has won an exit for Russia to the Baltic Sea, Catherine the Great has won for Russia an exit to the Black Sea. Russia under Joseph Stalin has conquered half of the island of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands at Japan, that has opened an exit in the Pacific Ocean for Russia. These exits to seas are necessary to Russia for expansions own world trade and own sphere of influence. The history shows that any country, including the USA can't count on world supremacy for a long time.
General theory of war
The authoritative general theory of wars is still not created. This problem in sociology is not solved before end today yet. "The general theory of war" is the universal theory suitable for the description and synthesis of information on military collisions of different eras and different types of military forces. Сarl von Clausewitz as the founder of this theory, wrote that "war is the policy pursued by other means", that "every era has to have own theory of war". Сarl von Clausewitz considered war from the point of view of a ratio of "expenses" and "income": each state has political goals, and war can serve their achievement in the best way. Political "income" has to be on one thicket of scales whereas acceptable "expenses" has to be on other thicket of scales. When military expenses exceed political income, war has to stop.
Ludwig von Misses about the economic theory of war
Нe is considered as absolutely supporter of liberalism on the West, fighter against socialism and bureaucracy.
A brief history of wars. Total war
The cooperation between the conflicting parties didn't exist at all in primitive society before to military operations . It were unlimited, or total wars. The conflicting parties put an absolute victory as the purpose of war. Won men were destroyed during war, or won men were sacrificed on an altar at pyramid top (Aztecs acted this way with prisoners of war people), or won men were expelled from the made habitable places. This thought didn't came to mind to belligerent parties. that the contract can settle the conflict and allows both parties to adjoin peacefully, Principle of construction of empires is expansion as far as possible of spheres of domination. Grand Asian conquerors and the Roman emperors stopped only when they couldn't move further any more. Then they postponed attack until the best times. They didn't refuse from the ambitious plans and considered the independent foreign states no more than a target for the subsequent blows.
The philosophy of boundless gains owned also by governors of medieval Western Europe. They, first of all, aspired to the greatest possible expansion of the territory of the kingdoms too. However institutes of feudalism didn't give them enough means for conducting wars. Vassals have been obliged to be at war for the signori only limited time (40 days in a year). Thus, there was a peaceful co-existence of a large number of the independent states. Frenchman Jean Bodin has developed the theory of sovereignty in 16 century. Dutch Hugo Grotius has added in 17 century. to this theory the own theory of the international relations in the conditions of war and peace Sovereigns have created hired armies instead of army of vassals with disintegration of feudalism in Western Europe. The organization, equipping and keeping of these troops were business by very expensive and it laid down as heavy burden on shoulders of taxpayers.
The European powers watched for that nobody become too powerful and nobody threatened their own safety. Too successful conquerors had to be afraid always of the coalition of those who were frightened by their sizes, for example, Russia has lost the Livonian war and Crimean war to the coalitions of the European countries. Limited military operations prevailed in Europe throughout three centuries preceding the Great French revolution. Rather small armies of professional soldiers were involved in wars. The soldiers of war armies considered that they are at war against the Supreme Commander of enemy forces, but not against civil citizens of the enemy, at the same time the property of civilians was considered as inviolable. Philosophers have found wars useless observing circumstances of military operations,. The army of conquerors killed and crippled people, destroyed wealth exclusively for the sake of profit of kings and ruling oligarchies. People didn't receive any prize from a victory. The only reason of armed conflicts are a greed of despots.
Utopians thought that, having replaced royal despotism with representative democracy, it will be possible to put to all wars an end. Democracies are peaceful and will settle territorial problems peacefully. If to overthrow by despots, then the world will be strong. It is impossible - to overthrow despots peacefully. It is necessary to break mercenaries of kings. But this revolutionary war of the people against tyrants, allegedly, will be the last war, war with the purpose to put an end to all wars. This utopian idea was present vaguely already at minds of leaders of the Great French revolution when, having repelled by invasion of armies of Prussia and Austria, this leaders have begun a campaign against aggressors. However, this leaders under Napoleon's leadership have adopted the most cruel methods of boundless expansion and occupation soon until the coalition of all European powers has upset them ambitious plans. However the idea of lasting peace has been revived soon. It became the main point of liberalism of 19 century. The British liberals considered that free trade both internal, and international, was a necessary prerequisite of preservation of peace. There is no incentive reason for war and conquests in the world where trade and free migration exist. Absolutely confident in in the validity of the liberal ideas, liberals have rejected a concept of the last war for abolition of all wars. All people realize a benefit of free trade and the peace and all people will bridle by domestic despots without any help from the outside. This liberal idea was a utopia too.
Most of historians couldn't understand driving forces which have led to replacement of limited war of an old regime to unlimited war of our era. Most of historians consider that changes have resulted from transition from dynastic to a national form of the state and this changes were a consequence of the Great French revolution. However all this doesn't explain why the modern countries prefer to wage by war instead of peacekeeping. There is full consent concerning the fact that total war represents result of aggressive nationalism. If any individual don't concern by the territorial sizes of his country in the conditions of free trade and free migration, then almost each citizen is interested in territorial problems very vividly in the conditions of protectionist measures of economic nationalism. Expansion of the territory subject to sovereignty of his state means increase material well-being of this citizen.
If Napoléon I has achieved own objectives, then the French empire would be stretched far for borders of 1815. All this wouldn't make citizens of France richer. If Adolf Hitler were realized own plans, then Germans could expect increase in the standard of living. Germans have been sure that extermination of the Frenchmen, Poles and Czechs would make richer by each member of their own race. Modern total war has nothing in common with limited war of old dynasties. Modern total war is war against trade and migration barriers, war of the overpopulated countries against sparsely populated countries. It is war for alignments of rates of the salary around the world. It is war of the farmers processing the poor earth against the states which don't allow them to much more fertile not used earth.
The war and market economy
According to socialists, the market economy, is the best system which can be suffered in peace time, but when war begins, such tolerance is unacceptable. The market economy will put at risk vital interests of the nation only for the sake of egoistical benefit of speculators. Modern total war demands categorically by state regulation of production.
The research of problems which the United States had faced in World War II has clearly shown how this dogma is wrong. That to win this war, America needed by radical transfer to military rails of all the production activity. And all civil consumption which wasn't vital had to be curtailed. From this point the plants and farms had to make only a necessary minimum of not military goods. In all the rest the plants and farms have to devote completely themselves to a problem of supply of armed forces. However not the state decrees and not paper work of many people, sitting on the state salaries, but efforts of private enterprises have made that production which has allowed armed forces of America to win by war and to equip by allies, including Russia, with necessary arms.
It is impossible to make planes and battleships automatically with help of the decrees forbidding by use of steel for construction of houses. Sudden transition from the peace to war causes the need for radical reorganization and by that transition from the peace to war becomes a source of high profits for many businessmen. Supporters of state planning consider similar profit as the shameful fact. In their opinion, a foremost obligation of the state is not to allow by appearance of new millionaires during war. It is unfairly, they say, to allow one men to grow rich while others men are killed and crippled. It is possible to recognize dishonest that war increases the profit of those businessmen who supply by warring army with the best weapons . But to deny silly that the system based on profit makes the best arms. Not socialist Russia helped by America on a lend-lease, and absolutely on the contrary; Russians have received the weapons produced by big business.
The country forced to reflect by attack of an external aggressor shouldn't replace the system of private business with state regulation. If this country has made it, then itself would lose the most effective means of protection. Despite on all own glorified military socialism, Germans have lost both world wars and the Soviet Russia has lost Cold War to the capitalist United States. The leadership of the Russian Federation has drawn conclusions from these mistakes, and weapons are produced here by private business today in Russia . Ludwig von Misses have hurried with a conclusion that Russia has lost "Cold" war. Russia has risen from knees today and Russia has been forced to continue "Cold" war with the USA. The new round of "Cold" war is caused by the fact that the USA has taken away all Russian sphere of influence at Russia. Russia wants to restore the sphere of own influence. Russia wants to force to respect the civil rights of the Russian population in Ukraine and in the countries of the Baltics. The market economy makes production which does life of the individual more pleasant and comfortable. Apostles of violence despise capitalism for that . They esteem by heroes, destroyers, murderers and despise by bourgeois and his psychology of the small shopkeeper.
The international division of labour, which reduces the number of military conflicts
The international division of labor developed proceeding from the assumption that wars won't be any more. The method of military science consists in studying of experience of last wars and formulation on this basis of the general rules, forecasts and recommendations. The European military experts have neglected by studying of Civil war in America. In their opinion, this war isn't instructive. This war was conducted by irregular armies under command of nonprofessional commanders. But a problems of interregional division of labor have played a crucial role for the first time during Civil war in America. The South was agrarian mainly. Confederates depended from Europe in supply by industrial goods. When the Navies of northerners have managed by blockade the coast of southerners, then southerners have begun to suffer a shortage of weapon soon.
Germans appeared in the same situation in both world wars. Germans depended from the abroad in supply by food and raw materials. But Germans couldn't overcome by the British blockade. The result of both wars has been predetermined by battles in Atlantic. Germans have lost because Germans haven't managed to cut off the British Isles from access to the world market and Germans couldn't protect own maritime routes of supply. Strategic problems were defined by conditions of the international division of labor. The German militarists sought to add to arsenal by policy which as Germans hoped, will allow Germany to wage war, despite own vulnerable position in foreign trade. The ersatz or substitute was their panacea. Substitute is goods which are or less suitable, of more poor quality, or more expensive, than those goods which the ersatz is intended to replace. An example of an ersatz – German valenki from straw in 1941 in a battle at Moscow, saccharin instead of sugar, margarine instead of butter.
The German doctrine of economy of war claims that costs of production and quality of goods don't important in condition of combat operations . The heroic spirit of the highest race isn't interested in these ghosts of greedy mind. Only readiness for war matters. The aggressive country has to be independent of foreign trade. The aggressive country has to encourage development of production of substitutes, regardless of any self-interested reasons. The aggressive country won't be able to do without complete state control of production because the egoism of certain citizens will upset all plans of the governor. The Supreme Commander has to be empowered on economic dictatorship even in peace time. These statements are incorrect. If the soldiers sent to fight are badly fed and armed by the weapon made of bad materials, then the soldiers will sustain by heavy losses . Awareness of own technical backwardness will undermine their fighting spirit.
The ersatz puts at risk both fighting power, and morale of army. It is incorrect that higher costs of production of substitutes don't play a role. Higher costs of production mean that obtaining the result achieved by the opponent will require the bigger number of work and material factors of production. It is equivalent to squandering by deficit factors of production, material resources and labor. Such prodigality in the conditions of the peace leads to lowering of the level of life, and such prodigality in the conditions of war reduces a stock of the goods necessary for conducting military operations.
The causes of war in the Arab world
The Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism are.the strongest political ideas in the Arab world The Arab nationalism has aim at creation of the Arab state founded on the racial principle from one Arabs, Islamic fundamentalism has aim the theocratic Islamic State. Both of these principles have much in common. Both of them are formulated in terms of family: Arab brotherhood and Islamic brotherhood. Both of these principles consider brotherhood as more lawful basis for the state, than available principles. It is necessary to consider one more important aspect inherent in the Arab world is the idea of the Arab greatness. Both named political movements are considered as ways to achievement of greatness through association. Modern state borders are perceived as contradicting the idea of the Arab greatness for two reasons: internal and external. The internal reason is a division between the rich and the poor in the Arab world. Poor Arabs look at the rich as on accidentally grown rich. If all Arabs are brothers, then the oil wealth has to belong to all Arabs.
It is necessary to force the rich Arab countries to make extensive investments into development of the poor Arab countries for an achievement of peace in the region. The national borders designated by the colonial authorities remain illegal for many Arabs. A positive side of invasion of Saddam Hussein into Kuwait was for millions of poor Arabs the fact that Saddam Hussein has thereby thrown down a challenge to state borders. Until a huge chasm exists between the rich and the poor in the Arab world, this region will remain unstable. The external reason is the fact that borders are objects of the conflicts between the rich and the poor in the Arab world. The borders weaken by Arabs because of armed conflicts between Arabs, for example, war between Iran and Iraq by 1980-1988 because of east bank of river Shatt al-Arab. Most of Arabs supported by Saddam Hussein because he is represented as risen man against the USA even if he has been executed soon by a court decision, exactly it is considered his merit. In my opinion, the high birth rate and unemployment are main reasons of wars in the Arab world.
About harmful and benefit of war: 
Modern war is ruthless, war doesn't spare by pregnant women and babies; war kills and destroys without analysis. War doesn't respect the right of the neutral states. Millions of people can be killed, turned into slavery or are expelled from the made habitable places where their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can predict. what happens in the following part of this infinite fight.
The benefit of war.
Despite all lamentations of pacifists about disasters and the numerous victims of war, war have some benefit. There is no other way to punish by aggressor, to overthrow by tyrant or totalitarian regime, except war. There is no other way except war to attach others territory, to achieve separation of colony from the mother country, to force the backward country to enter great social inventions. Some researchers consider that the market economy and the international division of labor means often peaceful cooperation. In my opinion, it is not absolutely so, for example, international trade causes wars for control over trade ways. The main export goods of some countries are drugs today (Afghanistan) that causes armed conflicts with other countries. The first contact between primitive tribes often led to a war. War is a great social invention, war is one of the main forms of the social conflict which can't be cancelled in principle. Though war can be limited a little by means of the global armed control when the UN Security Council resolves an issue who should be considered an aggressor, and about need to punish an aggressor by means of the international armed forces. Russia is included into this UN Security Council and Russia has to take part in the solution of similar questions. The USA and NATO can't make similar decisions without participation of Russia.
War between great nuclear powers can lead to huge disasters therefore there can't be winners in this war in the conditions of a present ratio of forces and the level of development of military equipment. But there is no guarantee that this parity of forces will remain and in the future. New an invention in the field of military equipment, for example, the invention of a space weapon is able to allow one of the countries to break this parity and to achieve world supremacy though any conqueror didn't manage to achieve by world supremacy in the past .