#Act of war direct action windows 7 fix keygen
If it does not originate in the feelings, it re-acts more or less upon them, and this more or less depends not on the degree of civilisation, but upon the importance and duration of the interests involved. If war is an act of force, it belongs necessarily also to the feelings. Theory was beginning to drift in this direction until the facts of the last war taught it better. We may see from this what a fallacy it would be to refer the war of a civilised nation entirely to an intelligent act on the part of the Government, and to imagine it as continually freeing itself more and more from all feeling of passion in such a way that at last the physical masses of combatants would no longer be required in reality, their mere relations would suffice-a kind of algebraic action. In short, even the most civilised nations may burn with passionate hatred of each other. Amongst savages views emanating from the feelings, amongst civilised nations those emanating from the understanding, have the predominance but this difference is not inherent in a state of barbarism, and in a state of culture in themselves it arises from attendant circumstances, existing institutions, etc., and therefore is not to be found necessarily in all cases, although it prevails in the majority. On the other hand, hostile intentions may often exist without being accompanied by any, or at all events, by any extreme hostility of feeling. It is impossible to conceive the passion of hatred of the wildest description, bordering on mere instinct, without combining with it the idea of a hostile intention. In our definition of war, we have chosen as its characteristic the latter of these elements, because it is the most general. The fight between men consists really of two different elements, the hostile feeling and the hostile view. But these things do not belong to war itself they are only given conditions and to introduce into the philosophy of war itself a principle of moderation would be an absurdity. Out of this social condition and its relations war arises, and by it war is subjected to conditions, is controlled and modified.
If the wars of civilised people are less cruel and destructive than those of savages, the difference arises from the social condition both of states in themselves and in their relations to each other. This is the way in which the matter must be viewed and it is to no purpose, and even acting against one's own interest, to turn away from the consideration of the real nature of the affair, because the coarseness of its elements excites repugnance. By such means the former dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities, to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counteracting force on each side. As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of the intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the quantity of bloodshed, must obtain a superiority if his adversary does not act likewise. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are just the worst. Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the art of War. It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside in a manner as something not properly belonging to war. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed and this is, correctly speaking, the real aim of hostilities in theory. Violence, that is to say physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of states and law), is therefore the means the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power. Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance.
If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel. We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of war used by publicists.
0 kommentar(er)
