Academic Master


Is War an Inherent Part of Human Nature?

The history narrates the accounts of two major wars, i.e., WWI and WW2, along with the war of Iraq and Palestine, which are tragedies that remain written in blood in all of the historical books. All these wars were the outcome of a variety of direct and indirect reasons. However, the same reasons may suggest whether war is an inherent part of humans. Why do people generate huge funds and raise armies just for the sake of killing innocents? Is it really in the name of peace? The following discussion will help provide insight into the question that arises as soon as the concept of war surfaces.

There are many reasons why men engage in wars. For instance, one of the major direct reasons behind the Great War was the manslaughter of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914. The main players in the war were found to be Germany and Austria, who sought revenge and power and many other indirect factors like the enmity between the authorities, the trend to build stronger military forces to ensure the defense of a state, the urge to fight for your nationality in the name of patriotism, issues, and conflicts before the unfortunate event of 1914 and local political dynamics, which state how humans may be inclined to fight on fronts in the name of above facts ( Walzer, M., 2015). (ethnographic instance of how societies evolved owing to warfare and alleged desires)

All the wars of the world have brought along huge costs. The associated costs include not only financial losses but also the loss of millions of innocent lives in the urge for power. History shows that billions of people were prey to warfare in the wars of Iran and Palestine. A whole generation of young men was removed while they fought pointless wars for their nation. After the war of WW1 came to an end, it was found out that the countries were left with one man for every 15 women. All the authors, musicians, professors, architects, and leaders had succumbed to the atrocities of war.

Other examples include the Charlie Hebdo incident, where a man killed 12 people and injured many at the office of a French newspaper in the name of religion. Similarly, the Nice attack incident in 2016 was led by a Muslim man driving a truck vehemently and killing 86 people deliberately for his jihadi propaganda. All of this happens because of the spread of violent thoughts that promote killing to survive, which suggests that some part of human nature calls for a spark to be engaged (but only to achieve personal motives at the cost of millions of lives).

Similarly, the Islamic states have been victims of warfare and drone attacks by US drones for ages, and this is the underlying reason behind these people lashing out, causing further war atrocities. The first time when the concept of drones arose was during World War 2 by the US Air Force Commander General Henry Arnold. He targeted peculiar German positions and sent explosives loaded on the unmanned aircraft to destroy those positions. Although it was a fairly new concept at that time, in 1945, Arnold predicted the usage of remotely piloted unmanned flying machines in future wars. After almost seven decades, his prediction slowly turned into a reality, which calls for insight into why he would develop such a deadly weapon in the first place. Peace can never be achieved with a murderous agenda. So, even though many may deny it, some part of human nature calls for murderous play to achieve their hideous agendas (Walzer, M., 2015).

So far, the US is the only state that has created its domination in the usage of drones. For many years, drones have become a critical tool for killing terrorist groups and surveillance in the entire world. They have the advantage of being silently present at a certain location and may stay there for hours without anyone noticing their presence. They may also attack the location whenever they are commanded. Owing to these advantages, the US succeeded in demolishing the leadership of militant groups in Afghanistan and other terrorist groups. Even President George W. Bush signed more than 50 drone strikes during his tenure owing to their reliability and precision. Even President Obama, during his tenure, has authorized the usage of drones for counter-terrorism and has performed around 400 drone strikes in the areas of residence of militant groups. The fact that misguided drones were initiated just to gain more power and to satiate the lust for more and more sovereignty is a pure ethnographic example of how the hunger for supremacy has controlled human actions (Shaw, I.G., 2013).

All these exercises using drones were found to be way more effective than using trivial methods of drones because the drones are unmanned vehicles that rely only on human instructions and are present far away from the actual area of the strike. This has resulted in a significant decrease in the loss of lives in the US Army. Moreover, drones also have fewer financial costs and lead to fewer risks for the US forces (Shaw, I.G., 2013).

The enhancement in US military operations through the usage of drones in warfare can be categorized into three types. For instance, drones are used to overpower the enemy’s defense, counter the enemy’s rebellion process, and locate and eliminate targets. For instance, in 2008 in Iran, drones were used to eliminate the terrorist group from the Sadr city and to make it more stabilized. The army troops of the US waited in the city of Baghdad, from where they directly controlled and manipulated the direction of drones. The drones used would move to the position of militants; they would wait for the civilians to move out, and then they would destroy the building along with its inhabitants. The precision in striking abilities and unmatched surveillance through the drones resulted in the establishment of exemplary stabilization in the city with minimum casualties (Kaldor, M., 2013).

However, what the US government and every person fighting in the name of religion or their loved ones need to realize is that war will only kill innocents, the people who don’t have a clue about what might have happened to them, let alone be responsible. All the wars of the world have been, in fact, a representation of insignificance and butchery of innocents in the name of peace. Every war changes the theory of fighting and killing innocents to win over military conflicts with the disastrous results and outcomes it brought forward. If wars are continued, the cycle of terrorism and killing in the name of passion and violence will continue for generations, causing massive physical and psychological impairments. It may be a source to gain control and reach decisions, but the people need to stop to understand if we are doing it to satisfy our innate desires or the endless dramatic atrocities and murder of innocents at the hands of powerful by the name of war need to end now so we can build a better future for our children (Vasquez, J.A., 2009).

However, after 1919, the nature of warfare evolved. Technological advancements began to upsurge, and tables were turned into fighter airplanes, submarines, and tanks. Weapons started being produced in a massive amount. Chemically equipped war weapons were now being used by Germans. The Great War also led to mass armies and hiring for posts in the military in Britain. The first propaganda films also surfaced in World War 1, which aimed to provide support to the US from their Allies. (ethnographic instance of how societies evolved owing to warfare and alleged desires)

The post-war times, however, opened up doors for modern surgery, where medical involvement was enhanced to look for the victims of war. Millions of people who survived the war were now disfigured and suffered psychological injuries. The doctors now focused not only on medical ailments but also on the mental trauma left by the horrific images of the war on the patients. Some new stress disorders were verified by the war research, like shell shock and traumatic shock, etc. The upper classes in Europe suffered greatly in the times of war as well. The previous status quo established by the upper class no longer remained as a distinguishing factor between classes. They now relied hugely on farmers who cultivated livestock and earned more and more, lowering the class disparity due to greater earnings. So, even if the First World War was devastating in many forms, it was also a source of advancements in thinking trends and technology. Most of the society, which was male-dominated, now relied on women to engage in various job roles. Women came out of their shelters and participated in all avenues of everyday life. This, later on, led to their recognition as an important part of the society as well. World War 1 was an incident where millions lost their homes, lives, and families and watched their dreams die right in front of their eyes. However, an event so brutal gave birth to the better world that we live in today, where everyone values life and peace before any lust for power, but the fact that the lust to achieve more and more exists calls for a certain conclusion that each human indeed has an innate desire to fight battles to make his way into the world (Walzer, M., 2015). (ethnographic instance of how societies evolved owing to warfare and alleged desires)

Even in primitive societies, the civilizations were shaped at the heart of motives of passion and war. The American Indian tribes like Navajo and Hopi show the roles of men engrossed in hunting and using tools like arms, bows, and axes, while women had more domestic and house-making roles. Many Native American women used to grow and harvest crops as their men hunted. (ethnographic instance of how societies evolved owing to warfare and alleged desires)

The very start of the culture was based on Native American women who were engaged in collecting corn and hastening to take care of the men who just returned from the war zone. Over time, it has been noted by many people Native American women were never free to go alone and should always be sheltered by men. The concepts of freedom and the existence of an independent identity have yet to be evolved. These readings are a testimony that the women were thought to be engaged in homemaking tasks along with doing chores, whereas men are to fight fierce battles and participate in ensuring the safety and security of the tribes’ women, which shows how men integrated the values of survival and protecting their women on fighting endless battles (Smith, D.L., 2009). (ethnographic instance of how societies evolved owing to warfare and alleged desires)

Many books have been written on the horrors of war. They ascribe the genuineness of war tragedies where factors such as glory and honor in the name of serving one’s country along with an adventurous journey are highlighted. However, some of the authors stress to portray the real sequence of events in a war where the soldiers go through a traumatic series of war instead of the idealistic depiction of glory and heroism (Vasquez, J.A., 2009).

World War 1 was, in fact, a representation of the insignificance and butchery of innocents in the name of peace. The Great War changed the theory of fighting and killing innocents to win over military conflicts with the disastrous results and outcomes it brought forward. Remarque’s novel also focuses on the dramatic features of World War I, which led to massive physical and psychological impairments. As the book reached its end, almost every main character died a tragic death, all the while suffering and presenting an accurate picture of the young soldiers who were lured to fight such wars for their countries, which counts for a debate that some of us might actually not have an inherent desire to hurt others to gain our advantages at all.

Many war researchers placed strong criticism of the theories of nationalism and believed that the ideas were only put forth by power-hungry politicians who wanted to control the general public. However, the horrors of war quickly escalated the nationalist ideas as the war tragedies began. Many people who vouched for war to gain control came to learn how inappropriate the postmodern ideas about war were and how wars brought no advantage to anyone except the powerful. Many realized that they didn’t want to fight the opposite militaries since they were not their real rivals; in fact, their real antagonists were the people who had access to this power (Vasquez, J.A., 2009).

While history shows the instances of soldiers fighting in the battle zone, it also features the destructive influence that war brings to the soldiers as well. The Warriors face a relentless risk of losing their lives or being amputated or only blustered into tiny shards at any time. This constant threat of losing their lives puts enormous stress on their nerves, often leading them to handle continual fear at every rousing minute. Furthermore, being forced to live in a filthy environment where they were compelled to deal with decaying corpses, rats, lice, and cold had profound psychological damage. Soldiers were forced to live without proper food and sleepless nights, along with skimpy outfits and medical care. They had to witness the sudden deaths of their close friends in front of their eyes. The survivors explain all the tragic scenarios as psychologically incapacitating and overwhelming. The only way for soldiers to save themselves is to either accept defeat and give up on their lives or kill innocents without any regard for humanity. Many war researchers see wars as a huge reason behind disparaging influences on a warrior’s humanity, along with leaving permanent scars on their physical and mental health. They lose everyone from their families and friends while risking their lives for a cause that doesn’t even have the same meaning as promised. Many fighters lost all sense of their identity and their families and now thought there’d be no future without war. Hence, it can be declared that some humans might not have a desire to fight battles for their causes alternatively, but some element of their innate desire to prove themselves powerful and strong instead of their rivals can’t be ignored (Crawford, N.C., 2000).


Kaldor, M., 2013. New and old wars: Organised violence in a global era. John Wiley & Sons.

Shaw, I.G., 2013. Predator empire: The geopolitics of US drone warfare. Geopolitics, 18(3), pp.536-559.

Walzer, M., 2015. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books.

Vasquez, J.A., 2009. The War Puzzle Revisited (Vol. 110). Cambridge University Press.

Smith, D.L., 2009. The most dangerous animal: Human nature and the origins of war. Macmillan.

Crawford, N.C., 2000. The passion of world politics: Propositions on emotion and emotional relationships. International Security, 24(4), pp.116-156.

Kaldor, M., 2013. New and old wars: Organised violence in a global era. John Wiley & Sons.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message