Chapter Summary

CHAPTER 17: GLOBAL SOCIAL PROBLEMS: WAR AND TERRORISM

War takes many forms. It may be wide spread or regional, declared or undeclared. But regardless of its form, war involves violence that is both interpersonal and collective. The exact number of people harmed or killed in war has varied considerably. Fewer than 500 Americans lost their lives in combat during the Spanish American War compared to the nearly 300,000 combat deaths in World War II. Worldwide, the casualties of war total tens of million of dead including eight million in World War I and another 50 million or more in World War II. But even these numbers would be insignificant in the event of an all-out nuclear war. Such a disaster is estimated to take no less than 160 million lives in the immediate exchange and perhaps as many as one billion in the aftermath.

But nuclear weapons are only one of several weapons of mass destruction nations can develop. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) also include biological, chemical, and radiological weapons that can kill thousands of people and destroy vast amounts of property at one time. In addition to being much less technical and expensive to make, these alternative WMDs can be deployed without elaborate delivery systems and their overall impact can be devastating to an enemy in the amount of life lost, fear generated, and inability to identify the enemy responsible for their use.

At one time war had a sense of “honor” based on established rules of engagement. One of these honored rules was to spare civilians as targets. This philosophical ideal on the art of war lasted until World War I. By World War II millions of civilians were victims of bombings and battles. Although the United States prides itself in the use of “smart” or precision bombs to eliminate civilian casualties, it is estimated that over 80,000 civilians died in the Iraqi War. Following any armed conflict, combatants and other casualties often experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Symptoms of PTSD include difficulty sleeping and concentrating, recurring nightmares, and flashbacks.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of war is that war or the threat of war becomes a social institution of its own. It has gobbled almost 500 billion dollars of the 2006 federal budget, requires a massive support system called the military-industrial complex, and requires the constant development, improvement, and replacement of weapons. And although military technology provides advantages to those who wage war, it is not necessarily the most important factor.

A form of war that has touched the lives of Americans on their own soil is terrorism. Terrorism is the use of calculated, unlawful physical force or threats of violence against a government, organization, or individual to gain some political, religious, economic, or social objective. Terrorism can be foreign or domestic. It can seek political change or be used to protect existing political order. In the United States scholars have identified four types of terrorism that offer the greatest threat to American citizens. These include foreign sponsored terrorism on U.S. soil, domestic sponsored terrorism, terrorism in other nations that may affect U.S. citizens, and information terrorism that destroys computer systems and records. At the forefront of the defense against these acts of terror is the Department of Homeland Security.

Explaining the causes of war and terrorism takes a path similar to the one used to explain violence. This includes biological, psychological, and sociological perspectives. Analysts who use a biological framework for explaining war and terrorism emphasize that people inherit a tendency or predisposition toward aggressive behavior. This culminates in warfare or terrorist acts. Psychologists have provided significant insights into violence, but they do not focus on collective violence in the form of war and terrorism. Contemporary social psychologists believe that both individual and cultural factors must be considered in explaining why people go to war or engage in terrorism.

Sociological explanations for war and terrorism utilize the functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives. Functionalist explanations focus on the relationship between social disorganization and warfare or terrorism. Disorganization in social institutions, especially the government, contributes to political instability. But war can also serve positive functions, such as settling disputes between nations and establishing national solidarity. Some functionalists believe war will always exist. War demonstrates the power of one nation over another. It functions as a means of punishment for nations that do not comply with international law. It disseminates national ideology, such as “making the world safe for democracy.” War also stimulates the economy.

Conflict theorists view war from the standpoint of how militarism and aggressive preparedness for war contribute to the economic well-being of some, but not all, people in society. Conflict theorists also focus on the role of the nation and its inclination toward coercion in response to perceived threats. There is also a relationship between militarism and masculinity with war being primarily a male institution. This social construction of war as a symbol of masculinity would also be embraced by symbolic interactionists.

With the stakes of war being so great, how will government leaders respond to the threat of war and terrorism in the twenty-first century? Whether or not the world will become more peaceful or more violent is a question only time will tell. Some analysts are optimistic about the future, others pessimistic. Regardless, it is rather safe to assume that the United States and other nations that have been victims of terror will continue to maintain stringent surveillance and security measures. These measures are not universally accepted by all those affected. Debate within these nations will contribute to the problems terror and the fear of war have created.