• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Reasons for War

Blacksad

Explorer
Apart from the nation who lost its resources (planet, food, whatever,...) need those to survive and attack a nation who has this resources but not enough for both nations.

What could be the reasons for war? (from History or Sci-Fi novel)

It occured to me that I wasn't very imaginative on this subject.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Revenge/retribution can be a powerful motivator for war. Perhaps the son of one kingdom wants to retake land from another kingdom that his father lost.

Nathan Hawks
The Cerebral Assassin
 


A recent war IMC

The first half of my current campaign revolved mainly around a war between the nations of Andor and Beldens.

The reasions for the war were many:

1- Vengence: There was a history of ongoing conflict between these two nations, primarly over an area of basicly worthless land which has changed hands several times.

2- Politics: The minor nobles of Andor suported an invasion of Beldens, hoping that they would gain new lands and prestige should it prove sucessful.

3-Outside Interferance: or should I say outsider interferance. A demon lord had infulltrated the andorian court and manipulated the monarch in hopes plunging Andor and the surrounding nations into a massive conflict, thus destablizing the region and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.

4- A new advantage: The andorians, through the above mentioned Outsider aquired a new technology which enabled them to quickly produce Constructs to use in the war. With this advantage they beleved they would overwhelm Beldens, who normaly would have had little problem resisting an attack. (And it would have worked too, if not for those meddling kids...)
 

Most of the best reading on logic (and illogic) of war in English is in my opinion written by James F. Dunnigan. I believe he has a book called 'How to Avoid War' in which he discusses the reasons small and large nations go to war in frank detail. I think it should be required reading if you want to understand the diplomacy of making peace.

Most of the reasons why a nation goes to war have to do with its belief that it can avoid the war, or at least win the war so quickly that it won't be much of a war at all.

I hate to go political, but leaving aside 'rightness' or 'wrongness', just examine the current situation historically as a case study in why nations go to war. The actual physical reasons for the war have become secondary causes. All three major players in Iraq war question are playing as if war either will not happen or else will be insignificant if it occurs, and this is the reason the war will occur. No one is playing the game like they want to avoid war - not even Europe until yesterday and that was clearly too late.

Iraq clearly believes that it can avoid the war by prolonging debate until it developes 'security measures' which would make war so costly that its opponents will not wish to fight it. America believes that it can win the war so quickly that it won't be much of a war, and is leaving aside discussion of winning the peace. Europe believes that it can avoid the war by making it so politically costly for its proponents that they will decide not to go forward with it.

But of course, the combined strategies are gauranteeing the war. Iraq sees in Europe the means to prolong debate. It therefore concludes that its strategy is viable. America sees in Europe the destruction of its 'bluff' - in other words, had it hoped to force Iraq into concessions to avoid a war, it certainly can't now. Moreover, the European decision to make war politically costly, in turn makes backing down an even costlier political choice for those that want war. In effect, by accussing the US of being unilateralist, the US is backed into a corner in which it sees no choice but to go it alone. Europe sees in America a dangerous unwillingness to engage in debate, which simply kills any chance for debate. America sees in Europe a dangerous willingness to stall, and governments engaged in rancorous political posturing for home consumption. America sees in Iraq a country that is stalling for time, which increases US feelings that time is running out. Iraq sees America as soft and decadent whose weakness is the instability of its political system (read 4 year terms of Presidents) and its reluctance to sustain causalties (Hussein is trying to take lessons from Viet Nam) and therefore assumes that it is unwilling to prosecute any war ruthlessly and to its conclusion.

Now for the $.02 opinion, just because I can't help myself. Up until yesterday, it was my opinion that the US strategy had the best chance of avoiding war. Yesterday, I thought the US made its first critical diplomatic mistake, in not giving sufficient breathing room to the Franco-German plan. I personally think that the Franco-German plan would have been utterly rejected by Iraq, because in fact the Franco-German plan is a plan for Iraq to concede the war without fighting it. Iraq clearly isn't sure that the war is going to happen in the first place, and is even less clear that whatever it decides will have any bearing on whether the war occurs or not. By rejecting the even the possibility of a conditional surrender, even one that Iraq wouldn't have accepted, the US forces Iraq into a war is inevitable mode. By rejecting unity with the US, Europe forces Bush into a war is inevitable mode. Bush no longer has the option to bluff for continued concessions. By rejecting a major concession from the French (they are essentially calling for the destrucion of Iraq as a soveriegn state through military occupation - a defacto war, and notably one that they are assuming is so bloodless as to not be a real war), the US puts Europe into a war is inevitable mode.

And that's why nations go to war.
 

To keep someone else from having it. If there is a weak state and it looks like someone else may take over you may have to take over or weaken your boarders. This works well for 'good or lawful' settings.

Because you got kicked out of your lands.

Agreement - some paper or statement says that if they go to war, you will be there too.
 
Last edited:

*biting tongue on political comments*

In a fantasy world where good and evil is tangible, then such forces or the illusions become plausible reasons for war.

If a country is in the process of summoning demons and another country is run by a LG church, then war could be a strong possiblity.

Along those lines- religion is a big factor in a fantasy world where the divine often make contact with their followers. If a god, in doctrine or communication, tells their clergy to press for war- then who is to argue? No one who wants to avoid being smited. ;)

Do you have two specific countries in mind you want to stir a war between? Perhaps with a little campeign info, then some more appropriate suggestions could be made.

SD
 

How about they just really don't like the other guy and decide he needs to wiped from the face of the earth (or whatever). Works good for Lawful evil societies, almost like the Third Reich.
 

Here's a few plausible reasons:

-Religious/Philosophical/Idealogical differences -or the pretense thereof- plenty of times in history wars and battles have occurred in the name of differences in belief. Various denominations of a faith or school of thought may be fighting each over which interpretation is correct of that faith or philosophy, or rival religiouns or philosophies might compete or antagonize each other.

-Pride- somebody simply thinks they are better than someone else and has to prove it for some reason.

-A distraction or scapegoat or method of control- A country facing internal struggels might want to introduce a scapegoat for all of its problems in order to unite its people or distract them from their own squabbles. A country that just gone through a civil war but still has its various factions antagonizing each other could do well to find another country to go to war with in order to unite all of its people to a common cause and keep them from killing each other.

-Perceived sense of duty- A country may feel (whether it truly should or should not be) that it is responsible for playing policeman for the world or enforcing a certain doctrine- whether it be political, economic, social, or religious. Any threats to these tenets must be dealt with.

-Peace-keeping - somewhat coinciding with the above one, a country may fight in order to stop a greater war from erupting.

-Simply for chaos or destruction- a war could be started by an insane, inbred, evil, or decadent nobility or ruling class.

-Encouraged by third parties- A king may decide to go to war because he is egged on by greedy merchants who will profit by selling weapons to both sides or by some other "neutral" party who seeks profit from such a war. Good for puppet-kings who have been bought off by said nefarious merchants. Inaccurate press and yellow journalism making the poeple have biased or inaccurate views has also caused several wars.

-Apathy- while not an igniter of war- it can sure help it prosper if nobody feels the need to stop a unneeded war, or if nobody is proactive enough to notice at the right time there is a big threat over the horizon.

-For security and protection- The people may feel that another country or people may pose a genuine threat to their way of life.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top