what is 'total war' and how is it different to 'limited war' and 'absolute war'?
81144
Total war is when a country uses all of its resources in fighting the war. This means that all a lot of workers will be working for the military , Most of the countries money will go for fighting the war and it will use whatever neccesasary that it has in fighting it.  And a limited war is a small scale war when the countries citizens are basically going throguh life as usual and absolute war is just another word for total war.
550371
Simply put, a cold war is a war where we are acting aggressively toward another country, and they toward us, but no shots are being fired.  It's kind of like being in a fight with your boy/girlfriend.  No one is being physically hurt, but at any time one of you could snap and go nuclear.  \n\nHope that makes sense to you!
247
For a general article about war, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War.  You can search more specifically there as well.
561276
hey rome total war is hard to burn on disk.. many people found problems regarding burning of this game...\n\ni found a link in which people have submited their comments to run this game... just check this url and u will sure get some useful info. to install and play this game.
739488
World War I (abbreviated WWI), also known as the First World War, the Great War and "The War to End All Wars" was a global military conflict that took place mostly in Europe between 1914 and 1918. It was a total war which left millions dead and helped to shape the modern world.\n\nThe Allied Powers, led by France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and later Italy and the United States, defeated the Central Powers: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire.\n\nMuch of the fighting in World War I took place along the Western Front, within a system of opposing manned trenches and fortifications (separated by a "no man's land") running from the North Sea to the border of Switzerland. On the Eastern Front, the vast eastern plains and limited rail network prevented a trench warfare stalemate from developing, although the scale of the conflict was just as large. Hostilities also occurred on and under the sea and — for the first time — from the air. More than nine million soldiers died on the various battlefields, and millions more civilians perished.\n\nThe war caused the disintegration of four empires: the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian. Germany lost its overseas empire, and states such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were created, or recreated, as was the case with Poland.\n\nWorld War I created a decisive break with the old world order that had emerged after the Napoleonic Wars, which was modified by the mid-19th century’s nationalistic revolutions. The results of World War I would be important factors in the development of World War II 21 years later.
301004
war has no boundaries\n:-3
1031160
War is the final arm of diplomacy.  This is the way a nation gets what it needs and wants.  Sometimes a nation uses force.  It's not only about freedom, it's also about furthering our national interests, yes even keeping the oil flowing.  Sometimes its about land (the Mexican War and the Spanish American War), occasionally it's about freedoms like in WWII.
555842
WHY:  War is the result of a disagreement.  What makes it so powerful is that all reasoning and compasion are thrown to the side until the winner totally dominates the loser.\n\nTYPES: There are Economic, Social, and all out terror.\n\nWHY WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE:  People refuse to accept the Truth on all matters.  When both sides of a disagreement refuse to see Truth, all reasoning is lost and the parties feel the only way to resolve a conflict is to destroy the other.
557002
Totalitarianism is a typology employed by political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior, while absolutism is a political theory which argues that one person, who is often generally a monarch, should hold all power. This is often referred to as the "Divine Right of Kings", implying that a ruler's authority stems directly from God. Prominent theorists associated with absolutism include Augustine of Hippo, Paul of Tarsus, Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes.\n(In short totalitarianism characterizes the political practices of a particular government, while absolutism means that the political power is being practiced by only ONE person: another word for it is oligarchy).
667164
These are all very thoughtful answers, and they should be appreciated, but unfortunately most of them don't really encompass the idea of a world war but a known-world war (I am splitting hairs, and I am being a jerk, but please hear me out before you send your dogs to bite me).\n\nThe first actual world war would be the War of the Spanish Succession (approx 1739, also known as King George's War). This was the first war after the religious and succession wars in England when King George I was placed on the English throne because no English born king could be trusted by the nobility. This allowed what is informally known as the "Second Hundred Years War" (1739 to 1815) between France and England to begin. France felt that it had been cheated in the actual Hundred Years War, but now that England had a King with personal holdings on the continent of Europe again (northern Germany), France would be able to fight England without having to cross the Channel.\n\nEvery conflict between France and England up to the final exile of Napolean Bonaparte would include fighting in every corner of the world (Canada, South America, Oceania, India, Europe, Africa, the whole world).\n\nAs you can see, the Revolutionary War is an excellent answer because France and England would fight in every corner of the world during it (after we stabbed France in the back by leaving the war in 1783, France would finally be defeated navally I believe in South America under Lord Hood's fleet), but it is still part of this Second Hundred Years War begun in 1739, as of course is the Napoleanic Wars. The Hundred Years War, the Wars of the Roman Empire, the Peloponesian War, etc, while they were the known world, they encompassed only Europe and parts of Africa.\n\nAgain, sorry to be splitting hairs here, but that is what I do. Let the dogs begin biting!
46123
We only call it World War 1 now, in retrospect.  If there had not been a World War 2, it would have made no sense to call an earlier war WW1.  Just think of video games, is there ever a game called "Something 1"?  No, because they can never be sure that there will be a second one.  We may call the first Sims "Sims 1" but only now, after Sims 2 has been released.  An exception to this is Kill Bill, in which the movie was originally intended to have multiple parts.\n\nSo WW1 was "The Great War" because it was supposed to be "The war to end all wars," they didn't think another one would ever happen.  But it did, as we know now.  \n\nOn a side note, some historians believe that the Napoleonic war was the true WW1, which would make what we call WW1 into WW2, and Hitler's war would be WW3, but really... it's just names.
559927
Well a "war" is defined by an "open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations" it generally includes armed assault.  That said, WWII was a "war" b/c nations declared there be a state of hostility among themselves...the countries approached an impasse and used political pressures and militant power to try and resolve it.  \n\n\nSo, a list??  Let me try and generalize "war" in bullet-form.\n\n- Disagreement b/w one or more nations \n- Governments DECLARED OPENLY that there be a dynamic b/w the nations which includes forcefully trying to "get what they want."\n- Force in WWII included blockades, the killing of both soldiers and civilians, invading foreign territories to reach strategic targets to be destroyed, looting, raping, torture, etc. (no country is exempt from this laundry list of behaviors, some countries more guilty of certain ones than others, I won't name names).  \n\nHope my answer helped - if you need more let me know and I'll see what I can do.
65298
Hi there.  I'm military, and I don't have any trouble seeing the parallels between the two. First, Viet Nam was a morally ambiguous war.  Lots of people thought we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and lots of people believed that our actions were doing more to prolong the war and harm the population than allowing the Communists to take over would have.  The enemy we fought was basically a guerilla force that used asymmetric warfare.  The management of the war was criticized as being (at times) militarily inept as well as fiscally wasteful.  Then, as now, there were unconvincing official pronouncements of progress from the administration's spin doctors. (How many times have we heard about the insurgency being played out, or that we had turned the corner, or that they were "on their last legs" as Dick Cheney said last summer?)  Then there's the whole sense that the war could drag on year after messy year without any clear hope of victory.      \n\n\nThere are, of course, important differences. In Viet Nam, there were front lines.  The enemy had territory, and they were far more numerous and cohesive than the Iraqi insurgency is.  The Viet Cong were an army, even if their hit hard then melt away tactics seem superficially like the Iraqi insurgents'.  US soldiers were largely draftees that did not want to be in the service at all, unlike our all-volunteer servicemen today.
167017
Personally, I do not have a definition for a “Civil War,” because I believe that such a thing does not exist. Now grant  it that war is an unavoidable thing on this earth, and that will probably never change. Yet, to call the deaths, torture, bombing, massacring, and hurting and capturing of innocent people “civil” is beyond me. The same to can be said about the whole notion of a “Holy War.” There is nothing holy in war at all - even if it is for a particular belief.
750152
Neither, the only scenario or definition of a nuclear war and/or WW3 is when the superpowers are squared off into two camps.  The only thing on the radar now is regional conflicts, proxy wars, sabre rattling and brinksmanship.  \n\nWhen the US vs Russia and/or China in OPEN declarations of war, then come back and we'll talk WW3.  A nuclear war with tactical nukes make be in the cards, however, but it won't be global suicide if they're put to limited use at the Natanz hardened facility in Iran or to a response from a NorKor invasion.
671096
The First World War, or (before 1939) the Great War, was a world conflict lasting from August 1914 to the final Armistice on November 11, 1918. The Allied Powers (led by the United Kingdom, France and until 1917 Russia, and, after 1917, the United States) defeated the Central Powers (led by the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire). The war caused the collapse of four empires and a radical change in the map of Europe and the Middle East.
453334
Almost all wars involve economic resorces. Ideological subplots abound, however it's mostly resources. The command economy of the Soviet Union was incompatable with the modified free markets in the U.S. and Western Europe.  The arms race was significant but it was only an extension of the economic warfare.