Headline September 25, 2017/ ''' WAR-WAR LOVERS WOUNDS '''

''' WAR-WAR LOVERS WOUNDS '''

IN PROUD PAKISTAN'S WARS WITH INDIA.... and great India's wars with Pakistan. China's long past War,  and recent border............. *push and pull*  skirmishes with India-

Germany's utter madness of 40s, Japan's Journal, America's Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Syrian War, the unique on-going Myanmar War with its own-self.

So, Merium, Rabo, Seher, Sara, Ambassador Malala [Nobel Prize], Saima, Eman, Lakshmi,  Dantini, Zilli, Zara, Armeen, Zainab-

Hussain, Ali,Shahzaib, Toby, Jordan, Vishnu, Bilal, Mustafa, Ehsen, Albert,  Shahrayar, Faraz, Ali Hassan, Wajahat, Umer, Furqan,

And all the great students of the world, go ask....

President Obama, Prime Minister Mather Mohammad, President Zardari, Prime Minister Modi, O''Captain Imran Khan, what does History reason and make, of all these many, and so much of sufferings and......  

The North Korean flashes and Flash warnings -getting set up, for world annihilation, by the economics of  arms manufacturers, weapon traders, and war set trigger : ''Guns Hot''.  

IF YOU WERE TO ASK HISTORIANS to name the most *foolish treaty* ever signed, odds are very, very good they would name the-

Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. The pact that was joined by  63 nations, outlawed war. 

Ending war is an absurdly ambitious goal. To think this could be done treaty? Not just absurd but dangerously naive.

And the critics would seem to be right. Just over a decade later, every notion that had joined the pact-

With the exception of Ireland, was at war. Not only did the treaty fail to stop the  World War II but it also failed to stop the Korean War-

The Arab Israeli conflict, the Indo-Pakistan wars, the Vietnam War, the Yugoslav civil war and the current conflicts in Ukraine, Syria and Yemen.

But the critics are wrong. Though the pact may not have ended all war., it was highly effective in ending the main reason the countries had gone to war: conquest.

This claim is supported by an  empirical analysis we recently conducted of all the known cases of territorial acquisition during military conflict from 1816 to the present.

First, some context. Before 1928, countries had the legal right to wage war. If one state claimed to be victimized by another, international law permitted it to use force to right the wrong.

International law also gave countries the right of conquest, meaning they could benefit from war by keeping its spoils, territory and, in some cases people.

The right of conquest did not depend on whether the conqueror was in the right. 

As long as it claimed to have been a victim, no matter how flimsy its argument, the conqueror became the new legal sovereign. It's easy to see how the right to wage war could be, and was, abused.

When it outlawed war, the Kellogg Briand Pact changed nearly every rule that states had followed for centuries. Most important, countries could no longer establish right, justice or title by brute strength.

Because war as no illegal, except in cases of self-defense, states lost the right of conquest. Yes, an aggressor could still take a city by force, but doing so would no longer mean that as a matter of law, it became the aggressor's city   

So the Kellog Briand Pact changed the law. But did it really change behavior? Yes, as our data show.

*With the research assistance of 18 Yale Law students, state the authors, we found that from 1816 until the Kellog Briand Pact was first signed in 1928, there was, on average, approximately one territorial conquest every 10 months.

Put another way, the average state during this period had a 1.33% chance of being the victim of conquest in any given year.

At first glance, those may seem like pretty good odds. They are not:

A country with, with a 1.33 percent annual chance of conquest can expect to be conquered once in a ordinary lifetime. And these conquests were not small.

The average amount of territory seized between 1816 and 1928 was.......... 114, 088 square miles per year.

Since World War II, conquest has almost come to a full stop. The average number of conquests per year fell drastically -to 0.26 per year, or one every four years.

The average size of the territory declined to a mere 5,772 square miles per year. And the likelihood that any individual state would suffer a conquest in an average year plummeted -from-

1.33 percent  to  0.17 percent, or once or twice a millennium.

The Honor and Serving of the latest ''Operational Research'' on History and Wars continues.

With many thanks and great  appreciation for researcher and writer Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J Shapiro, and Yale's Law Students who helped with the research. 

!WOW! learnt from this brilliant work.

With respectful dedication to the Leaders, Students, Professors and Teachers of the world. See Ya all on !WOW!  -the World Students Society and Twitter- !E-WOW!   -the Ecosystem 2011:

''' States &  Sunshine '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless