Final answer:
During a war, nations may opt to merge for strength, hold back for defense, pursue diplomatic solutions, or escalate the conflict. Historical U.S. policies and approaches to conflict, such as Plan D and Cold War strategies, reflect this complexity.
Step-by-step explanation:
During a standard war, nations may opt for a variety of strategies based on their circumstances, objectives, and alliances. These strategies often include:
- Merging nations for strength, as allies might do to form a stronger defense or offense.
- Holding back for defense, to conserve resources, and protect strategic assets.
- Pursuing diplomatic solutions to avoid further conflict escalation and to seek a peaceful resolution.
- Escalating the conflict potentially through military build-up or by involving additional parties.
Historically, the U.S. military's Plan D strategy was about holding the line to prevent enemies from gaining ground. During the Cold War, the primary goal of U.S. foreign policy was to prevent the Soviet Union from spreading communism. Additionally, ancient city-states and empires could acquire territory peacefully through methods such as intermarriage. Prisoner's dilemmas describe situations where nations may choose to defect (attack) rather than cooperate due to mistrust and fear of vulnerability.
States often build up military might as a deterrent, a policy designed to influence adversaries and discourage aggression. The buildup can be a response to a perceived threat or can itself become a source of tension, leading to an arms race that might increase the likelihood of war.
In conclusion, the decision to merge, hold back, pursue diplomacy or escalate a conflict depends on a range of factors, including a country's particular goals, threats faced, and the broader context of international relations at the time.