What is War 2/Evolution of Warfare
NTRODUCTION
WE propose to consider first the single elements of our subject, then each branch or part, and, last of all, the whole, in all its relations—therefore to advance from the simple to the complex. But it is necessary for us to commence with a glance at the nature of the whole, because it is particularly necessary that in the consideration of any of the parts the whole should be kept constantly in view.
We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of war used by publicists. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel. War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance. War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will. Therefore, we will understand war to mean conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or coalitions, with this conflict being conducted in order to achieve certain political goals.
War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight. War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war). Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations or Niger Delta militants might also be considered “political communities,” in that they are associations of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of them aspire to statehood or to influence the development of statehood in certain lands.
War is a violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail, who is a member and who is not, which laws get made, what gets taught in schools, where the border rests, how much tax is levied, and so on. War is the ultimate means for deciding these issues if a peaceful process or resolution can't be agreed upon.
The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be both intentional and widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. The onset of war requires a conscious commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until the fighters intend to go to war and until they do so with a heavy quantum of force.
Let us here cite, by way of support, the views of the one and only (so-called) “philosopher of war,” Carl von Clausewitz. Clausewitz famously suggested that war is “the continuation of policy by other means.” Surely, as a description, this conception is both powerful and plausible: war is about governance, using violence instead of peaceful measures to resolve policy (which organizes life in a land). This notion fits in nicely with Clausewitz's own general definition of war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.” War, he says, is like a duel, but on “an extensive scale.” As Michael Gelven has written more recently, war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance. In fact, we might say that Clausewitz was right, but not quite deep enough: it's not just that war is the continuation of policy by other means; it's that war is about the very thing which creates policy—i.e., governance itself. War is the intentional use of mass force to resolve disputes over governance. War is, indeed, governance by bludgeon. Ultimately, war is profoundly anthropological: it is about which group of people gets to say what goes on in a given territory.
War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organisations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of violent, physical force between combatants or upon civilians. Also, War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups.
War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.
We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.
Peace is commonly understood to mean the absence of hostilities. Other definitions include freedom from disputes, harmonious relations and the absence of mental stress or anxiety, as the meaning of the word changes with context. However, there are others who would say that the absence of hostilities would refer to only those hostilities which are evident and that true peace only derives from the mind of each individual.
Some people believe peace is a way to slip through self consciousness, as with hippies in the 1960's. An affirmative definition for the concept of peace, one that expresses the condition as a state unto itself, rather than as the lack of its antithesis, is: "PEACE: the state or condition of restfulness, harmony, balance, equilibrium, longevity, justice, resolution, timelessness, contentment, freedom, and fulfillment, either individually or simultaneously present, in such a way that it overcomes, demolishes, banishes, and/or replaces everything that opposes it." (by Sevi Regis)
Peace may refer specifically to an agreement concluded to end a war, or to a lack of external warfare, or to a period when a country's armies are not fighting enemies. It can also refer more generally to quietude, such as that common at night or in remote areas, allowing for sleep or meditation. Peace can be an emotion or internal state. And finally, peace can be any combination of these definitions.
Evolution of Warfare
Warfare started with fists, sticks and stones, yelling distance. People usually knew their enemy, not always by name but they could see the fear in his as bled to death at their feet. Combat was more personal and direct. As weapons evolved so did the method of using them. With a bow and arrow it was easier to sneak up on the enemy and shoot an arrow in him or throw a spear at him. When groups started waging war on each other new technologies forced them to use different tactics. Armor and shields reduced the effectiveness of bows and arrows.
Until the nineteen hundreds, soldiers fought in big formations where Generals could mass their troops where they would do the most damage to the enemy. As guns became more common troops were equipped with them and deployed in several ranks. A bullet fired from a black powder musket could penetrate all but the strongest armor and so massed cavalry charges of knights could be slaughtered by a group of poorly trained peasants armed with guns.
Technology has changed the way war is fought to an incredible extent. With current advances in technology it could change even more. With more widespread and instantaneous media coverage citizens are quickly informed of world events. With vivid, realistic views of what their fellows are facing in distant lands people are becoming less interested in seeing their sons and daughters die in battle. In turn they pressure their government to end the war.
This is starting to have great effect in the way wars are fought. Those in power are, perhaps for the first time in history, beginning to care about the loss of human life. Stand off weapons, that do not risk the lives of citizens are becoming preferred. The cruise missile, which can strike with pinpoint precision is now more important than ever.
One cannot predict the way wars will be fought in the future. With the growing number of weapons of mass destruction one can assume that to avoid the attention of these weapons combat units will be smaller, faster and more evasive. They will not assemble for mass destruction and they will try to avoid detection by the enemy whenever possible.
An orbital satellite can count eggs on a table. How long before they marry a satellite weapon with the imager and use it to attack individuals on the planets surface. Special imagers can detect missile silos and transmit their location to attack units. Of course this is not perfect yet (as Iraqi Scud Missile launchers proved in the Gulf War).
Technology is becoming more precise and lethal. Already, unmanned aircraft are employed by US forces. Right now these are unmanned recon craft, they are working on combat craft. A remote controlled aircraft is less restricted by high gravity forces which can cause a pilot to black out. Without a pilot, remote controlled aircraft have many advantages. If it is shot down you don't have to worry about a pilot for one. It can maneuver and probably fight better than a manned aircraft and they can be built smaller.
WE propose to consider first the single elements of our subject, then each branch or part, and, last of all, the whole, in all its relations—therefore to advance from the simple to the complex. But it is necessary for us to commence with a glance at the nature of the whole, because it is particularly necessary that in the consideration of any of the parts the whole should be kept constantly in view.
We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of war used by publicists. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel. War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance. War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will. Therefore, we will understand war to mean conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or coalitions, with this conflict being conducted in order to achieve certain political goals.
War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight. War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war). Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations or Niger Delta militants might also be considered “political communities,” in that they are associations of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of them aspire to statehood or to influence the development of statehood in certain lands.
War is a violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail, who is a member and who is not, which laws get made, what gets taught in schools, where the border rests, how much tax is levied, and so on. War is the ultimate means for deciding these issues if a peaceful process or resolution can't be agreed upon.
The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be both intentional and widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. The onset of war requires a conscious commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until the fighters intend to go to war and until they do so with a heavy quantum of force.
Let us here cite, by way of support, the views of the one and only (so-called) “philosopher of war,” Carl von Clausewitz. Clausewitz famously suggested that war is “the continuation of policy by other means.” Surely, as a description, this conception is both powerful and plausible: war is about governance, using violence instead of peaceful measures to resolve policy (which organizes life in a land). This notion fits in nicely with Clausewitz's own general definition of war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.” War, he says, is like a duel, but on “an extensive scale.” As Michael Gelven has written more recently, war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance. In fact, we might say that Clausewitz was right, but not quite deep enough: it's not just that war is the continuation of policy by other means; it's that war is about the very thing which creates policy—i.e., governance itself. War is the intentional use of mass force to resolve disputes over governance. War is, indeed, governance by bludgeon. Ultimately, war is profoundly anthropological: it is about which group of people gets to say what goes on in a given territory.
War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organisations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of violent, physical force between combatants or upon civilians. Also, War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups.
War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.
We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.
Peace is commonly understood to mean the absence of hostilities. Other definitions include freedom from disputes, harmonious relations and the absence of mental stress or anxiety, as the meaning of the word changes with context. However, there are others who would say that the absence of hostilities would refer to only those hostilities which are evident and that true peace only derives from the mind of each individual.
Some people believe peace is a way to slip through self consciousness, as with hippies in the 1960's. An affirmative definition for the concept of peace, one that expresses the condition as a state unto itself, rather than as the lack of its antithesis, is: "PEACE: the state or condition of restfulness, harmony, balance, equilibrium, longevity, justice, resolution, timelessness, contentment, freedom, and fulfillment, either individually or simultaneously present, in such a way that it overcomes, demolishes, banishes, and/or replaces everything that opposes it." (by Sevi Regis)
Peace may refer specifically to an agreement concluded to end a war, or to a lack of external warfare, or to a period when a country's armies are not fighting enemies. It can also refer more generally to quietude, such as that common at night or in remote areas, allowing for sleep or meditation. Peace can be an emotion or internal state. And finally, peace can be any combination of these definitions.
Evolution of Warfare
Warfare started with fists, sticks and stones, yelling distance. People usually knew their enemy, not always by name but they could see the fear in his as bled to death at their feet. Combat was more personal and direct. As weapons evolved so did the method of using them. With a bow and arrow it was easier to sneak up on the enemy and shoot an arrow in him or throw a spear at him. When groups started waging war on each other new technologies forced them to use different tactics. Armor and shields reduced the effectiveness of bows and arrows.
Until the nineteen hundreds, soldiers fought in big formations where Generals could mass their troops where they would do the most damage to the enemy. As guns became more common troops were equipped with them and deployed in several ranks. A bullet fired from a black powder musket could penetrate all but the strongest armor and so massed cavalry charges of knights could be slaughtered by a group of poorly trained peasants armed with guns.
Technology has changed the way war is fought to an incredible extent. With current advances in technology it could change even more. With more widespread and instantaneous media coverage citizens are quickly informed of world events. With vivid, realistic views of what their fellows are facing in distant lands people are becoming less interested in seeing their sons and daughters die in battle. In turn they pressure their government to end the war.
This is starting to have great effect in the way wars are fought. Those in power are, perhaps for the first time in history, beginning to care about the loss of human life. Stand off weapons, that do not risk the lives of citizens are becoming preferred. The cruise missile, which can strike with pinpoint precision is now more important than ever.
One cannot predict the way wars will be fought in the future. With the growing number of weapons of mass destruction one can assume that to avoid the attention of these weapons combat units will be smaller, faster and more evasive. They will not assemble for mass destruction and they will try to avoid detection by the enemy whenever possible.
An orbital satellite can count eggs on a table. How long before they marry a satellite weapon with the imager and use it to attack individuals on the planets surface. Special imagers can detect missile silos and transmit their location to attack units. Of course this is not perfect yet (as Iraqi Scud Missile launchers proved in the Gulf War).
Technology is becoming more precise and lethal. Already, unmanned aircraft are employed by US forces. Right now these are unmanned recon craft, they are working on combat craft. A remote controlled aircraft is less restricted by high gravity forces which can cause a pilot to black out. Without a pilot, remote controlled aircraft have many advantages. If it is shot down you don't have to worry about a pilot for one. It can maneuver and probably fight better than a manned aircraft and they can be built smaller.
Comments
Post a Comment