Nature Of War In The Information Age And The Utility Of Force

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

Wars are often glorified in tone to give praise and respect for those on the battlefields. There is an overall understanding that there are sacrifices needed in order to accomplish a larger goal. Excluded from this understanding is the realization that the effects of war

Dating to the beginning of civilization, war continues to be a repeating occurrence in the world whether it be with oneself, society, or the outside influences in the world. In terms of war between countries, there is the growing controversy over its utilization and purpose when a country is predisposed to a situation foreboding unavoidable conflict. War is the only solution to certain situations but cannot be considered a panacea to all the issues prevalent in the world. The reasoning behind this is that war produces consequences some of which that are permanent. War has always spawn more conflict, gives disfigurement to human bodies, death and occasionally affects the state of one’s mind in areas such as mentality, emotions, rationality

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of

This manual recognizes that although war is a violent clash of interests, the elements of friction, uncertainty, and disorder create difficult conditions with which to operate. The theory states that human emotion shapes the nature of war since it is considered an “act of violence based on irreconcilable disagreement.” Thus it is impossible to lead a unit into an environment shaped by violence and danger with doctrine based solely on scientific calculations. FMFM-1 then states “the conduct of war is ultimately an art, an activity of human creativity and intuition powered by the strength of human will.” Unfortunately, FMFM-1 fails to recognize that the intuition of the art of war is complimented by the analytical details in the science of

Lewis indicates that war is part of human existence, thus, it is included in the annals of human history though it is evidence of falling human nature. Evidently, the author states that even with improvement in sophisticated weapons of war such as nuclear weapons, it is evident that humans are surrounded with uncertainties. Notwithstanding, the writer accentuates that the activities in fighting do not add new dynamics to life but reflects on the negative side of life. Imperatively, there is a reflection on the essence of war as whether it is immoral, a moral obligation or morally neutral (Lewis, 1939). However, this can be answered by focusing on what is considered evil or appropriate in accordance to tenets of the population. In the case of war, nothing can be done since people seldom focus on the benefits of others in the struggle. On a contradictory note, Lewis

Despite the high costs of war both in monetary value and in terms of potential life and infrastructure lost states and their actors despite their supposed rationality still seek war at times. Sometimes war is unavoidable given the situations that actors find themselves in. States prior to war will attempt several options such as bargaining and it is that failure in bargaining that tends to result in conflict or war. Especially following the events of the Cold War numerous scholars have given their reasons as to why conflict is sometimes beyond prevention.

The comprehension of the term ‘total war’ has had great significance towards the understanding as to how wars are fought, affect society and differ from other conflicts. The main issue that arises is conclusively defining total war and is continually differing between both historians and military combatants alike. Roger Chickering defines states “total war is distinguished by its intensity and extent. Theatres of operation span the globe; the scale of the battle is practically limitless” all the while adding “total war requires the mobilisation not only of armed forced but also of whole populations” This definition, while not quintessential is a good starting point for a definition due to its broadness and acceptance of the idea of the incapability to fully mobilise a society’s entire resource. David A. Bell states that it is often defined as ‘a war involving the complete mobilization of a society’s resources to achieve the absolute destruction of an enemy, with all distinction erased between combatants and non-combatants’ . However, he notes the limitations of such an idea including the inability for societies to meet such criterion, in particular, the ability for a society to completely utilise its resources towards the war effort. Ultimately, Jeremey black, while not giving a conclusive definition for the term, total war, does acknowledge different definitions by various individuals distilling many of their arguments and consequently outlining main characteristics of

Reading from the three essays: “from The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, “from The Prince” by Niccola Machiavelli, and “Warfare: An Invention” by Margaret Mead, all have same but different perspectives. The three readings all revolve around war, violence and aggression. Reading these three essays can give a different perspective on warfare. The ways of the three components in these readings, war, violence and aggression and the way the human body works as to how people work, is amazing. The authors show war, violence and aggression through these pieces to compare and contrast their ideas and moral of warfare.

Victor Davis Hanson addresses numerous questions concerning the concept of war and its multitude of effects in his article entitled, ‘The Utility of War’. By this extent, he discusses the positive and negative aspects, as well as the reason wars take place, and even how they often end.

All across the world, countries are drowning in the acts of warfare. Citizens residing in unescapable conditions due to war are suffering and likely calling out to other nations for help. It is proven that fighting violence with more violence does not draw a solution. The question of war being morally justifiable is one most easily answered by ancient and modern philosophers: it is not. For war induces a great deal of all those involved, promotes unnecessary violence, and overall it prevents the expansion of the human race.

While readings from Thucydides, Aristotle, and Machiavelli provide unique insight in the way war is justified in early civil society, the introduction of globalization into international relations leads us to ask if early theories regarding war and justice are still relevant to new and complex power relationships. For the purpose of creating practical connections, I intend to look at several possible “jus in bello” applications of two contemporary military technologies: nuclear weapons and drones (otherwise known as Unmanned Armed Vehicles). There are many cases of emerging military technologies that raise valuable question in regards to just acts of war, but I chose these two in particular because of they provide two seemingly opposing perspectives

Martin van Creveld wrote The Transformation of War book in 1991 when he detailed a predictive hypothesis about the changing character of war into what he called ?Nontrinitarian War. There were conflicts arise as intrastate wars and were not based on the simplified version of Clausewitz?s ?remarkable trinity? of government, people and military forces (Van Creveld, 1991, pg. 49). In his book, Van Creveld offers an account of warfare in the previous millennium and suggests what the future might hold. The drive was that major war was draining and the emergence of forms of war ?that are simultaneously old and new? now threatened to create havoc.

Since time immemorial human beings have been fighting one another by means of more or less murderous wars. Conflicts have evolved with time, in their organization, form and goals. Actors are different, new weapons have been created, technology has enormously developed, states’ interests have changed and, most of all, a new international relations order have been established. Nowadays it is not possible to fight a war the same way it was done during the Antiquity, or even last century. There are now international treaties and conventions that aim to regulate the use of forces in conflicts, as well as to limit casualties, especially civilian ones. Nonetheless, even though the world seem to have evolved in a more democratic and humanitarian way, wars are still common. There is no easy or unique solution to win a war, and the Laws of Armed Conflict, although they are not really respected, have not made it easier. However the best way to win a war today, if the aim is to win quickly, efficiently and with the less casualties and destructions as possible, could be to use the technology at disposal, that is to say drones, as well as the use of Secret Service Intelligence, disinformation and economic warfare. This essay will first focus on some previous notable victories and defeats to understand how conflicts have evolved over time and with the development of new means. I will then discuss the issue of ‘Just War’, and how it can be applied without jeopardizing the success of the