war, warfare, and international security

definition of war + related terms

• war = organized violence between groups (not individuals)

• power often refers to military force and capacity

• nature + stakes of war have changed drastically – total war, MAD/nuclear weaponry

scale of escalation of unconventional warfare

• non-physical acts like voter disinformation campaigns have a different scale of escalation, this is for physical violence

1. arms transfers

2. “special operations”

3. terrorism

arms transfers explained

= export of weapons from one country to another with a purpose in mind

• e.g., increase foreign influence, make money, support domestic arms industries

• on the lower end of the escalation ladder

special operations explained

= overt or covert use of military and related personnel to intervene in foreign domestic or inter-state affairs

• allows govts to intervene in foreign conflicts without being drawn into full war

• puts troops and equipment at the disposal of the domestic govt

• facilitates both gradual escalation and de-escalation/withdrawal – but has historically caused many full-scale wars e.g. the Vietnam War which led to the passing of the War Powers Act

• mid-tier escalation

• examples

  • kidnapping of President Maduro, US involvement in mexican drug cartels, etc.

• unclear where full scale war starts and special operations end – one delineation incl. whether intervention used air strikes or troops on the ground

terrorism explained

= a form of political violence that is carried out by individuals, nongovernmental organizations or small groups of covert government agents that specifically targets civilians and uses clandestine attack methods

• obviously not clandestine once the attack is carried out

• definition is disputed and applied differently depending on hegemonic belief: e.g., was the July Bomb Plot a terrorist act?

• varieties of terrorism incl

  • state-sponsored (Libya)

  • Transnational (Al-Quaeda)

  • Purely Domestic (Red Brigades) (less common in modern day)

definition of conventional warfare

= overt use of armed force by one or more countries against another country or countries that marks the end of the diplomatic road/exhaustion of non-violent coercion

4 traits of war

1. war (usually) has defined and stated political objectives

   1. process to undertake war is rational

2. both parties believe they can win at the start

3. generally avoids unchecked escalation through some regulations, e.g. Geneva Convention and conditional surrender

4. increase in hybrid conflicts like mix of civil and international wars & mix of special ops and full-scale war – hard to stop escalation

definition of weapons of mass destruction warfare

= use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponsp

pros of nuclear weapons

• can deter aggression, leading to stabilized situation

  • MAD, cold war

• provide (relatively) cheap protection for weaker states – less expensive than investing in many conventional weapons

• less likely to be used than other weapons because of the consequences

cons of nuclear weapons

• if nuclear war breaks out, could destroy the earth

• nuclear war would make the military/civilian distinction meaningless

• tactical vs strategic bombing distinction practically irrelevant

• danger of accidental, unplanned, or irrational usage

• huge power gap b/w nuclear and non-nuclear states

MAD explained

• retain second-strike capability as a deterrent for nuclear attack, but don't prepare any other defenses against nuclear strikes

• deterrence through punishment, security through vulnerability

pros of MAD

• makes nuclear war less likely because aggressor faces mutual destruction

• limits nuclear buildup – don't need many nuclear weapons for destruction

• in principle is a cheaper system

cons of MAD

• madman's paradox – both sides must believe that their opponent is just crazy enough to retaliate even though there's no rational reason to do so

• provides no security against accidental use of nuclear weapons

• easy to reationalize retaliation even though there is nothing to gain at that point

• deadly

NUT theory explained

= deterrence through damage denial

nuclear weapons can and should be employed in appropriate, targeted ways to achieve military objectives while avoiding escalation to nuclear war

• hope that missile interception/defense systems would become advanced enough for a country to escape MAD logic

pros of NUT

• anti-missile systems provide protection against accidental or terrorist nuclear launches, unlike MAD

• avoids the madman logic

• may deter conventional wars through threatening earlier use of nuclear weapons

cons of NUT

• lowers inhibitions on nuclear use without guaranteeing limits on escalation

• anti-missile defense is unreliable, allows some strikes to get through

  • not worth it unless your anti-missile system is 100% accurate

• increases perception of vulnerability, fueling nuclear proliferation among states incapable of developing anti-missile systems

• costly