WAR AND WARFARE (Part1): Defining War

Starting a new series on War and Warfare, beginning with definition of war.

Defining War

Dictionary Definitions. Definitions of war in different dictionaries are as follows:

    • A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.
    • A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.
    • A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation.
    • A state or period of armed hostility or active military operations.
    • A contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns.
    • War is an intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces.

These definitions are understandable and accurate definitions in the general context however, they are too simplistic to convey the complexity and many facets of war. The war needs to be conceptualized and defined in a broader perspective. War has been defined over the years by the strategists. Each has added a new facet (highlighted in italics in the text) to the definition. Some of the definitions are as follows:

Von Clausewitz (1911) defined war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil our will”, and “War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other means.”

Sorel (1912) defined war as a “political act by means of which States, unable to adjust a dispute regarding their obligations, rights or interests, resort to armed force to decide which is the stronger and may therefore impose its will on the other”.

Russell’s (1916) definition of war as “conflict between two groups, each of which attempts to kill and maim as many as possible of the other group in order to achieve some object which it desires” is even more general and uncritically inclusive. Russell states the object for which men fight as “generally power or wealth”.

Johnson (1935) defines war as “armed conflict between population groups conceived of as organic unities, such as races or tribes, states or lesser geographic units, religious or political parties, economic classes”.

Kallen (1939) gave a political definition of war: “If war may be defined as an armed contest between two or more sovereign institutions employing organized military forces in the pursuit of specific ends”. The significant term in the definition is `organized’. He further adds that this organization of the contending armed forces extends back behind the battle lines and tends in modern wars to embrace all civilian activities, such as the industrial, productive, and commercial, and also the social interests and individual attitudes.

Bernard (1944) stated as follows: “War is organized continuous conflict of a transient character between or among collectivities of any sort capable of arming and organizing themselves for violent struggle carried on by armies in the field (or naval units on water) and supported by civil or incompletely militarized populations back of the battle areas constituted for the pursuit of some fairly well-defined public or quasipublic objective.” This objective is of course not always defined to the satisfaction of all concerned and it is liable to change according to circumstances during the continuance of the struggle.

Wallace (1968) considers war to be “the sanctioned use of lethal weapons by members of one society against members of another. It is carried out by trained persons working in teams that are directed by a separate policy-making group and supported in various ways by the non-combatant population”.

Ashworth (1968): “Mass or total war may be defined as a type of armed conflict between large nation-States in which populations and resources are rationally and extensively organized for conquest. It is important to note that populations are mobilized both in terms of activities and psychological states: the former implies comprehensive military and civilian conscription; the latter implies the systematic development of belligerent and hostile attitudes towards the enemy among all or most of the population.”

Deutsch and Senghaas (1971): “By ‘war’ we mean actual large-scale organized violence, prepared and maintained by the compulsion and legitimacy claims of a State and its government, and directed against another State or quasi-State, i.e. a relatively comparable political organization”.

Barringer (1972) considers war to be “one possible mode of policy activity aimed at effectively and favourably resolving an ongoing conflict of interests. In this sense war is but one of numerous conflict procedures, others being negotiation, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication. It is merely a particular subset of the larger set of all conflict modes.

All the definitions read together cover most of the facets of war. However, in the modern times the very nature of warfare are changing rapidly. More about these changes later.

Coming up next : Types of War

References:

  1. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12857871.pdf
  2. 2.https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/what-is-war-a-new-point-of-view
  3. Brian Orend, “War”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, accessed September 18, 2012.
  4. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/.
  5. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 75
  6. Joseph S. Nye, The Future of Power, (New York, NY: Public Affairs), 113.
  7. Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century, 2005 (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux).
  8. Michael Howard, The Causes of War from the Causes of War and Other Essays, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 16.
  9. United States Government, The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, January 2011, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office), 417-420.
  10. Jack Sine, Defining the ‘Precision weapon’ in effects-based terms, Air & Space Power Journal, Spring 2006, accessed March 3, 2011, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Air-Space-Power-Journal/154817984.html.
  11. General Norton A. Schwartz and Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, “Air-Sea Battle: Promoting Stability in an Era of Uncertainty”, The American Interest, February 12, 2012, accessed September 12, 2012.
  12. http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1212.
  13. Dr. Robert C. Nation, U.S. Army War College Seminar Lecture, September 6, 2012.
  14. Gene Sharp, The Role of Power in Nonviolent Struggle, (Boston, MA: The Albert Einstein Institution, 1990), 9.Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. Samuel B. Griffith (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963).

FUTURE CONFLICT SCENARIO: IMPLICATIONS FOR IAF (PART 2)

Link to Part 1

In Continuation……

Implications For: IAF

  • India has to be prepared for a possible two-front war.
  • The threat spectrum spans from sub-convential conflict, conventional war to nuclear exchange.
  • Capability and preparedness is required for:-
  • Collusive challenge
  • Internal security
  • Multi front challenges
  • Hybrid wars
  • Grey zone ops
  • Diverse operational scenarios
  • Diverse operational areas
  • Preparedness would include review of doctrines, strategy and tactics, organizational structures, human resource adaption and training, and maintenance & logistics concepts to meet the operational requirements.
  • IAF will have to build deterrence and have ability to dominate the air. It will have to induct modern systems for situational awareness, intelligence and precision strike ability.
  • Technological advancements and evolving changes would have to be factored. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has great potential for application in field of air power. India must take an early lead.
  • IAF would need to think differently to be able to tackle various asymmetric and non-traditional security threats and would require more innovative, out of box solutions which would leverage the prevalent technology.
  • Self-reliance and investment in future technologies is most important.

 

Harnessing Emergent Technologies

  • Technology is impacting the nature of warfare (especially air warfare) like never before. Technology superiority needs to be a corner stone of India’s national military strategy.

 

  • IAF needs to define a defence science and technology strategy with a vision to harness technology and convert it into decisive capability.

 

  • Suggested Future technologies to be looked into are :

 

  • Quantum computing. 
  • Hypersonic weapon systems.
  • Artificial Intelligence. 
  • Robotics.
  • Nano technology. 
  • Unmanned platforms, Drones and swarm technology. 
  • Network centric environment / Internet of things / system of systems.

 

  • Most of them are dual use technologies with utility both in civil and military domain.

 

  • Suitable Ecosystem. Model and ecosystem required to bring User (defence forrces in this case), Academia, R&D (DRDO) and Industry (DPSU and Private) to work in unison.
  • Strategic focus is required in terms of a long term and medium term technology plan supported by adequate budget allocation.
  • Impetus is also required for some of the existing aviation related programmes :-

 

  • Hypersonic weapons
  • Integrated Ballistic and Cruise Missile
  • Fifth generation fighter
  • Transport aircraft (for civil and military requirements).
  • Development of gas turbines and engines.
  • AI enabled autonomous
  • Unmanned platforms and swarms.
  • Sensors and seekers for multiple
  • Metallurgy and composites.

Comments and value additions are most welcome

FUTURE CONFLICT SCENARIOS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IAF (PART 1)

Changes in warfare and implications

  • The contours of conventional war / conflict are changing and become more ambiguous and wide
  • Long drawn out conventional wars are a thing of the past due to diminished international acceptability of capture of territory & collateral damage and also increasing economic costs.
  • Terrorism, piracy and sectarian conflicts are extending the boundaries to grey zone, hybrid, sub-conventional conflicts in the ‘no peace, no war’ realm.
  • The battle space for war fighting is expanding (into multi domains) with compression of time.
  • Future conflicts are likely to be short, swift and intense engagements against a nuclear backdrop.
  • Future security challenges will be more and more complex, multi-dimensional and non-traditional in both kinetic and non-kinetic form.
  • Success would lie on the ability to act in the shortest possible time, inside the decision cycle of the adversary demanding very high level of real time situational awareness.

 

Regional / Local Scenario

  • Geopolitically Asia is the most war risk-prone region of the world.

 

  • India’s shares 6,917 kilometres of live borders with two nuclear armed hostile.

 

  • In recent past, the region has gone through frequent trigger incidents like Galwan Valley encroachment across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and Doklam face-off with China, and frequent terror attack by terrorist groups based in Pakistan. These events could lead to a war or conflict.

 

China

  • China has emerged as a major regional power with aspiration to be a global power.
  • China’s desire to dominate Asia and finally the world has implications for India.
  • India’s relations with china are changing from cooperative to competitive to combative.
  • China also continues to enhance its strategic presence in the Indian Ocean Region.
  • Simultaneously China is investing in the Indian Ocean littoral countries to achieve a foot-hold and extend influence.
  • China would like to keep India off-balance.
  • China follows the philosophy of systems destruction warfare (i.e. disruption, paralyses or destruction of enemy operational systems).

 

Pakistan

  • Pakistan remains a security threat in all dimensions i.e. nuclear, conventional and sub-conventional.
  • Pakistan continues to be the epicentre of world terror. Pakistan would continue to use non-state actors to maintain a situation of unrest.
  • Asymmetric warfare will remain an instrument of its state policy. Pakistan’s strategy would continue to be wage proxy war and in the event of an escalation, use the nuclear card.

 

China – Pak Collusive Challenge

  • Chin’s increasing economic and political ties with Pakistan have an influence on the geostrategic balance of the region.
  • China has strategic interests in using Pakistani territory to reach West Asia and Africa for trade and geo-strategic positioning. It has invested in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that connects Xinjiang region in West China to the China-built-and-operated Gwadar port near Gulf of Hormuz.
  • China has helped Pakistan militarily including help to acquire technologies for its nuclear weapons and missile program.
  • In case of a conflict between India and Pakistan, China would posture along the northern and eastern border to keep the Indian military might divided and would also use its influence in the international forums to bring about a ceasefire at the earliest.
  • Pakistan openly boasts of collusive support from China in case of a war with India.

To be continued…

Link to Part 2 

comments and value additions are most welcome.