110 likes | 190 Views
Explore the changing landscape of warfare from the 20th to 21st century, focusing on asymmetric and social warfare dynamics. Understand the shift towards internal conflicts within states and societies post-1990, influenced by factors like the end of the Cold War, technology diffusion, and social structures evolution. Analyze America's asymmetric warfare strategies and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Delve into concerns regarding weapons of mass destruction and the rise of social warfare, examining power struggles within national societies. Unpack the motivations behind neighbors turning against neighbors in conflicts.
E N D
War in the 21st Century • Wars in the 20th century • Wars in the 21st century • Asymmetric war • Social warfare
20th century wars were of three types • Interstate, both world wars & bilateral • Proxy, guerilla wars in/among super-power clients • Intrastate, between factions contending over rule • These tended to be state-based
But the role of the state in war is changing More wars are internal to states & societies
These appear to have become more pronounced after 1990: Why? • End of the Cold War • Stabilization of national borders • Diffusion of low-cost armaments • Changing internal incentive structures • Changes in domestic social structures & relations • Rise of “global” terrorism • Interventions to impose a stable social order in warring societies
Two dominant types of 21st century war • Asymmetric warfare • Great power vs. weaker parties • High tech vs. low tech • No real front lines • Social warfare • Among social groups (ethnic, religious, etc.) • Result of internal destabilization of social order • Often pits dominant against subordinate groups • Neighbors kill neighbors
America’s three wars are asymmetric • U.S. relies on advanced technology in war • Local opponent strikes at weak points in defense • Cost of attacks are low; costs of defense are high • High rates of casualties undermines morale • Local opponent often at advantage in numbers • Victory may require unacceptable levels of violence • Local opponent can “wait out” high-tech force
GWOT is a type of asymmetric war • There is no fixed field of battle • Groups & communications difficult to “see” • Advanced tech too destructive & costly • High-visibility targets, low visibility attackers • Attacks use/destroy existing infrastructure • Decapitation may not destroy the “body”
This has also generated concern about “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs) • Deterrence through threat of mass death (strategy) • Little tactical use for WMDs • State possessors inhibited from using them • Technology & materials not difficult to acquire • Proliferation of WMDs raises fears of “irrational” use • Concerns that WMDs may be used against urban centers
Social warfare tends to be struggle for power & domination within nat’l societies • “Cultural” divisions of labor & rule found in many places • Hierarchy & domination give access to power & resources • Changes in subordinate group status viewed as “threat” • Rising groups seek a share of the social product • Political entrepreneurs can mobilize fears of clients • Elimination of “threat” relies on verbal and actual violence • (See chapter 31 in reader)