THEORY OF WAR

1. THEORY OF WAR

2. QUESTION 1 WARS, BIG AND SMALL, HAVE BEEN FOUGHT SINCE THE DAWN OF HISTORY AND EVEN IN THE MODERN TIMES THE SIT CONTINUES TO BE THE SAME. EVEN TODAY MANY PARTS OF THE GLOBE ARE WITNESSING CLASHES / WARS INCL PROXY WARS. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND PHENOMENON AND NATURE OF WAR IN OUR CONTEXT, TRACETHE CAUSES OF WAR IN THE PAST AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO OUR CURRENT AND FUTURE CONTEXT IN THE SOUTH ASIAN REGION

3. SPONSOR SYNDICATE 1 • COL PS MEHTA • COL RS LATHWAL – DY SYN LDR • COL VISHWAMBAR SINGH • COL PK SIWACH – SYN LDR • COL S VAYABOURY • COL K ANANTH • GP CAPT AK SINHA, VrC

4. WAR: DEFINITION WAR IS AN ACT OF FORCE (PHYSICAL) TO COMPEL OUR EN TO DO OUR WILL. WAR IS ANY PROLONGED CONFLICT BETWEEN RIVAL POLITICAL GPS BY FORCE OF ARMS. IT INCLUDES INSURRECTION AND CIVIL WAR, BUT EXCLUDES RIOTS AND ACTS OF INDL VIOLENCE.

5. CAUSES OF WAR

6. PREVIEW • TRACING CAUSES OF VARIOUS WARS. • ANCIENT W • MEDIEVAL W • MODERN W 2. THEORIES ON CAUSES OF WAR AND INFERENCE THEREFROM. 3. PROBABILITY OF WAR. 4. DISCUSSION.

7. ANCIENT WARFARE • CAVEMAN –COMPETITION FOR MIN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE: FOOD, SHELTER AND MATE. • TRIBALS– DEEP-ROOTED DESIRE TO BELONG TO GPS. LOYALTY AND SENSE OF GP IDEN BECAME EXCLUSIVE AND POSITIVELY ANTAGONISTIC TO NEIGHBOUR. • RIVER VALLEY CIVILIZATIONS – OVERCROWDING IN THE RICH VALLEYS: • WARS WITHIN VALLEY DWELLERS. • WARS BY OUTSIDERS ON VALLRY DWELLERS. • EMERGENCE OF RACES – RACIAL STRUGGLES: • PERSIAN/ GREEK (600 – 300 BC). • CARTHEGIAN AND ROMAN POWER STRUGGLE (218 – 01 BC). • BARBARIAN MIGRATIONS – MANGOLS, HUNS, GOTHS).

8. MEDIEVAL WARFARE • EST OF RELIGIOUS ORDERS – RELIGIOUS WARS/ CRUSADES: • RISE OF ISLAM AND EXPANSION OF ARABIANISM. • SHRINKING OF ROMAN AND PERSIAN EMPIRES. • EST OF CHRISTIAN RULES IN EUROPE,HINDU/ BUDHIST RULE IN INDIA. • EMERGENCE OF NATIONS/ KINGDOMS – NATIONALISTIC/ DYNASTIC AND INTERSTATE WARS FOR EST OF SUPREMACY/ HEGEMONY: • SPANISH EXCURSIONS. • OTTOMAN EMPIRE • EUROPEAN WARS – INCL ANGLO-FRENCH IMPERIAL RIVALRY. • JENGIZ KHAN’S WARS. • JAPANESE WAR SAMURAI. • TURKO- ISLAMIC INVASIONS OF INDIA.

9. MODERN WARFARE • REVOLUTIONS AND IDEOLOGIES IN SOCIETY – EMERGENCE OF DEMOCRACIES AND SOCIALISM: • FRENCH AND RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS. • AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. • FRANCO- PRUSSIAN WAR. • INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND MASSIVE GROWTHS IN POPULATION – WEAPONISATION, COLONISATION AND ALLIANCES: • FIRST AND SECOND WORLD WARS. • WW I • MURDER IN THE BALKANS? • EXISTING RIVALRIES BETWEEN ALLIANCES (CENTRAL VS ENTENTE). • MISCALCULATION AS TO EXPECTED LEVEL. • …. CONTD

10. …. CONTD • WW 2 • TREATY OF VERSAILLES- HUMILIATING AND AVENGEFUL. • APPEASEMENT POLICY OF BRITAIN • JAPAN’S ECO GROWTH AND AMBITION TO DOM ASIA-PACIFIC. • LEBENSERAUM. • ERA OF BIPOLAR WORLD – EMERGENCE OF SUPER POWER BLOCKS AND NEWLY INDEP NATIONS OF THIRD WORLD: • IDEOLOGICAL WARS. • BDY WARS. • WARS FOR EXISTENCE/CREATION OF NATIONS. • FEUDAL/ TRIBAL WARS. • ARMS RACEAND CHANGE IN ALLIANCES DUE ECO ONSIDERATIONS. • ERA OF UNIPOLAR WORLD – EMERGENCE OF USA AS SUPREME POWER, ECO AS TOOL OF POWER, EMERGENCE OF NON-STATE MILITANT ELEMENTS: • US POWER PROJ FOR ECO REASONS OR FOR STAB OF WORLD ORDER. • INSURGENCY/PROXY WAR.

11. THEORIES ON CAUSES OF WAR • (FOCUS ON CAT OF CAUSES) • VATTEL’S THEORY • JOMINI’S THEORY • CLAUSEWITZ’S THEORY • QUINCY WRIGHT’S THEORY • GEOFFREY BLAINEY’S THEORY • BERNARD BRODIE’S THEORY

12. VATTEL’S (LAWYER) THEORY • NECESSARY • CUSTOMARY • RATIONAL • CAPRICIOUS

13. QUINCY WRIGHT’S (POL SCIENTIST) THEORY • IDEALISTIC. • PSY. • POL. • JURIDICAL. • “ WHILE ANIMAL WAR IS A FUNCTION OF ‘INSTICT’ AND PRIMITIVE WAR OF THE ‘MORES’, CIVILIZED WAR IS PRIMARILY A FUNCTION OF ‘POLITICS’.”

14. JOMINI’S (STRATEGIST) THEORY • IDEOLOGICAL. • ECONOMICAL. • POPULAR • FOR BAL OF POWER. • TO ASSIST ALLIES. • ASSERT/ DEFEND RIGHTS.

15. CLAUSEWITZ’S (MIL STRAT) THEORY “ WAR IS NOTHING BUT THE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.” “WHEN WHOLE COMMUNITIES/PEOPLES (ESPECIALLY CIVILIZED PEOPLE) GO TO WAR THE REASON ALWAYS LIES IN SOME POL SIT, AND THE OCCASION IS ALWAYS DUE TO SOME POL OBJ. WAR, THEREFORE, IS AN ACT / INSTRUMENT OF POLICY.”

16. BLAINEY,S (MIL HISTORIAN) THEORY “ ALL WAR-AIMS ARE SIMPLY VARIETIES OF POWER. THE VANITY OF NATIONALISM, THE WILL TO SPREAD AN IDEOLOGY, PROTECTION OF KINSMEN IN AN ADJACENT LAND, THE DESIRE FOR MORE TERRITORY… ALL THESE REP POWER IN DIFFERENT WRAPPINGS. THE CONFLICTING AIMS OF RIVAL NATIONS ARE ALWAYS CONFLICTS OF POWER.”

17. BRODIE’S (MIL HISTORIAN) THEORY (REFUSED TO DISCRIMINATE) “ ANY THEORIES OF CAUSES OF WAR OR ANY CAT OF WAR THAT IS NOT INHERENTLY ECLECTIC AND COMPREHENSIVE IS BOUND FOR THAT VERY REASON TO BE WRONG.”

18. INFERENCE FROM VARIOUS THEORIES • WAR IS AN ARMED CONFLICT WHICH ARISES FROM CONFLICTING CLAIMS OR INTERESTS OR IDEOLIGIES OR PERCEPTIONS (THE PERCEPTIONS MAY BE FUELED BY SOCIAL OR PSY DRIVES). • HOWEVER INCHOATE OR DISREPUTABLE THE MOTIVES OF WAR MAY BE, ITS INITIATION IS ALMOST BY DEFINITION A DELIBERATE AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ACT. THERE ARE NO ACCIDENTAL WARS. STATESMEN GO TO WAR TO ACHIEVE VERY SPECIFIC ENDS.

19. PROBABILITY OF WAR (A STATS APCH) "EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY"

20. EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY IN THE STUDY OF CONFLICT • EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY ORIGINATED AS AN EXPLANATION OF MICROECONOMIC BEHAVIOUR. ESSENCE OF THE THEORY IS AS UNDER. • INDL DECISION MAKERS ORDER ALTERNATIVES IN TERMS OF THEIR PREFERENCES • THE ORDER OF PREFERENCES IS TRANSITIVE SO THAT IF A IS PREFERRED TO B AND B p TO C THEN A IS p TO C. • INDLS KNOW THE INTENSITY OF THEIR PREFERENCES,WITH THAT INTENSITY OF PREFERENCE BEING KNOWN AS UTILITY. • INDLS CONSIDER ALT MEANS OF ACHIEVING DESIREABLE ENDS IN TERMS OF THE PRODUCT OF THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING OUTCOMES AND THE UTILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE OUTCOMES. • DECISION MAKERS BEING RATIONAL ALWAYS SELECT THE STRATEGY THAT YIELDS THE HIGHEST EXPECTED UTILITY.

21. O2 -SURE OUTCOME • O1,O3 -OTHER OUTCOMES • O1pO2pO3 • U(O1)>U(O2)>U(O3) WHERE U DENOTES UTILITY • LET P - PROBABILITY OF ATTAINING O1 • LET(1-P) - PROBABILITY OF ATTAINING O3 • OPTION TO PURSUE O1 AT THE RISK OF ENDING UP WITH O3 IS CALLED A LOTTERY • IN A LOTTERY THERE ARE TWO OR MORE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES EACH OF WHICH WILL OCCUR WITH SOME PROBABILITY SUCH THAT THE SUM OF THE PROBABILITIES IS 1.

22. AN EXPECTED UTILITY MAXIMISING DECISION-MAKER SELECTS THE RISKY LOTTERY BETWEEN O1 AND O3 OVER THE SURE OUTCOME O2 IF THE ANTICIPATED RETURN FROM THE GAMBLE IS BELIEVED TO BE LARGER THAN THE ASSURED VALUE OF ACHIEVING OUTCOME2 • STATEGIC DECISION TO GAMBLE ON ATTAINING O1 CAN BE REPRESENTED BY • PU(O1)+(1-P)U(O3)>U(O2) • DECISION MAKER SELECTS THE SURE OUTCOME IF • PU(O1)+(1-P)U(O3)<U(O2) • DECISION MAKER IS INDIFFERENT BETWEEN THE ALTERNATIVES IF • PU(O1)+(1-P)U(O3)=U(O2)

23. LET I, j BE TWO NATIONS • P(WAR)= Pi(ESCi)* Pj(ESCj) • PROBABILITY OF WAR AS PERCIEVED BY I AND PERCIEVED BY j ARE AS UNDER • Pi(WAR) = Pi(ESCi)*Pi(ESCj) • Pj(WAR) = Pj(ESCi)*Pj(ESCj) CASE1 • SUPPOSE I BELIEVES RELEVANT PROBABILITIES TO BE 0.6& 0.9 AND j BELIEVES THAT THEY ARE 0.8& 0.6 THEN • Pi(WAR)= 0.54 • Pj(WAR)= 0.48 • P(WAR)= 0.36

24. CASE2 • SUPPOSE I THINKS THAT THE PROBABILITIES ARE 0.9 & 0.6 AND j THINKS THEY WERE 0.6 & 0.9 THEN • Pi(WAR)=Pj(WAR)= 0.54 • P(WAR) = 0.81 CASE3 • SUPPOSE I THINKS THAT THE PROBABILITIES AS 0.6 & 0.7 AND j THOUGHT THEY WERE 0.9 & 0.8 • Pi(WAR)= 0.42 • Pj(WAR)= 0.72 • P(WAR) = 0.48

25. AUTHOR OF THE ABOVE THEORY BRUCE BUENO DE MESQUITA HAS SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTED THE FOLLOWING • ASCENT OF YURI ANDROPOV AS SUCCESSOR TO BREZHNEV • SUCCESSFUL PREDICTION OF ELECTION RESULTS IN EL SALVADOR IN 1981. • ERUPTION OF DISPUTE BETWEEN CHEN YUN OF THE IDOLOGICAL FACTION OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY AND DENG XIAO PING ON THE ISSUE OF FREE MARKET REFORMS

26. DISCUSSION