The Three Wars

I read an article once by Bruce Sterling in which he discussed the fundamental types or styles of war conveniently breaking them down into three categories which I will briefly describe for you.

The first type of war is nuclear. There two potential opponents to a nuclear power state. The first would be another nuclear power state (think Pakistan and India or the USSR and USA). The second would be a nuclear power confronting a non nuclear state (Israel and Syria/Egypt/etc.). In the first case the risk and cost retaliation is so high that you cannot effectively fight a war against a nuclear power and can only resort to wars by proxy (see Afghanistan, Angola, Central America, Southeast Asia, etc.)

In the case of a nuclear power confronting a non nuclear power, the nuclear power inevitable also has a significantly larger conventional military (tanks/artillery/aircraft/etc). For example, Israelis army is vastly superior to that of it neighbors, such that the use of nuclear weapons would be an unnecessary use of force considering the loss in standing on the international stage, the local and global ecological disaster, the contamination of any conquered territory.

So for all intents and purposes nuclear war is primarily a threat. It is a diplomatic technology to keep states from fighting the second type of war, which is Conventional war.

Conventional war means exactly what is says. War using conventional or traditional means. While this may include some weapons that produce blast larger that some nuclear weaponry (fuel/air explosives and so called bunker busters), conventional weapons for the most part consist of artillery, aircraft, infantry, missiles, tanks or items specifically made with a military purpose in mind

The examples of conventional wars span millennia so I’ll not bore you with examples

The third type of war has many names: Unconventional warfare, guerilla war, asymmetrical warfare, terrorism, etc. Asymmetrical warfare probably best describes this style or war. Generally one opponent is significantly stronger than the second, so much so that any sort of conventional war is an impractical form of resistance. Some examples of this would be any sort of insurgency for the past to today including many failed and successful revolutions. The American Revolution, the P/IRA in Northern Ireland, the Viet Cong forces in South Vietnam, the Mujahidin in Afghanistan and the Contras in Nicaragua all fought asymmetrical wars. The tactics of the weaker party include hit and run, ambush, remote controlled bombings, terror attacks intended to effect political changes, assassination, sabotage, etc. While generally viewed as repugnant for of warfare on the international stage, when given no other option people will resist in ways that will accomplish there goals.

As it stands today, the United States and its potential enemies are in is a unique situation. The first form of warfare is not an option. Since we possess nuclear weapons, any state attacking us with nuclear weapons would find themselves attacked with an extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons as noted earlier. Nuclear wars will not be fought or if they are they will be such a calamity as the world has never seen. The second form of warfare isn’t a rational option either against the US either. The United States has such an overall military advantage in training, technology, experience, funding, and equipment that there is no force on earth at this time, that has any reasonable expectation of defeating the US military. Not only does the US have the overwhelming advantage in every area noted above it also has the ability to project that force almost anywhere in the world. The second form of warfare is not an option for enemies of the United States.

This leaves the third option. And for that there has been no demonstrated effective counter measure in thousands of years short of the extermination of non-combatant enemy populations.