In Part I we have seen how asymmetry of means leads to asymmetry on the battlefield. First, there is a glaring tendency for combatants to criminalize one another. How usefully this serves the interests of the combatants varies relative to the conflict. In some conflicts it is useful to criminalize one's adversary, while in others it is considerably more beneficial to extend equality. Second, asymmetric conflict undermines an entire range of conventional practices by scrutinizing the long-standing concern to avoid superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering and by raising the prospect of nonlethal warfare, torture, and assassination. Absent fears of retaliation, combatants are again asking what kinds of weapons they may use. In many cases, the logic of conventional war no longer dictates strict restrictions on various tactics. Targeted killing, calmative agents, and millimeter-wave weapons will all find increasing use. Torture, too, is up for consideration in many democratic nations, although the controversy it provokes exhausts great reserves of moral energy and prevents judicious discussion of other, more urgent topics.

Some of these topics are the subject of the second half of this book. While asymmetry of means produces radical asymmetry on the battlefield, treatment of civilians by either side remains remarkably symmetrical. Conventional armies ask, Whom can we attack when we have exhausted our bank of military targets? Guerrillas ask, Whom can we attack when we cannot reach military targets?