The discipline of International Relations owes its origins to the study of war and peace. But are today’s wars so different from their predecessors that we need a new mindset? To answer that question, this chapter begins with warfare’s diverse ends and means before considering five leading issues: the role of violence in warfare; the extent to which that violence is organised; the political nature of war; the interactive nature of warfare; and the scope and scale of war. The argument presented here is that war’s essential features have not changed as much as we might think. This should make us sceptical about claims that the role of war in international relations has somehow been revolutionised.

Introduction

The discipline of International Relations (IR) owes its origins to the study of war and peace. But do the wars of the early twenty-first century differ so fundamentally from their predecessors that they need to be considered in quite different ways? This chapter provides a barometer on the character of warfare and its implications for contemporary international relations. It begins with warfare's diverse ends and means before considering five leading issues: the role of violence in warfare; the extent to which that violence is organised; the political nature of war; the interactive nature of warfare; and the scope and scale of war. The overall argument presented here is that while war today may look rather different from wars of earlier periods, much of its essential nature remains intact. This should make us sceptical about claims that the role of war in international relations has somehow been revolutionised.

The diversity of warfare

IR students need little reminder that they are traversing a discipline with hotly contested leading concepts. But we might be excused for supposing that the meaning and character of something as concrete as war would be an open and shut case. As this author has indicated elsewhere (Ayson 2006: 10–24), the field that looks at the place of war in international politics – strategic studies – often avoids debates about meaning and terminology, let alone theory.

But war can mean quite different things to different people in different parts of the world. Aside from such unhelpful notions as the ‘War on Terror’ and the ‘war on drugs’ (which are about as meaningful as the idea of a ‘war on war’ itself), our subject admits to a quite remarkable variety. It includes large-scale and nearly total war between states (and groups of nation-states) as seen in the twentieth century's two World Wars. It includes interstate war fought in more limited fashion for more limited goals (as in the war between Britain and Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands in the early 1980s). Also included are the messy internal wars including the American Civil War in the 1860s, China's long war which Mao's communist forces, eventually won in the late 1940s, and, much more recently, the violence between multiple factions in Syria's brutal civil war, which began in 2011.

Desmond Ball made his name as an internationally recognised scholar with an impressive body of work on aspects of American nuclear strategy. This had its origins in his graduate studies at the Australian National University (ANU) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He had first undertaken a study of ballistic missile defence for his Honours thesis in the Faculty of Arts, drafts of which he had shown to a recently arrived Professor of International Relations, Hedley Bull, who had come to the ANU from the London School of Economics via a two years stint as Director of the Wilson government's Arms Control and Disarmament Research Unit (ACDRU) at the Foreign Office. With his impeccable contacts in the United States strategic studies community, Bull was a demanding but ideal lead supervisor for Ball's subsequent Ph.D. thesis on the Kennedy administration's strategic missile program. Geoffrey Jukes, an authority on Soviet forces and a former ACDRU colleague of Bull's, and Arthur Lee Burns, one of the only Australians to have published work on nuclear strategy in American journals, were also on Ball's panel in the Research School of Pacific Studies.

That this research was the platform for Ball's outstanding career in strategic studies is confirmed by the content of the academic works he was writing at the very height of his career. For me that apex comes in 1980 and 1981, some eight years after the completion of Ball's Ph.D., a period of intense intellectual productivity represented by three significant pieces of writing. While these only represent a small fraction in numerical terms of Des Ball's mountainous output, they are clear demonstrations of his scholarship at its most powerful and influential. The first was the extensively revised and extended version of Ball's Ph.D. thesis, which was published by the University of California Press in 1980 under the title Politics and Force Levels. The second was a short but significant article on counterforce which first appeared in the journal of the American arms control community, Arms Control Today and reprinted elsewhere in the 1980s. And the third is a very widely cited Adelphi Paper on the dismal prospects of controlling a nuclear war once it had begun, published in London by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in 1981.

Introduction

The discipline of International Relations owes its origins to the study of war and peace. But do the wars of the early twenty-first century differ so fundamentally from their predecessors that they need to be considered in quite different ways? This chapter provides a barometer on the character of warfare and its implications for contemporary international relations. It begins with some comments on the diverse ends and means of warfare before considering five leading issues: the role of violence in warfare; the extent to which that violence is organised; the political nature of war; the interactive nature of warfare; and the scope and scale of war. The overall argument presented here is that while war today may look rather different to wars of earlier periods, much of its essential nature has remained intact. This should make us a bit sceptical about claims that the role of war in international relations has somehow been revolutionised.

The diversity of warfare

Students of International Relations need little reminding that they are traversing a discipline whose leading concepts are hotly contested. But we might be excused for supposing that the meaning and character of something as concrete as war would be an open and shut case. As this author has indicated elsewhere (Ayson 2006: 10–24) the field which looks at the place of war in international politics – strategic studies – often avoids endless debates about meaning and terminology, let alone theory.

Introduction

The discipline of International Relations owes its origins to the study of war and peace. But do the wars of the early twenty-first century differ so fundamentally from their predecessors that they need to be considered in quite different ways? This chapter provides a barometer on the character of warfare and its implications for contemporary international relations. It begins with some comments on the diverse ends and means of warfare before considering five leading issues: the role of violence in warfare, the extent to which that violence is organised, the political nature of war, the interactive nature of warfare, and the scope and scale of war. The overall argument presented here is that while war today may look rather different to wars of earlier periods, much of its essential nature has remained intact. This should make us a bit sceptical about claims that the role of war in international relations has somehow been revolutionised.

The diversity of warfare

Students of International Relations need little reminding that they are traversing a discipline whose leading concepts are hotly contested. But we might be excused for supposing that the meaning and character of something as concrete as war would be an open and shut case. As this author has indicated elsewhere (Ayson 2006: 10–24) the field which looks at the place of war in international politics – strategic studies – often avoids endless debates about meaning and terminology, let alone theory.