Absolute War Analysis

Superior Essays
War throughout history has been limited as opposed to absolute. Limited war by its nature is the opposite of absolute war, and absolute war is a theory that fails as a construct. This essay discusses the two groups or types of war (absolute and limited) and the category subsets of those two groups that Carl von Clausewitz first discussed in his treatise On War.
Categories of war, as defined by Carl von Clausewitz, are absolute war, ideal war, limited war, real war, war to disarm the enemy, war of limited objectives, and war to overthrow the enemy. These categories fall into two groups; absolute war (which contains absolute war) and limited war (which contains ideal war – related to absolute war, real war, war to disarm the enemy, war of
…show more content…
Absolute war is the premise that all means available, to include all personnel that can wield a weapon, all equipment, all weapons (to include weapons of mass destruction) will all be used at the same time to completely destroy the enemy. This construct of war is not only improbable, it is impossible and ultimately fails as a construct. Clausewitz struggled with the definition and theory of absolute war throughout all books in his treatise On War.
It appears almost entirely in Book VIII, “War Plans,” but his discussion of it there is experimental—probing and inconsistent. It arises in Chapter 2 and soars in Chapters 3.A and 3.B, but comes into serious question even in 3.B. It receives fundamental criticism in Chapter 6.B, and thereafter disappears from view as the limited aim—which he previously in the same book had treated disdainfully under a different label— comes into serious consideration. Ultimately, Clausewitz dropped the term
…show more content…
To triumph within a conflict, the side who will eventually win must either disarm the enemy or wear one’s adversary down to the point that the adversary is unable or unwilling to fight. The second category of war Clausewitz defines is ideal war. “Ideal war is a philosophical abstraction, a "logical fantasy" that is impossible to achieve in reality. It is war in a "pure" form, violence at its most extreme, unrestrained by intelligent forces or by the frictional effects of time, space, and human nature.” Real war is simply war as it happens and how combatants enact war. A war of limited objectives is defined by the statement; it is a war to obtain defined and stated objectives, many times in the form of small gains to accomplish a larger goal. Similarly, a war to overthrow the enemy defines itself; overthrow a leader of a state or country to further a state’s or nation’s

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    War Argumentative Analysis

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The first factor that makes powerful states struggle to achieve the intended political outcomes is military power restriction and the fear of escalation. To clarify, major military powers avoid the escalation to the extent that makes other major powers to interfere directly, or to use a destructive weapon like the atomic bomb. With the innovation of nuclear weapon the Clausewitz concept of “absolute war” is finally achievable. This will generate fear and will restraint powerful state from using maximum power to prevail. Thus the victory as a proper outcome to be expected of the use of American arms was intractable for the duration of the cold war, for the reason of the sensible fear of the escalation of nuclear holocaust.…

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    War has been used as an instrument by human beings to protect their interests. It will continue, as the human interests are insatiable as we are seeing today. With no doubt war will hard to detached from the society because it abruptly arise on one corner of today’s world and severely devastating the nations. We cannot stop war by denouncing it as destructive or by negotiating it, because no nation can negotiate on matter considerers it affect national interest. Therefore, if we want to prevent war, leaders should know what is war and inquiry what causes it, why and how war conducted in order to bring solution for nation by eliminating it cause.…

    • 1718 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This is regularly understood as meaning that war is by one means or another a "levelheaded" wonder and Clausewitz is sentenced pushing the fall back on war as a normal expansion of one-sided state strategy. Actually, the decision of interpretation for Politik "strategy" or "legislative issues," demonstrates varying accents with respect to the interpreter, for the two ideas are entirely different. "Policy" might be described as levelheaded activity, keeping in mind the end goal to keep up and boost that power. Governmental issues, is basically the procedure by which power is carried inside a given society. War is a loss of not a substitute for legislative issues.…

    • 1369 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Boswell’s essay takes aim at people who argue for the benefits of war, particularly those who claim that war is a chance for individuals to attain glory or demonstrate their bravery. He claims that if people had not become so accustomed to war as a way of life, that they would recognize how ridiculous it is. Boswell rejects the idea that any good comes from war that could compensate its direful effects. War, he claims, is followed by no benefits, particularly not to the people who fight in them. On War is a pacifist essay in which Boswell’s “...mind has expanded itself in reflections upon the horrid irrationality of war” (Boswell 11-12).…

    • 1022 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    As war is a political act that takes place in and among societies, its specific character will be shaped by those politics and those societies—by what Clausewitz called the “spirit of the age.”4Clausewitz framed his analysis of the war on the paradoxical trinity of people (representing primordial violence, passion, hate, and enmity); the military (representing the realm of probability and chance, courage and talent); and the government (representing the rational calculus, nexus between ends and means). Victory is only possible when the trinities of these factors are in equilibrium.5It is this reason why the character of war is ever-changing as both sides must adapt to the other’s strategies, actions, and the resulting consequences, in a process which ends only when the war does. Strategists on opposing sides, therefore, exercise power over the character of the war. Whoever takes the initiative and gains control has the greater ability to influence the character of the war to his advantage. The character of the war is never static because the strategies of the opposing belligerents are never inert.…

    • 1075 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Because realism is a theory focuses on explaining the world with war, conflict and security (Introduction to International Relation). So that was the time when realism is said to be appropriate. However, many people assumed that realism is a theory pessimistic in all situations. For example, realism followed the ideas that countries will always using military, army to made war between states and states to protect national interest. The biggest failure of realism is the prediction the collapse of Soviet Union (Ashesh,…

    • 1427 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In “Rationalist Explanations for War,” James Fearon argues that due to war’s costly nature and states’ risk-averse, or at least risk-neutral, tendencies, there should always exist some possible prewar agreement between two disputing states that both parties would prefer to achieve over committing to war. While seeking to reveal his main claim that war is caused by information problems, commitment problems, and issue indivisibilities, Fearon critiques five traditional Neorealist explanations of war: anarchy, positive expected utility, preventive war, lack of information, and miscalculation of relative power. Although Fearon’s critique of the majority of these theories are earnest and do expose multiple logical shortcomings, his rapid dismissal…

    • 1115 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Wanting to uphold the “superiority”of advantage, each side tried to outdo one another in attempt to construct the most destructive weapon. This sense of power statement raised tension on both side as militarist precautions stage the peak of the Cold War. The fear that America 's ideal of independence could easily be diminish by an all out atomic war revealed the unease of the political and social milieu (Doc G). The shackles of communism demonstrated the the Stalin 's scheme of aggressively taking over land. The heightened distrust portrayed the Americans trapped as the tyrannical Stalin overcast the world (Doc H).…

    • 1087 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are dozens of sources describing the asymmetric warfare. In this paper I will use the definition of Asymmetric Warfare provided by the Britannica: ‘Asymmetrical warfare, unconventional strategies and tactics adopted by a force when the military capabilities of belligerent powers are not simply unequal but are so significantly different that they cannot make the same sorts of attacks on each other’ (Sexton, 2016). Before discussing the importance of Asymmetric warfare we need to take a short glance on Ivan Arreguin-Toft’s article analysing ‘How the small win the wars’, figure 1. It shows, that there is an evident tendency of a weak actor defeating a strong one if the Asymmetric warfare model is used. The diagram shows that in the last fifty-year period weak actor’s chances to achieve victory have overbalanced strong actor (Toft, 2001).…

    • 2119 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    ECON RATIONALE In a war, the general commanding an army and the soldier in the front line have, in one sense, the same objectives. Both want their side to win and both want both of them to survive the battle (Friedman, 1984).The mere thought of war usually sends trembles down an individual’s spine. The thought of shedding blood, killing each other, and taking over territory for the means of justice, simply sounds inhumane. War usually consist extreme violence, social disruption and an attempt at economic destruction. No matter how inhumane, vicious, and barbaric war may seem it still has its purpose.…

    • 1062 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays