Categories of war?

[LoBlo]

Okeedokee.

So after watching the Russian-Ukraine-USA situation unfolding and speculation on the possible types of conflict that may emerge, I couldn't help but wonder if the styles, levels, or varieties of war could be categorized systematically. If so what would those categories be? It seems like there exist different 'levels' of war which countries engage and prepare for. Some countries are quite limited in the style/type of war that they could engage, while other countries can wage and prepare multiple types of war. For example, the USA concentrated on the 'nuclear continental war' for many decades, but didn't develop effective 'guerrilla/insurgent' capability and has often found itself ineffective when thrown into that arena (i.e. Vietnam, Afghanistan).

For a thought experiment, how would you classify the types of war? Here's a preliminary go for your inspection and critique.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Cold War/Arms Races: Not 'war' per say, but no less resource intensive and inspiring to nationalism. Often leads to #2 'warm conflicts'.

2. Warm conflicts: Neither side is actively bringing its big guns to bare and is often publicly denied by the sides that shots are being traded. Generally limited to small arms. Whether taking pot shots across a disputed border, secretly sabotaging resources, or the occasional 'errant' missile shot, we see this type of conflict between neighbors or arms race rivals.

3. Guerrilla/Insurgent War: No high tech combined arms here. This war is similar to #2 'Warm Conflicts', but differs in that it is waged openly. However, this type of war is limited by either lack of sophisticated military resources in one/both sides or by lack of political will. Still on the order of small arms and sabotage with the occasional missile, rocket, or artillery. Attrition, both politically and in regards to resources, is the path to resolution. One could make the argument that modern terrorism falls into this category, albeit conducted by a political group rather than nation-state.

4. Military Overmatch: A giant and/or more capable bully decides to bring military force on a lesser foe. We see this war quite often in regards to the great powers like USSRs invasion of Afghanistan, USA's frequent military interventions like Kosovo or Iraq, or the potential Russian-Ukraine conflict. This type of war is the most likely war a global power will conduct and most are actively developing ways to wage this type of war more efficiently with the development of drone fleets (air, sea, land). Technologies that wouldn't be very effective against a technologically capable adversary (GPS denial, jammed datalinks, etc), but makes quashing low tech adversaries more of a button push. To survive this type of conflict, the under-powered side must force the conflict into a 'guerrilla/insurgent phase' (#3) and play the patience game as seen in USSR/Afghan 1979, USA/vietnam 1963, USA/Iraqi insurgents 2003, or USA/Afghan currently.

5. Parity-Combined Arms: Open conflict on a larger scale that differs from 'guerrilla war' (#3) in that high-cost high-capability military units are openly brought to bare. It also differs from 'military overmatch' (#4) in that adversaries are similarly capable. They are combined arms conflicts that often involves regional disputes such as the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq war, but also easily include intercontinental conflicts such as the 1979 British/Argentine Falkland war. This type of conflict demands more resources and is vastly more costly to those involved, and thus is not as frequent. In the modern era, the largest powers avoid these conflicts because of their tremendous cost both financial, resources, and loss of life (for example, a USA vs China war or an India vs Pakistan war). They are also avoided by the great powers secondary to the potential to escalate to #7 'nuclear conflicts'.

6. Total War: No such things as civilians here. We saw these types of wars classically up until WWII (Axis vs Allied powers). Everything possible is brought to bare on the enemy with no distinction between military and civilian targets. No such thing as restraint here. This may not represent a category in and of itself, but rather can be a characteristic of any of the above categories 1-5. In the current modern era, this type of war is politically and internationally radioactive, will incite the wrath of the international community, and is generally only conducted by genocidal madmen (for example, Darfur). It is a prerequisite to #7 'nuclear conflicts'.

7. Nuclear war: War on its grandest and most catastrophic form. Whether with the regional nukes that most countries aspire to or intercontinental barrages between super powers on a civilization-destroying scale, war in its most horrific form with the potential for extreme casualty counts. Only seen once in history during the nuclear bombing on Japan in WWII. It is is generally seen as the deterrent that has prevented direct superpower-vs-superpower conflicts in the last century.

What categories would you add or change? Anything left out?

lb

[Oberon]

Seems a fair overview to me, well created.

[Rockstar]

What about zombies, there should be a category addressing the zombie vs. human threat. I think alien invasion/war should have a category too. Other than that, I believe you did a good job, very well done sir.

[LoBlo]

What about zombies, there should be a category addressing the zombie vs. human threat. I think alien invasion/war should have a category too. Other than that, I believe you did a good job, very well done sir.

Whew... that was a close one. Almost forgot.

#8. Zombie war: Apocalyptic death to the brain eating swarms that will soon conquer all and become our kindred.
#9. Alien war: Super scientific space race attacking us with unknown technology. Ultimately their goal is to put probes in our butts, but they are general defeated by witty catch phrases and 'eggs in one basket' last ditch inspiration.

and don't forget...

#10: Robot vs human: we will all soon serve our automaton masters...

:up:

[mapuc]

You forgot one category:

Civil war- this is a category for it self and are somehow a lot more bloody than an ordinary war between two countries.

Just take a look at Syria and other countries where there have been a civil war.

Markus

[LoBlo]

You forgot one category:

Civil war- this is a category for it self and are somehow a lot more bloody than an ordinary war between two countries.

Just take a look at Syria and other countries where there have been a civil war.

Markus

Hmm..... I don't know....:hmm2:

Couldn't all Civil war conflicts in history be grouped into 3, 4, or 5?

[Catfish]

It is simple, there is no war.

Yet.

Despite ot the news agencies doing their very best to make it one. :hmm2:



So it is warm, and getting hotter.

[mapuc]

Hmm..... I don't know....:hmm2:

Couldn't all Civil war conflicts in history be grouped into 3, 4, or 5?

You're right, it covers those categories, except the last one. that is..there haven't been a civil war in a country where there have or is nuclear weapon.

Hmm got a new question to an another thread discussion.

Markus

[Admiral Halsey]

Hmm got a new question to an another thread discussion.

And so you did. Got to say I love seeing the posts that inspired the question you posted.

[TarJak]

Just a minor grammatical question. When you use the word pariodied, do you mean a situation where both sides have parity?

[LoBlo]

Just a minor grammatical question. When you use the word pariodied, do you mean a situation where both sides have parity?

:oops: Fixed

[Oberon]

Just a minor grammatical question. When you use the word pariodied, do you mean a situation where both sides have parity?

Nah, he meant a war where both sides take the mickey out of each other remorselessly until one side is victorious. :yep:

[Platapus]

One thing to keep in mind is that the term "war" has at least three separate meanings.

1. War is a legal state. In the US only congress can declare war. War, in this context is a dichotomous state. The US is either in a state of war, or it ain't. There are many laws that will change when the country is in a legal state of war. This is one of the many reasons why the US has not declared a legal state of war since 1942 when we declared war on Romania.

2. War is a practical state. When people of an opposing country's military are shootin at you, you is in a war. While legally Vietnam and Korea were not declared wars, ask anyone who was over there and they will rightfully consider themselves in a war. Bullets hurt just as bad in a war as they do in a police action.

3. War is a state of national intention. I don't like this meaning, but it is common. War against poverty, war against drugs, war against terrorism, war against ... all indicate, or attempt to indicate some level of national intent. But legally it has no standing unless separate legislation is enacted by congress.

Then we have Operations Other Than War (OOTW) which is just like it reads. It is shootin at people without a formal declaration of war. Usually such euphemistic terms as "authorized military action" are used. The key to OOTW is whether congress authorizes funding. Sometimes they do and some times they don't.

The first gulf war, the military conflict in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq are all versions of OOTW.

Then we have types of OOTW that are authorized by extra-US governing bodies but still funded by congress. Bosnia, and Haiti as well as Korea are examples of the US being involved in OOTW where the initial authorization came from outside the US but the activities were approved (either formally or de facto) by congressional funding of these OOTW activities.

Finally, there is the messiest type of OOTW - Those authorized by the President of the United States and not approved (either formally or defacto) by Congress. The longest "war" the United States was involved in was a war lasting almost 50 years against some Indian nations. Through out the 19th century and the start of the 20th century the POTUS has played fast and loose with his authority to command the military.

Things, unfortunately, were not made clearer with congress signing the War Powers Act of 1973. Every president since that year has made official statements proclaiming that the president is not bound by the War Powers Act. So far, congress has never taken issue with this to the Supreme Court. So the ability of the president to get the US into a war is fuzzy with significant disagreement between the Executive and Legislative branches. It would be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this. I guess either side is afraid of pressing the matter in case the court decides against their opinion.


More then you probably wanted to know about war. huh. good god yall. What is it good for?

[Rockstar]

Well aliens, robots and zombies aside. There may be addtional categories in which a nation might wage war against another but never take up arms or fire a shot and still cause the other to submit to its will.

[August]

How about cyber warfare? That's becoming a class of it's own now.

[TarJak]

Nah, he meant a war where both sides take the mickey out of each other remorselessly until one side is victorious. :yep:
Now there's a special category for Subsim GT threads.:D

[Jimbuna]

No mention of the Cod War.

[TarJak]

No mention of the Cod War.

Fishing for compliments oh Codfather?:O:

[banryu79]

No mention of the Cod War.
Cod as in Call Of Duty? :hmmm: :haha:

[LoBlo]

One thing to keep in mind is that the term "war" has at least three separate meanings.

1. War is a legal state. In the US only congress can declare war. War, in this context is a dichotomous state. The US is either in a state of war, or it ain't. There are many laws that will change when the country is in a legal state of war. This is one of the many reasons why the US has not declared a legal state of war since 1942 when we declared war on Romania.

2. War is a practical state. When people of an opposing country's military are shootin at you, you is in a war. While legally Vietnam and Korea were not declared wars, ask anyone who was over there and they will rightfully consider themselves in a war. Bullets hurt just as bad in a war as they do in a police action.

3. War is a state of national intention. I don't like this meaning, but it is common. War against poverty, war against drugs, war against terrorism, war against ... all indicate, or attempt to indicate some level of national intent. But legally it has no standing unless separate legislation is enacted by congress.

Then we have Operations Other Than War (OOTW) which is just like it reads. It is shootin at people without a formal declaration of war. Usually such euphemistic terms as "authorized military action" are used. The key to OOTW is whether congress authorizes funding. Sometimes they do and some times they don't.

The first gulf war, the military conflict in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq are all versions of OOTW.

Then we have types of OOTW that are authorized by extra-US governing bodies but still funded by congress. Bosnia, and Haiti as well as Korea are examples of the US being involved in OOTW where the initial authorization came from outside the US but the activities were approved (either formally or de facto) by congressional funding of these OOTW activities.

Finally, there is the messiest type of OOTW - Those authorized by the President of the United States and not approved (either formally or defacto) by Congress. The longest "war" the United States was involved in was a war lasting almost 50 years against some Indian nations. Through out the 19th century and the start of the 20th century the POTUS has played fast and loose with his authority to command the military.

Things, unfortunately, were not made clearer with congress signing the War Powers Act of 1973. Every president since that year has made official statements proclaiming that the president is not bound by the War Powers Act. So far, congress has never taken issue with this to the Supreme Court. So the ability of the president to get the US into a war is fuzzy with significant disagreement between the Executive and Legislative branches. It would be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this. I guess either side is afraid of pressing the matter in case the court decides against their opinion.


More then you probably wanted to know about war. huh. good god yall. What is it good for?

For clarity, those predicaments are generally applicable to the USA's political and legal fubar'dness in regards to military conflicts and not necessarily the rest of the world. I guess war as a 'military backed state of intent' rather or not in line with any specific countries legal protocols is the most inclusive definition I can think of off hand.

[Jimbuna]

Fishing for compliments oh Codfather?:O:

Har bloody har :stare:

Cod as in Call Of Duty? :hmmm: :haha:

The Cod Wars, also called the Icelandic Cod Wars (Icelandic: Þorskastríðin, "the cod war"; or, in Iceland, Landhelgisstríðin, "the war for the territorial waters", were a series of confrontations in the 1950s and 1970s between the United Kingdom and Iceland regarding fishing rights in the North Atlantic. The conflict ended in 1976, when the United Kingdom accepted a 200 nautical-mile Icelandic exclusive fishery zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

[Oberon]

Fish and chips, srs bsns. :yep:

[Betonov]

-Proxy war

2 sides fighting with the blessing of 2 stronger opponents, that aren't in direct conflict.

[Jimbuna]

Robot Wars

[Betonov]

Junkyard wars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTIpd9FYAzg

[LoBlo]

No mention of the Cod War.

The COD war is interesting. I had to read up on it. Doesn't fit precisely into any of the other categories. Similar to a 'warm conflict' (#2), but differs in that rather than involving hand-wielded small arms, the 'small arms' were those of ship-borne guns, ramming, and sabotage (net cutting).

Given that the psychology of limited engagements, posturing, and constraint to force are similar to a warm conflict (both sides claiming self-defense), overall could probably be fit into a modified definition of a 'warm conflict', whereas the pot shots and small arms are to include their ship borne equivalents albeit the resource cost considerably more.

Very interesting indeed and nice reading. Underscores the benefit of a strong navy.

[Jimbuna]

The COD war is interesting. I had to read up on it. Doesn't fit precisely into any of the other categories. Similar to a 'warm conflict' (#2), but differs in that rather than involving hand-wielded small arms, the 'small arms' were those of ship-borne guns, ramming, and sabotage (net cutting).

Given that the psychology of limited engagements, posturing, and constraint to force are similar to a warm conflict (both sides claiming self-defense), overall could probably be fit into a modified definition of a 'warm conflict', whereas the pot shots and small arms are to include their ship borne equivalents albeit the resource cost considerably more.

Very interesting indeed and nice reading. Underscores the benefit of a strong navy.

Two sides trying to 'batter' each other into submission :)

[Mittelwaechter]

What about the daily War of the Roses?

USSRs invasion of Afghanistan, USA's frequent military interventions

LOL

[Stealhead]

I disagree with guerrilla war/insurgency: in most every case one side has a notable technological and/or military advantage and one side has a decided disadvantage which brings about the need to fight in a guerrilla/insurgent manner and the other side to attempt to fight a counterinsurgency.

I also disagree with the "over match" this category can not exist if the category of guerrilla war/insurgency is on the same list.

To me a war is a situation where two opposing sides in some manner deal death towards each other with some ends to be gained usually it is land or control of land.There are wars fought on every street in America (or any other nation for that matter).A three way war between gangs and the law for control of territory. One to enforce the the law the others to gain control of turf for the purpose of selling drugs and other illegal products.

[Aktungbby]

^Offset wars and turf wars then!? Ukraine is a good example of both at the present time IMHO.:D

[Platapus]

How about cyber warfare? That's becoming a class of it's own now.

That's a real good question and one tough to answer.

I wonder if "cyber warfare" is closer to espionage than war??

[August]

That's a real good question and one tough to answer.

I wonder if "cyber warfare" is closer to espionage than war??

Good point as a lot of it is about intelligence gathering. but hacking into things like power grids is in order to disable or take control of them. That's more than just spying.

[Platapus]

Good point as a lot of it is about intelligence gathering. but hacking into things like power grids is in order to disable or take control of them. That's more than just spying.

That might fall under sabotage, which I don't know how it fits in the war discussion. :hmmm:

Operations prior to war? OPW? :D

[mapuc]

That might fall under sabotage, which I don't know how it fits in the war discussion. :hmmm:

Operations prior to war? OPW? :D

It is. I every war a country send their soldiers or special units behind the enemy line to conduct sabotage

That what the allied and the axis did during WWII and I think they did it in WWI.

Markus

[LoBlo]

I disagree with guerrilla war/insurgency: in most every case one side has a notable technological and/or military advantage and one side has a decided disadvantage which brings about the need to fight in a guerrilla/insurgent manner and the other side to attempt to fight a counterinsurgency.

I also disagree with the "over match" this category can not exist if the category of guerrilla war/insurgency is on the same list.

To me a war is a situation where two opposing sides in some manner deal death towards each other with some ends to be gained usually it is land or control of land.There are wars fought on every street in America (or any other nation for that matter).A three way war between gangs and the law for control of territory. One to enforce the the law the others to gain control of turf for the purpose of selling drugs and other illegal products.

I see your point. Both categories can be seen as one and the same in a lot of respects. No country intentionally fights a guerrilla war unless they are facing an overmatch. Overmatches that are not ultimately guerrilla wars can be seen as combined arms matches that just turn out lopsided (albeit sometimes after the fact).

Its probably a point of simplification to eliminate the overmatch category. Albeit, I do feel what legitimizes it as a category is the political attitude and willingness to fight that lopsided combined arms represent to military powers and the common 'bully tatics' that military powers use as the result. The best example I can think of off hand is the USA strikes on Kosovo in the 1990s. Far from a guerrilla war, the US used technology mismatch to overwhelm without fear of heavy losses on its own part. Something that it wouldn't dream of on a more capable opposition.

Good points.