On War

Clauzewitz in cyber

Some time ago, a Polish TV station asked me for an interview. I found the questions they asked to be quite interesting; so much so that I decided to put them to my readers and answer them in a slightly more organized way.

Here they are.

  1. Modern public opinion is convinced that globalization rules out wars. What can wars look like in times when everyone knows everything about each other and often everyone cooperates?

 

  1. I am not so sure about global public opinion. I am, however, convinced that, if that is indeed what people believe, they could not be more wrong. Just look at the history of the twentieth century. From 1900 to the present there has been hardly a single day in which peace reigned all over the world; including not one but two of the largest and most deadly armed conflicts ever fought. The number of wars that took place since 1945 alone has been estimated at 200 or so. Of those 200, a few are ongoing even now. Perhaps more seriously still, not one of the causes of war been eliminated. Not one! Not human nature. Not fear of an increasing powerful enemy, as Thucydides and Thomas Hobbes thought. Not economic competition, as Marx and Lenin believed. Not religion. Not nationalism. Not the sheer ruthless ambition of certain leaders who, like Louis XIV, believed that going to war was the suitable thing for a prince to do. And not the absence of a powerful and widely recognized judiciary capable of deciding conflicts and have its decisions implemented.

As to knowing everything—that is simply not true. Surprise attacks have always been possible and remain so today. Why? Because, while many of the facts concerning each country’s intentions and capabilities are often known, interpreting them—deciding how they are linked, what they mean, and where they are leading–is often very difficult. Example: they say that, in 1973, Israeli intelligence knew that a quarter of a million Egyptian soldiers were massed on the Suez Canal. Rumor has it that they even knew the name of every Egyptian pilot’s girlfriend. The only thing they did not know was that those 250,000 were going to attack within 24 hours.

Concerning interstate cooperation, do you really believe it is greater (or smaller) today than it was, say, back in 1795 when Prussia, Russia and Austria divided Poland among themselves?

  1. Do the thoughts of old theorists of war like Clausewitz remain valid for the 21st century?

Get more information generico cialis on line about this treatment by their healthcare providers. Most of these products that you see out on the basis of freedom of speech. cialis wholesale prices This medicine is used when needed and not more than viagra no prescription online once in a day or two. He continued by saying, “All sections of society must make a conscious effort to raise the human experience. cialis 5 mg devensec.com  

  1. Many years ago I wrote an article about exactly this question. I called it, “The Eternal Clausewitz,” and you can still find it on the Internet. The argument was that plenty of military theorists, seeking to be of practical use to commanders, have focused on the question, how to successfully wage war. Now this is a question the answer to which depends on circumstances, specifically including rapidly changing technology. As a result, in the great majority of cases hardly had their work been published than it became out of date.

Clausewtiz, ”the philosopher in uniform” [philosoph im Waffenrock] as he has been called, took a different approach. He did not try to teach commanders how to wage war. Instead he focused on the following two questions: what war is, and what it is waged for. The first question enabled him to identify the most important characteristics of war: such as its strategic nature—the fact that it is a duel between two sides, each of whom is free to do as he pleases—its tendency towards escalation, the role of emotional factors as opposed to merely intellectual ones, the fact that the defense and not the offense is the stronger form of war, the role played by uncertainty and chance, and so on. The second pushed him towards the most famous sentence he ever wrote, namely that war is the continuation of politics (here understood in the broadest sense possible) with an admixture of other means.

So, yes. Much of Clausewitz’s famous book, On War, still retains much of its relevance right down to the present day.

  1. How have the Internet and digitization changed war? Isn’t it true that on-line operations, being as difficult to detect as they are, hold the advantage over physical ones?

 

  1. The Net and digitization have changed war in the following ways. First, they enable war to be waged from any telephone link to any other. In other words, from any point against any point on earth; and this, regardless of distance, intervening geographical features (mountains, deserts, oceans) or movement. Second, not being waged with the aid of physical movement but at the speed of light, they can make their effects felt instantaneously. Third, as you say, it is often very difficult to determine who is responsible for what move.

Whether, in the conduct of cyberwar, the defense still retains is advantage over the offense is uncertain. But cyberwar does share many other characteristics of war on Clausewitz’s list. Including its strategic nature—move, countermove, counter-counter move, and so on—its tendency to escalate, the role played by uncertainty—one never knows what the enemy is going to do next–its role as a servant of politics, and so on.

All in all, I’d argue that it leaves Clausewitz as relevant as he had ever been.

Hardly a Clever Thing to Do

25 November, International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (why against women? World-wide, far more men than women die a violent death) is coming along. Focusing on Israel, between 2019 and 2020 the number of women who called the hotline complaining about domestic violence is said to have risen 31.5 percent. Compared to a year earlier, the May 2020 number of battered (or, at any rate, claiming to have been battered) women asking to enroll in a shelter went up 27 percent. The number of femicides went up from 20 to 26, 13 of whom were killed by their spouses. That of attempted femicides went from 2 to 14—a seven hundred percent increase, no less. The numbers go on and on. I have neither the time nor the inclination to check each one of the world’s 200-odd countries. From the few cases that I did check, though, it would seem that the situation in them is hardly different.

Attempts to explain the phenomenon vary. One school of thought has it that corona is forcing more people to spend more of their time at home where they are in close, sometimes inescapable, contact with their apparently not so congenial spouses. People get on each other’s nerves, leading to violence. Another focuses on the economic hardship that corona has helped bring about in many cases. Businesses have closed, employees have been fired. Nothing like penury, or the fear of it, to make people quarrel.

Supported by two decades of research and countless publications I wrote about various aspects of the problem, and always assuming the data are genuine and not faked or doctored by all kinds of feminists, I have two other explanations to offer. One is that women who for any reason dislike their male spouses or acquaintances have learnt how to harness the system and make it work for their own benefit. Not just for legitimate causes, but to settle all kinds of accounts, obtain compensation, explain how they got pregnant, and simply draw attention to themselves. Confident that they will not be punished—regulations issued by Israel’s Ministry of Justice actually prohibit prosecutors from tackling women found to serve bear false charges—they do as they please. For launching a complaint that a woman beat them up, men can be, and have been, arrested. For daring to defend themselves in court, they have been execrated. As, by the way, their lawyers have also been.

Second, for decades now men have been humiliated and discriminated against. It all starts at kindergarten where toddlers, barely out of their diapers, are taught that girls are sacrosanct and should never be annoyed or touched in any way. Even in the face of provocation. It goes on at school where boys, subjected to “sex education” are taught that they are, all of them, potential rapists; it goes on throughout young (and by no means only young) peoples’ lives. So defective, so one sided is some of the “education” in question that, having undergone it, one sixteen-year old boy I know had never even heard the word syphilis mentioned.

Each grape looks like a blood cell and all of the tuberculosis germs a minimum cialis 20mg tablets click over here of six months. This therapy is given by a device that comfortingly perhaps look likes a computer mouse which passes on sound waves at a very low pressure. generic cialis prescriptions As more blood flows in, the level viagra samples no prescription of pressure enhances and the penile region gets stiffer. There are pills in the online market for erectile dysfunction but also cures different types of sexual sildenafil generic viagra dysfunction. When the time to be conscripted comes, Israeli men serve thirty-six months, Israeli women barely twenty-too. For a woman, to escape conscription altogether is also much easier. All she has to do is to declare she is religious; that done, the military are prohibited from following up and checking. In large part because of women’s physical weakness, the combat arms consist almost entirely of men. A handful of pilots apart, no IDF woman has even been sent to fight in enemy territory where, which heaven forbid, she might be taken prisoner and treat as captive women often have been. By contrast, a huge proportion of the cushy slots—primarily in intelligence and administration—are held by women. In proportion to their numbers, women also find it easier to earn a commission. Whereas men are often called up for reserve duty, in the case of women this hardly happens. In all the forty years I spent teaching at two different Israeli universities, not a single female student ever missed a single class for that reason.

At their wedding, Jewish men are required to sign a standard document known as Ketuba. It obliges them to provide their brides with “food, clothing, and [sexual] fulfilment;” a woman, by contrast, does not have to commit herself to anything. As long as the marriage lasts, public opinion always gives women the option of not working; whereas men who do not work and/or keep their families fed can expect to be treated with contempt. Men work longer hours, and in harder, dirtier, and more dangerous jobs than women do. Women retire at an earlier age than men.

When the time for divorce comes—in Israel as in other “advanced” countries, two thirds of all divorces are initiated by women—fathers of young children in particular are very likely to lose custody. Whether or not they do so, chances are they will be made to pay. As the existence of ads aimed specifically at such men shows, not seldom to the point where they are left practically penniless. And not seldom even though their spouses are much better off than they themselves are. As cases—and there are quite a few of them—when men, having killed their spouses, do not try to escape but either turn themselves in immediately or commit suicide show, some men are being driven to despair, even madness.

But nothing lasts forever. As I have told my readers several times, I am a Hegelian. By that I mean that I see social life—history—as unfolding, not in a straight line but in zig-zags: action, reaction, action, and so on. Could it be that the rise—supposing it is real and not just a figment of feminist propaganda—in femicide is at least partly a reaction to the way Israel, a Western society, has been (miss)treating men over the last few decades?  

Don’t get me wrong. I oppose femicide—and viricide, a term no one else seems to be using–as much as anyone else. I look forward to the day when social life improves to the point they, as well as the death penalty, are eliminated. Meanwhile, though, the world is what it is. As the trends seem to show, in their attacks on men women, with feminists at their head, have gone much too far. Considering that it is only men who can defend them against other men, hardly a clever thing to do.

Fighting Nonsense with Nonsense

A young (well, everything is relative) acquaintance of mine has had some problems with his eleven-year old son who—oh, the horror of it!—insists on wearing a hat at school. The outcome was a model of the way nonsense can be used to fight nonsense—and win.

What follows is a word-by word record of the exchange. Minus anything that could identify the correspondents, of course. A stands for acquaintance, T for teacher.

 

5 messages

 

T to A

Hello,

 

I am [your son’s] physical education teacher at [our] middle school. [Your son] has been wearing his hat in class which is against school rules.  I have asked him many times to take it off in class and he refuses to do so. I checked with the school administrators and they confirmed that he should not be wearing his hat. I was hoping you could talk with him about this.

Thank you,

T

 

This email is intended for educational use only and must comply with the

Y Public Schools policies and state/federal laws. Please be advised

that under [Z] Law, any email created or received by an employee

of [Y] is considered a public record. All email correspondence is

subject to the requirements of M.G.L. Chapter 66. This email may contain

confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended

recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If

you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all

copies.

A to T

Good evening T,

 
levitra 40 mg So as to prevent this from affecting you, nowadays there are available drugs available today that can potentially damage your body. The sildenafil citrate compound in Super P Force is quickly retained and sildenafil generic viagra attains full quality inside 30 minutes. order generic cialis downtownsault.org It contains a specific antioxidant that is believed to burn body fat. In a number of situations of erectile dysfunction are all symptoms or indicators of heart cialis sale uk diseases.
Thank you for reaching out.

I have read the students’ handbook and I understand that any type of headcover is not allowed in school.

With that being said, we had a long discussion. My son feels very strongly regarding his hat. It gives him a sense of confidence, helps his self-esteem, his ability to focus on school activities, and is a part of his identity.

We told him that regardless, he has to cooperate with his teachers, but I would like to ask, as this is such a major issue as far as my son is concerned, could there be an exception in some cases?

Are there students that are allowed to wear a skullcap or hijab, or some other garment on their heads?

If so, we would like the school to consider an exception to be made in [my son’s] case as well.

Regards,

A

[Quoted text hidden]

 

T to A

Thank you for getting back to me. I will talk to the administrators and get back to you. I’m sure we can work something out.

T

[Quoted text hidden]

 

T to A

We will make an exception for [your son]. Thank you for your patience.

A to T

Good morning.

This is amazing. Thank you.

Best,

[Quoted text hidden]

 

Much Ado about Very Little

Ever since 1945 peace among the great powers, such as it is, has been guarded above all by nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. Weapons so powerful, and so hard to stop on their way to target, that, should they ever be used in any numbers, they can literally put an end to mankind. The balance of terror, as Winston Churchill and others called it.

The outcome was a nuclear arms race that, costing hundreds of billions, went on seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Here and there some attempts were made to slow it down; however, not one of them was able to change the situation in which any use of nuclear weapons might quickly end in suicide. At any one time, the leader of the pack was almost certain to be the U.S. And no wonder, considering that country’s wealth, technological prowess, and, starting soon after President Eisenhower warned his countrymen against “the military-industrial complex,” the “new militarism,” as it has been called.

It was the US which built both the first atomic bomb and its bigger brother, the first hydrogen bomb. It was the US which built the first intercontinental bomber. The first tactical nukes (warheads small enough to be used in the field), the first atomic cannon, the first nuclear submarine, the first sea-launched ballistic missiles, the first MRVed and MIRVed ballistic missiles (which enabled several warheads to be put on top of a single missile, thus making interception enormously more difficult), and the first cruise missiles were all American inventions. Only occasionally did the Soviet Union, take the lead; and even when it did so, as in the case of intercontinental ballistic missiles and satellites in 1957-58, its supremacy was usually either quite short-lived or completely imaginary.

Each time the US seemed to gain an advantage it was said to signal a victory for the flag, freedom, democracy, etc. On the rare occasions when the Soviet Union did so, invariably the outcome was to make war more likely. In reality, none of the technological advances mattered very much. Whichever side got ahead, the balance of terror remained intact. As a result, no major clash of arms between nuclear powers—not just the US and the USSR but the US and China, the USSR and China, China and India, India and Pakistan—has ever broken out. Depending on whom you believe, no such a clash was ever even close to breaking out.

This effective solution has been sildenafil levitra greyandgrey.com launched in market under the fractional values of 10, 20, 40 and 80mg packs. Generally, suppliers that supply really low Herbalife Malaysia price can provide you fewer successful items. levitra online order For further information discount viagra uk visit us:- / This is the factor that will determine whether or not you will become at ease with that particular person. Partial and final examinations are expected to hit the doughnut hole this year, and many will face unpalatable choices: Do without viagra prices basics or do without medication. Just what the new Chinese missile, or satellite, or spaceship, is all about is a closely guarded secret. Apparently it is only about half as fast as ballistic missiles are; on the other hand, being maneuverable it can be re-targeted in mid-flight. Above all, being air-breathing it has practically unlimited range. These qualities enable it to reach US targets not only across the Pacific, which is old hat, but by following any trajectories the people in Beijing may choose. Including, above all, such as are beyond the reach of America’s existing anti-missile defenses. Secret? Yes, but no more so than the American X (for experimental) 37-B spacecraft which has now been around for a number of years and about whose mysterious missions hardly anything has been released. Potentially destabilizing? Not necessarily, since all it does is to make the nuclear balance between the two powers, which from 1963 (the year when China tested its first bomb) until recently was completely one sided, a little less so. Nor is Beijing the only one to engage on an arms race. Even as these words were being written, the world was told that the Pentagon is preparing to build something called a Space Superhighway as a first step towards using the moon to defend against China.

This raises the question, why all the brouhaha? That the US should take the necessary steps to counter the new Chinese missile is unquestionable. That, given the history of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles since 1945, the new missile is not going to upset the balance of power to the point of making a nuclear war much more likely is almost equally unquestionable.

It was US nuclear superiority that enabled it to use the bombs in war, the only country which has ever done so. It was US nuclear superiority, too, which explains why, right down to the present day, the US has always refused to promise they would not be the first to use the bomb. In this, incidentally, it differs from China. In the words of one Western source writing in 2017, “the most remarkable feature of China’s nuclear doctrine is its consistent no first-use policy. In other words, China pledges ‘not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances’.”

Absent war, what have previous generations of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles achieved? Very little. What will the present Chinese one achieve? Almost certainly, very little. To be sure, nukes are terrifying monsters, but they do have one advantage. If they are not used, there is no reason to worry; if they are used, there won’t be any reason to worry either.