Polarization:All War is Two Sided

War Polarized:

There are never (or at least very nearly never) more than two sides in a war. This realization didn't come to me by looking through history, or by looking at a theory-it came to me while playing Age of Empires II, a real time war game, online. Almost every game created is 4 vs 4, 3 vs 3, or some other variation of one side versus the other. Black and white, two sides, no third party interfering.

The reason why that is the common preference is simple: it's easier. Third parties are simply a pain, because suddenly another variable is added to the equation. Now, not only do you have to maneuver your troops against an enemy, deal with your economy, and work with your allies, but now you also have to engage in diplomacy with an active enemy so that they attack someone other than you. It also makes it a pain to actually 'win' that said war: everytime you become the most powerful entity you suddenly come under attack by the other two parties.

This being said there has never existed a true three sided war. World War II admittedly came close, as the Allies, USSR, and Axis each had separate agendas, but the USSR solely fought the Axis (though this could partially be because their position was locked between Germany and Japan, so attacking the Allies would have been difficult even if they wanted to). Try to think of a different war that presents three equal sides all actively opposing each other, and you will fail. Peter Mair, a political scientist states that "there are no three party systems; there are no unbalanced two and a half party systems" (310). A two and a half party system is described as a system where two major parties exist with a lesser third party (like the independents in America). This third party cannot win itself, but can generally determine who does win if they work solely against one of the other parties.

However Mair's statement that there are no true three party systems is most significant. It demonstrates that not only are there never three equal parties in a war, but also in politics. Truly the only place were three equal, opposing sides seem to sometimes exist is in games. And when it does it isn't pretty. Generally three opposing, equal sides leads to games that drag on for hours because all the players are too scared to tip the balance of power in any direction, since shifting the balance could hurt them no matter what. If power shifts away from them, they are weaker. If power shifts to them, they could be perceived as a dangerous threat and be ganged up on until they have lost a significant amount of power. No one tips the balance, and it goes on forever (a scenario actually presented in George Orwell's 1984, interestingly enough).

Thankfully this doesn't happen in the real world though, because it could potentially lead to a never ending war.

Orwell, George. 1984

Microsoft. Age of Empires

Mair, Peter. The West European Party System

Civilization vs Uncivilization

Civilization vs Uncivilization

Most people would expect that should a more sophisticated and civilized society fight a less civilized and sophisticated society, that the more civilized would win. After all, the more civilized one is, the more powerful and advanced their military weapons and techniques will be. However, sophistication and better weapons do not always seem to determine a winner, simply because other aspects, such as fear, can often come into play.

The Mongol invasions are the most significant example of this, as the Mongols managed to conquer the vast majority of Asia with nothing beyond horses and bows. At first this sounds impossible. But the method that they employed to accomplish this is simple; fear.

The appeal to fear works whenever it manages to effectively scare people, and when a solution to the fear is given and can be easily accomplished (Pratkonis&Aronson 211 - 212). The Mongols employed this tactic often by threatening their target with torture, and saying that if they surrendered that there would be no torture. Along with the fear that they used, they also practiced what they preached, thereby ensuring that their target believed them.

While the Mongols were the most effective users of fear tactics, it has been used by other less civilized nations to overcome more powerful states. The Vietkong also used fear tactics, as do modern day terrorists and cults, which allow them to fight the USA with far more effectivity than should be possible, considering the difference in resources. Ultimately then, this fear tactic is difficult to overcome for the simple reason that everyone is susceptible to fear. The best way, then, to counteract fear is with another diametrically opposed fear of greater magnitude; the entire idea of soldiers fearing their general more than they do their enemies.

Pratkanis&Aronson, Emotional Appeals.

Nuclear Ping-Pong

Nuclear Ping-Pong

Nuclear Ping-Pong is the result of playing a game called Rise of Nations up until the modern eras (Microsoft). Invariably the computers will begin bombarding cities with nukes, and invariably the player—who is generally annoyed at that point—will retaliate in kind. Ultimately everything in the game will be destroyed.

Fortunately the game offers an easy solution; simply remove the use of nuclear weaponry from the game. There’s a nice little button that does just that. The real world, however, has no such button, and therefore a method of avoiding ‘nuclear ping-pong’ is necessary. Thankfully this is somewhat easier than in Rise of Nations, since neither the computers, nor the humans playing against them, care about killing virtual people.

For the past forever the theory of deterrence has acted as the limiter on nuclear weaponry. The deterrence on nuclear weapons essentially “seeks to convince adversaries that the benefits of hostile actions would be far outweighed by the consequences” (Corcoran). While this technique managed to dissuade Russia from beginning a nuclear Armageddon, it might not convince everyone, either because they believe that the utilization of a nuke is worth the costs, or because they believe that there won’t actually be a cost.

Three questions should be asked to determine if the world could degenerate into nuclear ping-pong. First, could a terrorist faction or anti-USA country obtain a nuke? Considering that North Korea already—supposedly—has nukes, and is threatening to export them, that could be answered a yes (Allison). Second, would terrorists or extremely anti-USA countries be willing to use a nuclear weapon? Third, would the USA retaliate in kind if provoked?

Looking at 9/11, I would say that terrorists probably would use a nuke if they had one. It wouldn’t be the first time they didn’t factor in long-term repercussions. And looking at the Iraqi war, the USA could be accused of the same.

Hopefully, though, nuclear ping-pong isn’t possible, or if it is, it will never occur. After all, as much as nuclear ping-pong drives me crazy in Rise of Nations, I bet it sucks even more in real life.

Allison, Graham. “No Loose Nukes: Preventing a Terrorist Nuclear Attack on the U.S.”

Corcoran, Edward. “STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND DETERRENCE.”

Microsoft. Rise of Nations. 2003.

No Honor In War

“Kill the Villagers”

That’s advice I hear often when I play Age of Empires, a game that is based on medieval warfare (Microsoft). Yet the idea of not only killing villagers/civilians/non-combatants, but specifically targeting them to win wars, is a relatively new idea; an idea that did not exist much during the original medieval era. Now, however, Total War pervades all wars and all attitudes, considered as acceptable as war itself.

It is often argued that the concept of Total War originated first from the ability to wage total war and from the fact that civilians were increasingly important to the war effort. Before the advent of modern weaponry armies generally foraged for food and supplies. But modern weaponry requires ammunition and other supplies that cannot easily be found in nature. Therefore the civilian population is required to produce the weapons of war, which is used as justification toward killing them (Barash & Webel 24).

This attitude is seen in many modern wars. In WWII the bombing of London resulted in severe civilian casualties. In Vietnam the primary enemy were the Vietkong, who could be a 'civilian' by day and an enemy by night. The 9/11 attacks on the twin towers directly targeted America's civilian populace. One part of this is because modern weapons actually do cause more damage to the surroundings than older weapons did. The second part is that man in general does not seem to have a problem with involving noncombatants in war. Both of these are required to create Total War, both the ability and the willingness, and man has achieved both.

Can the attitude of Total War be reversed? I find it unlikely. The reason is simple: sides that utilize Total War are more likely to win. Nations utilizing Total War can inflict injuries to civilian populace—to a nation’s production and economy—that couldn’t otherwise be inflicted. This was true even in the medieval ages, but attacks on the civilian populace were significantly harder without guns or planes or bombs. And just as no nation would surrender its nuclear power, no nation will refuse to engage in Total War, especially if no other option seems available. And the worst part is that every nation or rebel group has the capacity to engage in Total War.

Like nukes, the concept of Total War will not die easily. First it must be seen as an unacceptable method of fighting, irregardless the situation. And this must be done all around the world, since no nation would agree to fight a limited war, while its adversary was capable of attacking anything and everything. Total War is an attitude that cannot fade, but must die all at once.

As of now, it is not dying. It is only growing stronger, because while Total War is morally abhorrent, it is tactically advantageous. And that is why I don’t hesitate to kill the villagers in Age of Empires.

And while it is true that killing virtual villagers and killing real citizens is completely different from a moral standpoint, it doesn’t seem to faze humanity.

Barash and Webel. Peace and Conflict Studies. (Sage Publications, 2002)

Microsoft. Age of Empires. 1997