¶ … limited and total war, and the factors leading to either type of wars. States will escalate a limited war to total warfare only in cases where they do not have certain limitations.

Key discussion areas:

A definition and a discussion of limited and total wars

A discussion of the Koreas war and how major world powers (the Soviet Union and the United States ) were fighting their own proxy wars in the conflict

A discussion of military imperatives such as nuclear weapons and their scale of destructions and why their possession and use is restricted. And how nuclear asymmetry affects modern warfare.

A discussion of the four main factors limiting war and why such factors are important to making defense policy decisions for nations in the modern day world

Summary of main points:

Limited and total war

Military imperatives; nuclear weapons and military factors

Factors limiting war

What are the most important factors leading to either "limited" or "total" war?

A brief look at military history would reveal that some of the wars fought in the 20th century can be regarded as "total" in all aspects; the most notable one being the Second World War. However, the majority of wars fought in the last century have been limited, with the limitation occurring in transparent ways. The "superpowers" have fought more than 300 wars since the end of World War II; however, all these wars were limited and primarily aimed at avoiding direct clashes because of the dangers associated with the escalation of war to nuclear and the resultant mutual assured destruction (MAD). Proxy wars fought by superpowers in developing countries have become a resultant common phenomenon even though other countries have sought other ways of breaking out of these limitations. Among these ways, the use of terrorism across border is the most frequently used method. Terrorism has grown both in scope and impact, as Clausewitz put it, it is a war fought by other means. The effects of terrorism have grown so much that senior military officers in the Pakistani Army have pointed out the doctrinal base of the use of terror in the Quran as the means of fighting a "total" war (Singh, n.d.).

Limited War

War is defined in the context of a nation's regular military fighting against the regular military of an enemy state. The line that differentiates limited war from a total one, particularly in developing countries, is the goal and or extent to which conventional or regular military units are utilized against those of another country (Singh, n.d.). The notion of limited war can be understood by looking at the scope or scale that the opposing countries have set for the war. Based on this notion, we can define the Korean War as a limited war, since the opposing nations were constrained by economic / political conditions or by the limitations placed on them by their opposition. We can better understand the limited extent or nature of the Korean War by looking into three aspects: military aspects, economic / political objectives and commitments. While the Soviet Union supported the North, it might have been committed to waging a total war against the U.S. backed South, they could barely claim the same degree of commitment from their supporters. The Soviet Union's leadership supported the North's invasion of the South only under several conditions, one of which was the guarantee of Chinese support (Conway, 2013).

The U.S. commitment was also constrained by several factors, one of which was the fact the U.S. had significantly reduced its number of available combat forces after the Second World War. Looking at the matter superficially, the U.S. seemed to have a stronger military commitment to the war, based on the number of forces it had availed on the ground. In spite of this fact, President Truman gives clear proof that he was not willing to escalate the matters by expanding the war into China, when he sacked Douglas MacArthur from his position of command. This move, by itself, provides enough evidence that the America's strategy was not to go to war against the whole of communist Asia but rather to concentrate "containing" the war to the Koreas (Conway, 2013).

Total War

In the long history of warfare, the years 1860 through to 1945 are referred to as the period...

The idea of "total war" is a subject of debate amongst economists, social scientists and historians; however, the 1861-1865 American Civil War and the 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian War were the two initial conflicts that were regarded by historians and social scientists as total wars. It is somewhat surprising that other wars such as the 1919-1922 Greek-Turkish War, the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars, the 1904 Russian-Japanese War, and the 1877 Russian-Ottoman War were not regarded as total wars, or have not attracted that much attention from the academia. However, there is a general consensus that World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945), are the embodiments of total warfare (Salavrakos, 2014).
With regards to the Korean War, neither the North nor the South was willing to experience the rigors of total warfare. For the Soviets perspective, the Korean War was to serve as a diversion, which would put an end to American influence in the Pacific region. However, the Soviet Union could not afford a protracted engagement at the expense of controlling their European satellite nations or building their own nation. The U.S. too faced a political dilemma of sorts back at home. Few members of the American public felt that there was an immediate threat if communism was to spread in Korea, other members of the public also drew parallels to the war with Japan; the majority of the public was however tired of wars. At the same time, the country was facing its own domestic unrest with the start of the civil rights movements. Thus, most people felt that preservation of the South's independence was a worthwhile mission, but a total war was not an option on the table. For both the Americans and the Soviets, the Korean War could best serve them as a proxy war that would work to limit the ambitions of the other (Conway, 2013).

The Chinese too, barely had the capacity to fight a total war against the Americans in the region. While they had the advantage of being closely located to the Korean peninsula, they neither had the military nor the economic capability to drive the American presence out of Japan. The commitment of significant numbers of ground forces was nothing but political rhetoric, which did not provide the country with any form of economic or political advantage.

Military Imperatives

There are several military imperatives that help define the constraints on war. These imperatives are discussed in summary in the following discussion.

Nuclear Weapons

One of the key factors in defining total war is the existence and impact of nuclear weapons in the region / environment where they will be used. The nature and scale of destruction caused by nuclear weapons, and the fact that there is no such thing as credible defense against nuclear weapons create conditions whereby the likelihood of controlling such weapons is restricted (and ideally, should be eliminated), or the countries concerned risk nuclear annihilation. In a possible conflict where there would be nuclear asymmetry, the imbalance in this aspect would most likely completely constrain the non-nuclear armed nation from engaging in a fight with the armed one. The extent to which this factor affects two opposing states that are nuclear armed is dependent on:

The level of nuclear asymmetry.

Survivability and vulnerability of the states and their nuclear stockpiles,

Military and Political objectives,

The degree of regular military capability and the ability to fight effectively within the constraints of a nuclear overhang. A country with lower conventional military capability would be less likely to employ that kind of power.

Military Factors

Several factors now hinder the deployment of conventional militaries for political purposes. The most important factor is the constraints that the military force itself has to face and thus political objectives have to take such constraints into account. The main limitations affecting military power can be briefly highlighted as follows:

Political constraints impose limitations on the formation and deployment of military force. This is unavoidable in modern states, particularly those that are liberal democracies, where the use of military power is based on political goals and control.

Significant cuts of defense budgets and reduction of defense forces have reduced the ability of nations to fight.

The high cost of purchasing and maintaining modern weaponry acts as a restraining factor.

Technological factors, particularly where there are huge deficiencies in one of the states in conflict (Singh, n.d.).

Factors Limiting War

It can be argued to a certain extent that any war fought in the 21st century would remain limited unless one of the states would consciously expand it to total warfare. On the other hand a total war would entail the utilization of terrorism, nuclear weapons, and or other attempts that would greatly impact the survival of a state. The most crucial thing is to try and assess the factors that limit war so that the true nature of these aspects…