What strategic problems did Russia, a major land power, have in making war against Japan, a regional naval power? How well did the Russians integrate land and sea power into a cohesive strategy?
What strategic problems did Russia, a major land power, have in making war against Japan, a regional naval power? How well did the Russians integrate land and sea power into a cohesive strategy? INTRODUCTION Russia's primary strategic problems in the Russo-Japanese War were simply Time and Space. Not enough of the former and too much of the latter. Also, Russia failed utterly to integrate land and sea power into a cohesive strategy; thus, squandering her best opportunity to mitigate the negative effects of time and space, and ultimately dooming her cause. TIME AND SPACE Clausewitz said "any unnecessary expenditure of time, every unnecessary detour, is a waste of strength and thus abhorrent to strategic thought" (On War, p. 624). And, that "on the strategic plane . . . the dimensions of time and space are enlarged . . ." (On War, p. 207). Economist Kenneth Boulding graphically demonstrated this with his "Loss of Strength Gradient", which illustrates how power projection (i.e. geographic distance) is inversely related to real military power (Conflict and Defense, p. 262). In essence, the further a state attempts to exert military might from its center of power, the less power it can actually bring to bear. Presumably, this is due to associated costs such as: strategic costs, economic costs, and political costs, to name a few. Strategic Costs: Historically time and space
War should never occur. Do you agree? Critically discuss this statement. Include an Christian viewpoint, your own & another and employ critical thinking skills
(e) 'War should never occur". Do you agree? Critically discuss this statement. Include an Christian viewpoint, your own & another and employ critical thinking skills [12] The underlying philosophical issue in the question concerns whether war should occur or not. Pacifists argue that war should never occur in all circumstances. Their argument is based on deontological and absolutist pacifism partly on a logical argument drawn from the divine commands of Jesus' teachings. Pacifists would follow the rule in every situation and believe evil cannot be done to bring about good. Pacifists follow the Divine Command Ethics theory by means they follow what God commands to be good and that violence is not the right way in any circumstances. "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5.44). Christians believe they are made in the image of God, so attempt to imitate and obey the divinely commanded ethics of Christ in all things, but especially concerning violence, and thus "turn the other cheek" A realist would absolutely disagree with the statement. This is because realists believe that war is permissible by any means so long as the outcome results in the greater good. The Realist attitude towards war has both religious and secular versions. A Realist would follow Utilitarianism and apply Situation Ethics. They would strongly disagree with the Pacifist and
How is War changing?
5/6/2007Fayyaz Ali Abbasi How is War changing? Introduction: Since the end of Cold War, the bipolar structure of the world has changed. The ideological super power rivalry that would maintain the balance of power in different regions is non existent. This has posed a new challenge to the international peace and security system as low-intensity conflicts - the 'new wars', as they are frequently labelled, have proliferated and established themselves as the most common form of organised violence. Though no region is an exception to it but Europe and Africa remain to be extreme examples of these in the decades of 1980s &1990s. In the new wars, the 'Clausewitzean' notion of war - that prevailed upon the war history and conduct since the emergence of 'modern state system' after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) - as an affair of state is no longer valid, and the lines between 'formal' and 'informal' leaders, 'combatants' and 'non-combatants', 'civilian' and 'military personnel, are blurred1. Civilians are frequently targeted through massive human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing and even genocide. As such, the nature of the wars as opposed to the old 'Westphalian' or 'Clausewitzean' has changed. The new wars, often termed in literature as 'fault line wars,'2 owing to their distinct features, are not fought within specific boundaries and are 'open-ended' in terms of 'culmination'
War is a legitimate enterprise in the twenty-first century.
Albert Alvarado ToK 6th period November 22, 2005 War in the twenty-first century is a legitimate enterprise that will continue until civilized mammals are extinct. From the first time history was recorded, war has been apart of this world. Since the first century to the twenty-first century war continues to be an integral part of advancement in human civilization, part of human nature to find a way to settle problems, a way for nations and cultures to be created, a method to convert people to a different religion, and a way for the nations of the world to form alliances. These reasons are why war is an integral or essential part of humans and will always be here. War is unavoidable and must occur in order for some sort of equilibrium to exist in the world. History is the recorded events of the precedent events to a war and the actual war itself. History helps man see how certain events in time occurred and help man do better in the future, war is fought because of certain problems so through seeing what was accomplished by it man decides that war is effective. History is a element that great military powers have utilized to win battles as is said by a very famous ruler "History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall."- Adolph Hitler. History teaches people that war is just a thing we must live
Intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for victoryin war. Do you agree?
Intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for victory in war. Do you agree? In a world that is typified by independent states, above which there is no higher authority, and a scarcity of resources, such states often compete with each other. The most deadly form of such competition is war, whether in the name of territory, self-defence, religious belief, or any other reason. When such competition exists, there is ample motivation to be well prepared, for one state to know what other states are planning, and not to have others know their intentions. Essentially, this is the role of intelligence; to use information acquired through various means to create an advantages for one state over others. But in a war situation, with all the other factors that have to be taken into account, such as technology, manpower, and training, how can the importance of intelligence be measured? Is good intelligence, knowing what ones enemies are doing, sufficient to ensure victory? This essay attempts to analyse the importance of intelligence in war by looking at historical examples. It will be seen that intelligence is not sufficient for victory, but it probably is necessary, and hugely influential in determining the outcome. This essay shall begin by examine what is meant by intelligence, its purpose and the methods commonly used. Through this, several stages of intelligence are
Case Analysis - China and Japan Islands Conflict
Han Li Case study September 14, 2012 Case Study – Island conflict China and Japan have had strained relations post World War II and the islands row stands as the latest conflict between the two countries. Known in Japan as the Senkaku islands and in China and Taiwan the Diaoyu Islands, the ownership of the islands have long been disputed over hundreds of years, with incidents beginning in 1996. Historically under Chinese control, the islands were captured by Japan during Sino-Japanese War, yet no objections were raised by Chiang Kai-shek in the Treaty of San Francisco or Okinawa reversion as he relied on U.S. support. Japan’s claims lie within the same two resolutions, since the islands were returned to Japan by the United States (Q&A). With the recently discovered nearby oil fields and fishing grounds, the islands have resurfaced into the international spotlight as not only a territorial dispute but a race over scarce resources (Q&A). Each action taken by one side is immediately reciprocated with a political move from the other. Yet what rises above the superficial territorial and resource contest is political superiority and dominance of the region. In addition to the United States and Taiwan taking sides in this issue, China attempts to establish its dominance in Asia while the United States wishes to reassert its sphere of influence. Tense relations and differing
Assess significance of leadership as a factor contributing to victory in warfare from 1845 1991.
Assess significance of leadership as a factor contributing to victory in warfare from 1845 – 1991. Over the 18th and 19th century, war underwent drastic changes from the scale of conflict to the weapons of war itself. With every new conflict between 1845 and 1991 victory could never be achieved in exactly the same manner and so leadership played a vital role in determining a victory for opposing forces: on the battlefield, through organising the military and increasingly political involvement. The major influences on the constant features of warfare; economies, technology, leadership, tactics and strategy, public opinion, logistics and composition of the military were all affected by the varying conflicts during 1845 to 1991, with some proving more significant as time progressed. This era of warfare can be periodised into interstate industrial warfare, 1845-1945 and the Nuclear age from 1945 onwards. The nuclear age is classed as separate due to its radicalisation of warfare in determining how victory was achieved and what now constituted as a victory as well as the shift in leadership to those in political power. Political leadership and the governmental role in warfare has increased since 1845 and always been at the heart of conflict if one adheres to Clausewitizian ideologies that ‘war is political instrument’ and thus just an extension of a countries aims, ‘an
The Organization and Tactics learned and applied during Post Russo-Jap War of 1904
By Henri Robben NOTE: This is essay is written in letter form, and I am writing it as if I were a Command & Staff Officer assigned to the German Kaiser in early 1900s, and was to report on the emerging power of the Czar's (Russian) Imperial Army following the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. Russian Imperial Army: The Organization and Tactics learned and applied during Post Russo-Jap War of 1904 Letter Begins: Your Excellence, As we stand at the brink of war with one of our oldest adversaries, it is with the utmost urgency that I insure you have the latest military goings-on from Moscow. Without a doubt, the Russian military has been busy since the Russo-Japanese War and has geared its entire method strategy and method off the threat of our very own Triple Alliance. For the most part, these new reforms are bringing some much needed changes to an already powerful enemy, and although there are still shortcomings, I feel it necessary to brief you on five of the most pressing improvements of their forces. A complete restructuring of their Corps organization stands at the forefront of the reforms, and is two-fold--it addresses the realignment of the corps into Military Districts and the actual make-up of the Russian Army Corps. Although it has maintained a "four-sided" structure that will impair the overall effectiveness of command and control, it has also simplified the
Which had the greater impact on thinking about international politics World War I or World War II?
Which had the greater impact on thinking about international politics - World War I or World War II? Throughout the field of international politics, many things aid and forward the change of theories, many bring about an advancement in thinking and many cause futile argument and heated debate amongst international relations theorists and politicians alike, but none I fear do this more than the subject of war. War has long been on the minds of the greatest thinkers the world has known, from Aristotle's "A Treatise on Government" (322BC) through Ceaser, Machiavelli, Da Vinci to more recent thinkers and philosophers of our time. Theories have clashed violently over the subject and no other wars have had such a significant impact as World War I or World War II. They have become staple points for debate, and the basis' of theories themselves, not just for war, but for the eventualities of other world changing factors. The question of which war of the two has had more impact on thinking about International Politics has puzzled intellectuals since the Second World War commenced. Not like many would think, at the end of World War II, simply the advent and prospect of another 'Great War'' immediately changed opinion. Realists sat smugly back as Liberal Internationalists ideals were thrown out. The questions began. How has the start of this war altered our previous ideals? How will
What is Strategy
What is Strategy ? Is Strategy a ............................................. Mintzberg, Henry (1987). "Five Ps for Strategy," California Management Review, Plan: a consciously intend course of action to deal with a situation. Ploy: a maneuver to outwit an opponent. Pattern: a pattern of actions that emerge, unintended over time. Position: the way a firm relates to its competitive environment Perspective: the way that managers in a firm see themselves and the world around them. Hierarchical definitions: Steiner and Miner, 1977; Andrews, 1971; Quinn, 1980 Mission: Top management's view of what the organization seeks to do and become over the long term â Objectives: Specific performance targets in each of the areas covered by a firm's mission â Strategies: Means through which firms accomplish mission and objectives â Tactics/Policies: Actions that firms undertake to implement their strategies Matching definitions: (SWOT - Andrews, 1971, Hofer and Schendel, 1978) . Selection of corporate mission and goals. 2. Identification of Strengths and Weaknesses in internal environment. 3. Identification of Opportunities and Threats in external environment. 4. Selection of strategies that build on strengths and correct weaknesses to take advantage of external opportunities or counter external threats. 5. Implementation of strategy. * Strategy - more views:
