Home Games & Quizzes History & Society Science & Tech Biographies Animals & Nature Geography & Travel Arts & Culture Money Videos
strategy
Table of Contents
References & Edit History Related Topics
Images & Videos
Bayeux Tapestry: Battle of Hastings Roman war galley Carl von Clausewitz Alexander the Great's empire Extent of the Roman Empire in 117 ce halberd and pike the Cité Mongol Empire: map Cardinal de Richelieu Henri, baron de Jomini
For Students
Carl von Clausewitz
strategy summary
Quizzes
Louis IX of France (St. Louis), stained glass window of Louis IX during the Crusades. (Unknown location.)
World Wars
Discover
After a perfect launch, spectators try to catch a last glimpse of Space Shuttle Columbia, barely visible at the top end of the twisted column of smoke.
7 Accidents and Disasters in Spaceflight History
earthquake. Heavily damaged school in the town of Yingxiu after a major earthquake struck China's Sichuan Province on May 12, 2008.
The 6 Deadliest Earthquakes Since 1950
In this aerial photo, structures are damaged and destroyed October 15, 2005 in Balakot, Pakistan. It is estimated that 90% of the city of Balakot was leveled by the earthquake. The death toll in the 7.6 magnitude earthquake that struck northern Pakistan on October 8, 2005 is believed to be 38,000 with at least 1,300 more dead in Indian Kashmir. SEE CONTENT NOTES.
6 of the World’s Deadliest Natural Disasters
Albert Einstein in Washington, D.C. c. 1921-1923. Physicist
The Solar Eclipse That Made Albert Einstein a Science Celebrity
solar eclipse, sun, moon, astronomy, space
How Do You Tell the Difference Between Total, Annular, Solar, and Lunar Eclipses?
VAN, TURKEY - OCTOBER 25: A building and car ruined during the earthquake of Van-Ercis on October 25, 2011 in Van, Turkey. It is 604 killed and 4152 injured in Van-Ercis Earthquake.
What Is an Aftershock?
Julius Caesar in full Gaius Julius Caesar (100? BCE-44 BCE) statue in Rimini, Italy. Roman general and statesman and dictator
The Time Julius Caesar Was Captured by Pirates

Arms control

Not surprisingly, in view of the threat of nuclear devastation, the second challenge to the traditional paradigm of strategy came from the effort to control nuclear weapons. Arms control has had a long history, perhaps as old as organized warfare itself, but it became a major feature of international politics in the interval between the two World Wars and even more so during the Cold War. A variety of agreements—from the Washington Naval Conference (1921–22) to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972)—constrained military hardware and forces in a variety of ways.

The theory of arms control, articulated primarily by academics, repudiated much of the logic of strategy. Traditionally, arms control has had three purposes: reducing the risks of war, preparing for the burdens of war, and controlling damages should it break out. Underlying arms control, however, lay a deeper belief that weapons in and of themselves increase the probability of armed conflict. Where Clausewitz had believed that the logic of war lay outside the realm of the forces used to wage it, arms control rests implicitly on the idea that weapons and the organizations built around them can themselves lead to conflict. Instead of war having its origins chiefly in the political intercourse of states, arms control advocates believe that war has an autonomous logic, though one that can be broken or interrupted by international agreements.

The first nuclear era, from the late 1940s through the 1990s, which was dominated by the nuclear standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States, seemed propitious for this view of the world. This was particularly true in the last quarter of the 20th century, when arms control agreements became the dominant feature of U.S.-Soviet relations and a general measure, in many parts of the world, of the prospects for peace.

The end of the Cold War meant the weakening or irrelevance of some arms control agreements, such as those that limited the distribution of conventional forces in Europe. Others were abrogated or ignored by their signatories—most notably, when the United States invoked a clause in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on December 13, 2001, to withdraw from the agreement. Other conventions remained intact, though, and seemed in some cases to assume added urgency. In particular, efforts to ban chemical and biological weapons assumed new vigour, although it was not clear whether advances in science at the beginning of the 21st century would make it impossible to restrict the development of lethal toxins or artificial plagues.

The 1968 Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had a mixed record in blocking states from acquiring atomic or thermonuclear weapons. The NPT, coupled with energetic diplomacy by the United States and other great powers, prompted a wide range of governments, including Argentina, Australia, Sweden, and Taiwan, to terminate or put into dormancy nuclear programs. On the other hand, at least one NPT signatory, Iraq, blatantly violated the treaty with an extremely active nuclear weapons program, which was thwarted in 1981 by an Israeli preemptive attack on the nuclear reactor under construction at Osirak and thwarted again, at least for a time, by an intrusive system of United Nations inspections following the Persian Gulf War (1991).

Still, other countries have joined the nuclear club. The open acquisition of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan (neither of which had ratified the treaty) did not diminish the prestige or importance of those countries—quite the reverse in some ways. A determined effort by North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons, even at the expense of its previous agreements with other powers, suggested that the notion of preventing proliferation by treaty or international consensus had weakened. When, in 2002, the United States formally announced a willingness to employ force preemptively against threats to its national security, more than one observer supposed this had something to do with nuclear proliferation.

The arms control critique of strategy has its greatest force in the nuclear realm because nuclear weapons are different. Even so, the logic of Clausewitzian strategy survives. Offense exists, of course, but so too does defense, in the form of antiballistic missiles, preemptive attack, and various forms of civil defense. States acquire weapons of mass destruction for reasons that are largely political in nature. Furthermore, international agreements remain at the mercy of states’ willingness to subject themselves to them. Below a certain threshold of violence, moreover, traditional strategy still operates, as in the sparring between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. India and Pakistan, however, are states with well-developed institutions and without the urge to annihilate one another. Whether a nonstate actor, such as Hezbollah (a militia and political party in Lebanon) or al-Qaeda, would be subject to the same restraint is more questionable.