# When Is It a War?



## sknox (Jan 7, 2018)

I almost rolled this into the other post, for it's related, but I thought it was worth separate discussion. What distinguishes a war from other kinds of armed conflict? The question is worth considering. When looking for reasons why wars happen, we need to know what we mean by the word. Is a peacekeeping mission the same as a war? How about a police action? What about an insurrection, rebellion, insurgency? 

Back in my home turf, the Middle Ages, there was no end of wars. Most of these were not much grander than cattle raids. Are those wars? When the pagan Wends or Letts or Sorbs invaded, was that a war? The years of conflict with the Barbary pirates? Are all the years of the 80 Years War actually war? A bar fight is not a war, but I tell you, some of the conflicts down in late medieval southern Germany were not much grander than that. 

When is it a war? And when it isn't, what is it?
Specific historical examples will be most welcomed.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 7, 2018)

Korea and Vietnam have been referred to police actions, but they are by definition, wars.  Vietnam was referred to as an undeclared war.


----------



## reiver33 (Jan 7, 2018)

In the modern period we no longer have 'formal' wars - instead they are police actions, counter-insurgency operations, border skirmishes or simply go undeclared.

I was typing my reply while Baylor posted his...


----------



## Joe Loomis (Jan 7, 2018)

Well the definition as a whole is that when two groups, states or nations enter in armed conflict in a nation or state.

Really today every piece of land is claimed by someone or some nation so by definition if any nation attacks another nation with in borders then it is technically a war.

Police action, peace keeping action are just fancy words for war with out saying it.

Insurrection,  rebellion and insurgency are usually defined as a single nations people raising up against the ruling government.  Not a war by definition because it is one nation against itself.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 7, 2018)

Joe Loomis said:


> Insurrection,  rebellion and insurgency are usually defined as a single nations people raising up against the ruling government.  Not a war by definition because it is one nation against itself.



I agree with your original definition, i.e. two groups, states or societies are in armed conflict with another similar type of entity/s. Also the fact that such occurrences are usually called something else, perhaps to disguise it, perhaps to denigrate the opposition...

...however the three examples you have there could be seen as types of civil wars, so I'd say groups within a single nation being in armed conflict, also falls within a very general definition of a war too.

I think if one were to try to push cattle raids and blood feuds out of the definition, that a war is between two 'organised' sides/groups/nations/whatever that both recognise that they are conflict with each other. (Although perhaps cattle raids and other such events might be viewed as endemic skirmishing/economic warfare that might constitute a small part of a larger and longer 'campaign' between two states or societies.)


----------



## Joe Loomis (Jan 7, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> I agree with your original definition, i.e. two groups, states or societies are in armed conflict with another similar type of entity/s. Also the fact that such occurrences are usually called something else, perhaps to disguise it, perhaps to denigrate the opposition...
> 
> ...however the three examples you have there could be seen as types of civil wars, so I'd say groups within a single nation being in armed conflict, also falls within a very general definition of a war too.
> 
> I think if one were to try to push cattle raids and blood feuds out of the definition, that a war is between two 'organised' sides/groups/nations/whatever that both recognise that they are conflict with each other. (Although perhaps cattle raids and other such events might be viewed as endemic skirmishing/economic warfare that might constitute a small part of a larger and longer 'campaign' between two states or societies.)



We'll that is a gray area really.  Take the American  revolution.  The Boston Tea Party and Massacre are not technically part of the war because they are before the declaration of independence.  Everything after the declaration is considered the revolutionary war because 2 nations are battling.  
Technically.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 7, 2018)

Joe Loomis said:


> We'll that is a gray area really.  Take the American  revolution.  The Boston Tea Party and Massacre are not technically part of the war because they are before the declaration of independence.  Everything after the declaration is considered the revolutionary war because 2 nations are battling.
> Technically.



Well, the declaration would have been meaningless if the US had lost, so whether they signed a bit of paper is irrelevant, surely. There clearly was an organised body that wanted independence from the British well before there was a bit of paper saying so.

Isn't it best to view such occurrences as part of the causes or the events that make the narrative of a bigger conflict. (Hence my musings over whether 'cattle raids and bar brawls' might be, with historical hindsight, 'war')


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 7, 2018)

When Bugs Bunny says it is: 






Sorry!  Could not resist.  New Year's resolution be damned.


----------



## Joe Loomis (Jan 8, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> Well, the declaration would have been meaningless if the US had lost, so whether they signed a bit of paper is irrelevant, surely. There was an organized body that wanted independence from the British well before there was a bit of paper saying so.
> 
> Isn't it best to view such occurrences as part of the causes or the events that make the narrative of a bigger conflict. (Hence my musings over whether 'cattle raids and bar brawls' might be, with historical hindsight, 'war')



I guess I'm just being devils advocate for the true definition.  In the end, a War is a term that could mean a lot of things to different people.  There was a war on drugs in the US in the 80s, but there was no other country there.

I hope I wasn't coming across as crass or argumentative because that wasn't my intent.  I just wanted to see the discussion from as many sides as possible.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 8, 2018)

_War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means _(Carl Von Clausewitz)

The definition of a war is a state of armed conflict between two countries or between groups in within a country. I think this would cover most of what we already regard as wars.

I think a bar fight wouldn't be a state of war because it is a spontaneous thing whereas two groups of gangsters going at each other over drugs for example would be a war because it has armed conflict, an objective, planning and is not spontaneous.

In my opinion, politicians may use other phrases to describe a conflict but that's just because of how unpalatable the truth may be to the voting public.


----------



## sknox (Jan 8, 2018)

The topic gets more complicated when you ask what is a country. We moderns tend to think in terms of the nation-state, but that's a relatively modern invention. When it's one baron and his retainers against another baron, or against a city and its militia, is that war? Who declares it? What is the mechanism of declaration? Conversely, how do we know when the war is over? The Thirty Years War, for example, involved a number of different sovereign powers and its end was complicated. The Hundred Years War never did end. I'm sort of reluctant to class the campaigns of the Brethren of the Sword in 13thc Samland with something like the Seven Years War. It feels like a different sort of critter.

I think it's a worthwhile question when we come to trying to explain why wars break out. Or why peace breaks out, for that matter. It's also interesting from a writer's point of view because it raises the possibility--especially for SF writers--that other beings might have a different understanding of war and peace.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 8, 2018)

I can't remember exactly how he put it but Von Clausewitz explained the act of war breaking out as using force to bend an enemy to do what you want them to do. It's basically bullying for nation states (or earldoms or whatever else the particular grouping may be).


----------



## Aquilonian (Jan 8, 2018)

It's entirely a semantic question. A war is what a government says it is. In modern times most governments like to pretend they are only interesting in preserving peace, thus in the UK we have a "Ministry of Defence" whereas 100 years ago we had a "War Office." I doubt if anyone has officially "declared war" since 1945. Partly it's because almost all countries signed the Geneva Convention which places limits on what you can do in a war, e.g. it defines how POWs must be treated. That's what the IRA hunger strike was about- they wanted to be classed as POWs, whereas the UK Government wanted to define them as ordinary criminals. Both sides were seeking a political/psychological advantage by their use of words.

The modern term is "asymmetrical conflict" i.e. where a government of a state with its armed forces is in conflict with an armed force that has no defined territory and is therefore not classed as a state- or to complicate matters further, it might control a territory at some times but not others. For example in parts of Northern Ireland in the 1970s there were regular police patrols, but many crimes were punished by the paramilitary groups such as IRA and UVF.

Armed forces are typically designed to fight the last war, not the next war, and senior generals, admirals etc generally formed their ideas in that different situation, there is huge pressure to perpetuate the old situation for which the forces are designed, rather than accept the new situation. Partly this is down to rigidity of thinking, partly down to lobbying from arms manufacturers etc.


----------



## sknox (Jan 8, 2018)

>Armed forces are typically designed to fight the last war

I've seen this stated so often. I think it may apply to modern armies (though I'd argue it works best for the late 19th-early 20thc), but I can't make it work at all for medieval armies. For one thing, there were so many armed conflicts going on everywhere, the whole notion of next/previous just sort of breaks down.

Augustine talked about what constituted a just war (he was trying to justify the circumstances under which a Christian might properly wage war), but I don't recall anything in the essay that attempts to define war. This is probably because he was still writing when the Empire was a reality, and war more or less belonged to the Empire.

One parameter that I might put forward is the mobilization of public resources. That is, if the government (city council, baron, king) levies a tax or, in that lovely medieval tradition a "donation" for the purpose of funding the military to achieve an objective (offensive or defensive), then we could call that a war. That would distinguish between that and a baron calling up his retainers to go burn down his neighbor's chateau, operating "of his own" as another medieval phrase has it.


----------



## svalbard (Jan 9, 2018)

St Thomas Aquinas on war.

"The first thing is the authority of the prince by whose command the war is to be waged. It does not belong to a private person to start a war, for he can prosecute his claim in the court of his superior. In like manner the mustering of the people, that has to be done in wars, does not belong to a private person. But since the care of the commonwealth is entrusted to princes, to them belongs the protection of the common weal of the city, kingdom, or province subject to them. And as they lawfully defend it with the material sword against inward disturbances by punishing male-factors, so it belongs to them also to protect the commonwealth from enemies without by the sword of war."

And for a more fatalistic view of war a qoute I love from Cormac McCarthy 

"War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner."


----------



## Aquilonian (Jan 10, 2018)

sknox said:


> I've seen this stated so often. I think it may apply to modern armies (though I'd argue it works best for the late 19th-early 20thc), but I can't make it work at all for medieval armies.



I think that's because the progress of military technology was so much slower in those days. WW2 was only 72 years ago but so much has become obsolete since then


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 11, 2018)

I don't think it's necessarily the case that armed forces are designed to fight the last war any more. Just look at the shift towards cyber-warfare (and there is yet to be a full scale war based around this as far as I know). 

Also, to take the Royal Navy as an example. Ship design is apparently forward looking rather than backward. The Queen Elizabeth carriers are designed not only as carriers but also designed to be used in littoral operations (close to shore), effectively replacing HMS Ocean, which, it's reported is being sold to Brazil for £84 million. Although it's not something I  actually agree with (they are far too valuable to have too close to an enemy shoreline), part of the carrier's role will be to provide amphibious and helicopter support for beach landings. 

Also the split of frigates between type 26 (anti-submarine warfare) and type 31s (global combat) is another look to the future. Type 26s will provide the traditional ASW role with Type 45 destroyers providing anti-air. The type 31 (when its  design is finalised) will be more flexible and could be used for many tasks such as anti-pirate patrol, naval fire support, general escort or as a staging area for special operations acting in a counter-terrorism role. Of course, polticians will say that the fact that Type 31s are cheaper than Type 26s has nothing to do with it

You don't need to agree with the views on future roles for these ships (and I don't) but I think it can be deduced that the people in charge at the RN are trying to anticipate how the next war will be fought rather than building from the last.


----------



## sknox (Jan 11, 2018)

I guess I objected to the phrase (not to the poster!) because it is delivered as a maxim. Armies are always ready to fight the last war. That's simply not historically true. In fact, if it was ever true, it was so for only a handful of generations. As a highly localized observation, it's worth a discussion, I suppose. Too modern for my taste. ;-)


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 11, 2018)

RE: yesterday's war - the British Type 45 destroyers do look impressive on paper (and in the promotional videos!). I've looked closely at these as research for science fiction writing.

And then I take one look at the railguns the US military is developing, and fear the Type 46 defenses are already obsolete...


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 12, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> RE: yesterday's war - the British Type 45 destroyers do look impressive on paper (and in the promotional videos!). I've looked closely at these as research for science fiction writing.
> 
> And then I take one look at the railguns the US military is developing, and fear the Type 46 defenses are already obsolete...


You might find this interesting.
The Ultimate Showdown: (Part-1) Arleigh Burke v/s Daring Class Destroyers

But bear in mind that the Type 45 has a more specialised role. It is designed specifically to counter the air and missile threat. Indeed, it's caimed that one Type 45 can simultaneously track and deal with as many arial targets as five of its predecessors combined. The Arleigh Burke is designed to cover a range of threats so, although it lags slightly with counter-air, it makes up for it with versatility in other ways.

The way things are going and keeping in mind its primary role,  I'd expect the Type 45 to end up with laser weapons rather than railguns.

P.S. For what its worth, I think the Type 45 is a beautiful ship


----------



## sknox (Jan 12, 2018)

What happened to the other 44 ship types?


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 12, 2018)

sknox said:


> What happened to the other 44 ship types?


This should explain things
Type system of the Royal Navy - Wikipedia


----------



## sknox (Jan 12, 2018)

Hah! I was being facetious. I didn't know sloops were still an active type of ship. Thanks for the reference.

In the Middle Ages there was only one type of warship: yours. Whatever you've got, if the king wants it, it's a warship.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 13, 2018)

sknox said:


> Hah! I was being facetious.



I wasn't sure but thought you might be. I stuck in the reference just in case I was wrong (I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes)


----------

