"Total" and "Limited" warfare

Unfortunately, as much as I would like to open up with more exciting information, there is a need to define two key terms that will be often used. Getting this out of the way seemed like something that should be done sooner, rather than later, right? Well, the words to blame for this post are "total" and "limited." Although seemingly simple, there is a large room for confusion when dealing with these terms.

Total Warfare refers to (in my time period, at least) World Wars I and II. These are wars that very few limits are imposed, and the whole nation is involved in. Although not necessarily true for all cases, total warfare tends to span short periods of time, usually being contained within a decade of fighting. This type of warfare contains not only a large number of military casualties, but also civilian ones (it is estimated that 1.5 to 3.5 million German civilians were killed, alongside 67 thousand British, half to one million Japanese, and 13 to 15 million Soviets). In other words, total warfare is warfare as most of us think of it.

Limited Warfare, however, is a trickier subject, and, in cases, can cause some controversy. Limited warfare as I define it originates and becomes the norm starting with the first significant engagement in the Cold War: Korea. The cause of the shift? Well, that deserves its own post (well, book, really, but... besides the point!). Limited warfare revolves significantly around proxy wars, wars of smaller significance that are not concerned directly with the main enemy, but instead third parties. In the Cold War, the enemy was Communism, primarily in the Soviet Union and China; however, the United States never fought any of those countries during this time. Instead, it fought in smaller nations, such as Korea. For this reason, it is evident that full allocation of military personnel is impossible, as in all technicality, one nation is simply aiding the other's army (helping the South Koreans fight the North Koreans, the South Vietnamese army fight the Viet Cong, aiding the Middle East in fighting the Taliban, and so it goes). These wars tend to be protracted, and lead to very little in reality (didn't Sun Tzu have something to say about this? (for those unfamiliar with the Art of War, chapter 2 is dedicated nearly in its entirety as to why you should not engage in this kind of warfare, e.g 2.6 "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare"))

Great controversy arises, however, in dealing with Vietnam. Although it fits nicely with limited warfare, the number of deaths is quite high, not only on the military side, but also on the civilian side. It is estimated that 200 thousand to 500 thousand civilians (Vietnamese) died in the war, with the vast majority (195 to 435 thousand) being South Vietnamese. This makes lots of people jump to the conclusion that Vietnam was an instance of total warfare, which was not the case. Vietnam falls under my category of escalated limited warfare, where although resources were far from being fully allocated towards the war, casualties and involvement was increased significantly.

Hopefully these definitions were clear and did not make you close the tab, as you thought you landed in a history lecture (well, you did, but I shall claim this is not one in order not to narrow my audience to 3 people). Even those these will only apply to later topics, as I plan on elaborating on the earlier periods soon, I think it gives a good sense of what's to come in the near future, for those that are interested in this kind of stuff. Until next time!

A Warm Welcome Into a Cold War

My name is Bernardo Alves, I'm a senior at BASIS Scottsdale High School, and after taking a few history classes, I started to realise the somewhat obvious, though often overlooked, fact that things have changed. 99 years ago, the Great War broke out, followed by World War II a few decades later. These wars were on unprecedented scale, and even those who have constantly slept through history classes are able to remember key aspects about it. However, as we move along the timeline, something odd starts to happen; from the height of all warfare, we slip into the Cold War, where the real fight revolves around acquiring technology, rather than engaging your enemy in battles.

The goal of this project revolves around this significant trend that has been shaping warfare for the past 60 years.  The research is organised in three parts: a. Detail the changes that have occurred in warfare in the past 100 years b. Explain what has caused these changes to occur, and c. Speculate on what warfare may become like in the near future.

Most of my research will consist of typical library work, working primarily with piles upon piles of history books for anything dealing with the past, and relying mostly on articles when venturing into the Cyber Age. Over the next few months, I'll continually post about my findings, and whether you're in for a trip aboard the H.M.S Dreadnought, or perhaps landing in Normandy, or maybe even sitting in front of your computer trying to hack other nations for national secrets...well, the only way to know is to stay tuned.