# Total War VS Civilized Warfare **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001 "2009-07-05T18:36:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/21 "2009-07-05T23:32:50Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The level of “totality” of a war depends on the war aims of the parties. > > If your war aim is to add a city to your empire, it doesn’t make sense to try to destroy the city and kill everyone in it, because then you’ve destroyed the prize you went to war to claim. In the past, though, I think generals have proven that destroying a city is an extremely effective technique. Word travels, and if a resisting city is put to the sword and torch, you’ll encounter a lot less resistance in the future. It’s a horrifying tactic, and in the short term a prize is lost, but it can serve a conqueror’s strategic interests very well. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/22 "2009-07-05T23:57:31Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Certain kinds of wars were much more Total than others. The Civil War was eventually resolved because neither side could really win without destroying that economy. WW1 and 2 were largely won because of economic destruction - the enemy simply was unable to match the manpower of the Russians or the firepower of the Americans and British. Sherman’s March to the Sea was a classic example of “Total War”. > [@SmashTheState](#): > > Now the US has concentration camps and “pre-emptive imprisonment” without trial, while its enemies televise beheadings of aid workers and contractors. Torture, warrantless wiretapping, Homeland Gestapo, suicide bombings, child terrorists. they are all the result of the philosophy of “total war.” Yet is the alternative of polite murder and the systematic feeding of young men into a neatly-maintained meat grinder of ordered, by-the-rules warfare any better? You are confusing “Total Warfare” with “Asymetric Warfare”. The US has not fought a Total War since World War II. In Total War, the enemy is treated as a single military and economic entity. They have deployed a traditional army in the field that is supported and maintained by the nations economic infrastructure and population. Attacking the nations industrial capacity and population centers is a viable strategy because doing so weakens their capacity and political desire to make war. Conflicts like the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war in Vietnam are asymetric wars. They are “low intensity” conflicts fought against insurgents and terrorists who blend into the population you are trying to win the support of. If a metaphor for Total War would be two huge machines fighting each other until one can no longer continue, a metaphot for Asymetric War would be fighting a computer virus for control of a network. Smashing the servers would be effective, but also defeat the purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/23 "2009-07-06T01:10:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > In the past, though, I think generals have proven that destroying a city is an extremely effective technique. Word travels, and if a resisting city is put to the sword and torch, you’ll encounter a lot less resistance in the future. It’s a horrifying tactic, and in the short term a prize is lost, but it can serve a conqueror’s strategic interests very well. Yes, and no. It can ALSO create fanatical resistance, often among people who might otherwise just have kept their head down. And in the long term, you’ve likely just created a group of people who are likely to remember and hate you and your descendents/culture indefinitely. And there’s a good chance they’ll return the favor if they ever get the chance. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/24 "2009-07-06T01:25:19Z")
The ugly part of modern war is when we included civilians as targets. In the Civil War people would sit on hillsides and watch battles. It was poor form to kill non soldiers. Sherman did not exactly respect that. W.W.2 was the end for that. We destroyed cities and killed as many people as we could. The hope was the rest would get scared and pressure the government to quit. It also decreased the pool for recruits. But killing old people, women and children was thought to be uncivilized. Now it is a sport to keep tally and brag about. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/25 "2009-07-06T01:49:51Z")
We haven’t practiced “total war” since we stopped utilizing atomic bombs on our enemies. Perhaps **Smash** thinks we should start? Torture has nothing to do with “total war;” torture has been praticed as a method of information extraction, regardless of the real value of it, throughout history, including the period during which the OP purports to assert that there was some sort of civilized set of rules applicable (apparently, he’s never heard of _chevauchée_. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/26 "2009-07-06T17:53:09Z")
Defining “total war” in the genuinely Clausewitzian terms as “breaking the enemy’s will to resist” - The US should have engaged in total war (in that sense) in the first Gulf War. The coalition did not remove the Iraqi will to resist, embodied mostly in Saddam Hussein and his cronies, but allowed concerns of the Arabs to overrule what should properly have been the endpoint of the war. Had we removed Saddam, we not only could have spared ourselves the current situation in Iraq, but spared (it is likely) the lives of many Iraqis. So that is one of the objectives of total war that **SmashTheState** did not mischaracterize. It would have been more merciful in the long run to completely carry out the Clausewitzian objective, I can’t think of another military action that was so overwhelmingly successful as the first Gulf War, and yet it still didn’t go far enough. Because it was not waged as a total war, in the Clausewitzian sense. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/27 "2009-07-06T18:06:11Z")
The idea of ancient battles and wars being somehow more civilised is a myth. Its simply the technology at the time didn’t allow for the scale of atrocities that we see in the last century or so. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem it took a week of slaughter to get the kind of body count that could be achieved by night of bombing. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/28 "2009-07-06T20:21:30Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > W.W.2 was the end for that. We destroyed cities and killed as many people as we could. Henry Ford was the end of that. An industrial war requires and industrial base to feed it. The US civil war that you referenced was the proto war for the coming century ,and had the union or the csa possesed anything other than balloons, citys deeper in the south and north would have experienced steel rain. Back to the point that every factory is capable of making munitions or the delivery systems for those munitions, one only has to look at the effort put forth by the USA in WW2 for wartime production and correlate that with the expression that the USA outproduced every other combatant and became the arsenal of democracy. You can live with the idea that those workers punching a clock are civillian and thus non combatants, but if it came down to another WW situation, those workers are in reality soldiers and will be concidered fair game. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/29 "2009-07-06T20:32:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Defining “total war” in the genuinely Clausewitzian terms as “breaking the enemy’s will to resist” With all the respect in the world to Clausewitz, I feel that this doctrine is what ultimately led to the US defeat in Vietnam. The “will to resist” was apparently infinite in the Vietcong/ NVA, and yet the US kept believing that if we simply racked up a high enough body count they would someday give up. I believe that wars are ultimately won by _defeating_ your enemy- that is, by placing your opponent in a position of futility, where any further effort they extend against you harms them more than it harms you. If your enemy is truly defeated, it doesn’t matter if their “will” is broken or not; if they keep fighting, they will expend themselves. I think a near-perfect illustration of this was the American Civil War. The “will” of the South to continue fighting wasn’t broken. What was broken was their capacity to feed their soldiers, to recruit replacements for staggering losses, and to have someplace to retreat to in the face of overwhelming Union numbers. Lee himself only surrendered rather than continue fighting as guerillas because his troops were already starving and he knew that the Union could and would burn every last farm in Virginia if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/30 "2009-07-06T22:00:09Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Henry Ford was the end of that. An industrial war requires and industrial base to feed it. The US civil war that you referenced was the proto war for the coming century ,and had the union or the csa possesed anything other than balloons, citys deeper in the south and north would have experienced steel rain. Dr. Richard J. Gatling and Thomas Blanchard of Springfield Armory predated Ford. > [@Lumpy](#): > > With all the respect in the world to Clausewitz, I feel that this doctrine is what ultimately led to the US defeat in Vietnam. The “will to resist” was apparently infinite in the Vietcong/ NVA, and yet the US kept believing that if we simply racked up a high enough body count they would someday give up. I believe that wars are ultimately won by defeating your enemy- that is, by placing your opponent in a position of futility, where any further effort they extend against you harms them more than it harms you. If your enemy is truly defeated, it doesn’t matter if their “will” is broken or not; if they keep fighting, they will expend themselves. Vietnam was the opposite of Total War. We tried to fight a defensive “limited war” in Vietnam. We allowed the North to set the tempo and timetable of the fighting. They attack, we counter with overwhelming firepower, they sue for a ceasefire until they are ready to attack again. We never invaded the North and only rarely bombed it. Basically our “doctrine” was to kill Vietcong and NVA until they ran out (which they weren’t going to). And the reason we did so was to avoid dragging the USSR or China into a full scale nuclear war. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/31 "2009-07-06T22:00:22Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] With all the respect in the world to Clausewitz, I feel that this doctrine is what ultimately led to the US defeat in Vietnam. The “will to resist” was apparently infinite in the Vietcong/ NVA, and yet the US kept believing that if we simply racked up a high enough body count they would someday give up. [/QUOTE] I don’t think that the Vietcong/North Vietnamese will to resist was infinite, we simply never reached the point where they were ready to concede…while they very carefully manipulated things so that we DID reach that point back home. I was watching History Channel the other day on Sun Tzu and they gave the best analogy I’ve ever heard…the difference between the strategy of the US and that of the North Vietnamese was the difference between chess and go. I hadn’t really thought about it in those terms before, but when they brought it up it seemed so apt. [QUOTE=gonzomax] The ugly part of modern war is when we included civilians as targets. [/QUOTE] This is the same kind of historical rose colored glass tendency that the OP is indulging in. Civilians have always been targets in war, whether ancient or modern. In the past whole cities were depopulated either through direct extermination, starvation or slavery. This is hardly a modern concept. The actual difference in modern warfare is simply the power of modern weapons to act as a force multiplier beyond the dreams of ancient man. But, it’s that very power that sets limits on REAL modern warfare, by those countries who can actually engage in it. If you look at the US action in Iraq or Afghanistan you get some idea of the reality. The US COULD wade into Iraq or Afghanistan and wipe out whole towns, even using simple conventional forces. Instead, we are increasingly spending our development dollars on finding new ways to kill with more and more precision. Artillery, for example, is becoming as accurate as the best guided smart bombs. This isn’t to make our military more effective…the old MLRS or arty system was already damned effective. Instead, it’s to lessen collateral casualties…something our ancestors wouldn’t have given a second thought too. Arguably modern warfare puts more restrictions on one’s military, since technology acts as such a force multiplier that military action can have unbelievable levels of destruction. This adds to the cost as well…it’s a hell of a lot more expensive to develop precise artillery munitions and TOT systems than to go with the old ballistic systems, more expensive to drop smart munitions than carpet bomb whole blocks, etc etc. -XT ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/32 "2009-07-06T22:16:47Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > …But, it’s that very power that sets limits on REAL modern warfare, by those countries who can actually engage in it. If you look at the US action in Iraq or Afghanistan you get some idea of the reality. The US COULD wade into Iraq or Afghanistan and wipe out whole towns, even using simple conventional forces. Instead, we are increasingly spending our development dollars on finding new ways to kill with more and more precision. Artillery, for example, is becoming as accurate as the best guided smart bombs. This isn’t to make our military more effective…the old MLRS or arty system was already damned effective. Instead, it’s to lessen collateral casualties…something our ancestors wouldn’t have given a second thought too… -XT Just to add to this; there is also the rule of proportionality in effect in war today. Basically, while the killing of civilians is ultimately inevitable in war, civilian causalities has to be proportionally related to your goals. If not, then it’s illegal (a war crime). So, targeting a house that might contain Saddam which may result in a few civilian casualties is legal, while nuking Baghdad to kill Saddam is illegal. This further adds to more laws today controlling what you can do in war time, than in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/33 "2009-07-06T22:38:17Z")
> [@](#): > > The philosophy behind total war is that war is ugly and brutal, and that it must be waged for the sole purpose of victory. There is no horror too great, no betrayal too dishonest, no violence too brutal if it will bring victory swifter and surer. It is this philosophy of total war, war without arbitrary rules, which has brought power and world domination to the Amerikan Empire. You misunderstand the concept of total war. The idea is that you dedicate all of your national effort to fighting a war not that you abandon all morality. The “Amerikan Empire” was built by civilized war not total war. We fought the British, the Spanish, the Canadians, and the Mexicans to get territory not to eradicate anyone. Once we had fought a few battles, everyone sat down and negotiated an exchange of land to reflect who had won or lost. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/34 "2009-07-07T04:07:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That said, we need to be careful that we don’t believe that a strict adherence to the Geneva Conventions makes us think that war is acceptable. Indeed, I’d prefer that our culture gets its nose shoved in the horror of war much more often than really happens. I’d prefer that people who engage in war are treated not as awesome heroes, but **rather as tragic unhappy figures performing a dangerous and repellent but necessary job** , similar to cleaning sewer lines or performing autopsies on bodies with contagious diseases. We need to treat war as far more of a last resort than we currently do. What a grotesque ideology you have. People who risk their lives for the safety and security of others… treated as pitiable figures? Bullshit. The brave warrior, the Christian knight, the hard-fighting infantryman - these are not pitiable figures, and deserve every ounce of respect a society can have for them. Your silly idea would see the end of all courage if you had your way. And then another, less… “pleasant” group would simply muscle in, once you had finally run out all idea of heroism with your angsty purile hand-wringing. This very concept makes me wish to vomit. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/35 "2009-07-07T04:52:45Z")
Sewer repairmen risk their lives for the safety and security of others, yet you never hear people yammer on and on about the honor and courage of sewer repairmen. Look, the notions of “heroism” and “honor” and “discipline” and “courage” that are instilled into soldiers are propaganda to prevent them from running away like a normal person. See, if the guys on your side run away they’re all going to get killed. Most casualties in battles happen during the retreat, especially in premodern battles. And so the side where the soldiers exhibited rock-headed unshakeable solidity was the side that won. And the side where soldiers exhibited normal human fear was the side that lost. But it’s all a bit silly, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/36 "2009-07-07T05:22:18Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Dr. Richard J. Gatling and Thomas Blanchard of Springfield Armory predated Ford. I was speaking to mass production rather than individual pieces of ordinance. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/37 "2009-07-07T06:42:16Z")
Millions of rifles were produced during the American Civil War. They were mass produced with interchangeable parts and everything. Odeiso ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/38 "2009-07-07T10:37:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > But, it’s that very power that sets limits on REAL modern warfare, by those countries who can actually engage in it. If you look at the US action in Iraq or Afghanistan you get some idea of the reality. The US COULD wade into Iraq or Afghanistan and wipe out whole towns, even using simple conventional forces. Instead, we are increasingly spending our development dollars on finding new ways to kill with more and more precision. Artillery, for example, is becoming as accurate as the best guided smart bombs. This isn’t to make our military more effective…the old MLRS or arty system was already damned effective. Instead, it’s to lessen collateral casualties…something our ancestors wouldn’t have given a second thought too. > > Arguably modern warfare puts more restrictions on one’s military, since technology acts as such a force multiplier that military action can have unbelievable levels of destruction. This adds to the cost as well…it’s a hell of a lot more expensive to develop precise artillery munitions and TOT systems than to go with the old ballistic systems, more expensive to drop smart munitions than carpet bomb whole blocks, etc etc. > > -XT You post was excellent uptill the quoted text. The reason for investing in smart weapons is not to reduce civilian casualties, at times thats a side effect. You invest in them so you can pretty much gaurentee the destruction of the target with the expension of a minimum amount of ammunition and minimum exposure to your own forces. Same with arty, you want shells that can destroy the target on the first salvo as opposed to a barrage which just “telegraphs the punch” and exposes your own arty tp the enemies counter battery fire. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/39 "2009-07-07T10:51:25Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > What a grotesque ideology you have. If it’s any consolation, I think that your own ideology is hideous and has led to millions of unnecessary deaths over the years. So I guess we’re even. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001/40 "2009-07-07T12:20:49Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > Some of you folks are missing the point. Whether or not it’s historically accurate, what I’m asking is whether or not you believe war without boundaries, rules, or guidelines is, in the long run, a good or bad thing. > > Yes, Odesio, I’m an anarchist. I don’t hunt down and assassinate police and landlords – although there’s a tradition for doing so. The reason for this is the State has some lines it generally does not cross. I don’t need to fear being assassinated in the night, and when I am imprisoned, I still have access to legal remedies… so far. We have agreed as a society up until this point that we will restrain our activities within certain boundaries, even when we are (depending on our sides) struggling for revolution or trying to prevent changes to the status quo. In other words, I don’t assassinate landlords, and in exchange the police don’t murder me in my sleep. Since both sides seem more or less content with this state of affairs (with exceptions on both sides, of course), it seems to argue that warfare with rules might be a viable option. > > On the other hand, Clausewitz’s “On War” argues that total war is actually the kindest cut. By fighting with no boundaries and no lines until one side or the other is entirely eradicated, it makes the conflict shorter and less likely to damage crucial infrastructure. And it puts an end to unhappiness on _both_ sides, one way or the other. > > So do you believe we, as a culture, should be concerned about atrocities such as torture and concentration camps, internment and bio-warfare, or should everyone bring their full weight and might to the table, and to the ultimate victor goes the spoils? Go read John Keegan’s _A History of Warfare_. The entire book is pretty much an answer to your question - built around an analysis or Clausewitz. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/total-war-vs-civilized-warfare/502001.md?page=3)