Jeremy A. Rabkin

How you know that state thinks its on top the world and has right (divine and earth-bound) to rule the world? They publish book like this :) And dont get me wrong, somebody is always on top but at this point it seems that all pretenses are off (authors are full of critique for freeloaders using all the benefits that Braves create).

I haven't read something like this for a long time. Especially the way government bureaucrats see war between states..... man I have a feeling that whoever explained them war showed them Civilization 4 or similar strategy game and told them - see we throw some missiles here, they lose the infrastructure and we win! Yay!

Idea that force coercion between states works in a way we-push-you-pull shows that technocracts actually never studied war, worse they never studied history. Noone will back down after current fetish - "few surgical strikes". It does not work that way. Constant air campaigns in modern days do not actually win wars - just look at Afghanistan, after 20 years back to square one, or Iraq, or Lybia, Mad Max country. You can stir things up but that is equal to terror attacks because it just destabilizes the area and if you do not plan to do anything, except throw a missile here or missile there, then you are someone aiming to destroy the area, making it uninhabitable and deadly for everyone, basically creating Hell on Earth. And you can sugarcoat it any way you like but that is that you do. Maybe you are planning it and doing it intentionally [but that does not make it any better, does it].

I agree with everything that authors say in the book technology wise. Any new technology that shows up with potential for military applications will be used. It is akin to releasing genie from the bottle - once out it is part of arsenal. And of course countries that have advantage in playing around with these new toys do not want to be restricted. And this is how it is been from dawn of the world. Because lets be honest advantage is always advantage and in war - every advantage you can get is a plus, this is one of those activities where everything goes - at later times mea culpas will be done (Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyone?).

So technology wise I agree with the authors - regulation requests always come from the parties that are in disadvantage (although they might be working on same things in secrecy). When parties are equal they usually sign the treaties because they know they will all end up in smoke.

What I dont agree with is following:

- Stop with the mantra that use of these weapons is more friendly and able to limit the casualties. This is such a weird statement but authors use it as background motto throughout the book .... it is just weird. Like people that get hit when one and a half ton of explosives enters a window where targets are, will feel very different from that same one and a half ton of explosives detonating outside that same window, shows that these people do not even play video games, let alone use common sense. When destroying anything, military tends to overpower not underpower for a simple reason - better safe than sorry. Ask anyone who was in battlezone do they prefer to strike enemy installation with barrage fire or precise, 2m blast radius X mm round through the window - barrage is barrage, it guarantees destruction. So this nonsense about this being preferable to standard means of delivery is epic BS.
- If you are talking about the reduction of casualties, it might be good to drop the talk how civilians are viable targets [for breaking the enemy spirit - which unfortunately is the case]. Otherwise, you know, you look ridiculous.
- When it comes to new technologies, instead of talking how dandy they are, you need to ask the most important question of all - who is ordering its use? Because this is main distinction, not precision or yields or whatever. If government does not have clear political goals, use of long range missile/drone/whatever is akin to firing from a vehicle passing down the street - intimidation, terror (because, as noted by the authors, civilians are legal targets) but since nothing of substance is coming after it, it is totally pointless [except as advertisement for military industry]. You do not like the politician from state X, who poses no threat to you nor his neighbors (as authors noted multiple times for Lybia and Syria) then instead of organizing long distance strikes to stir the pot you might think why are you doing it? If you are so interested in internal works of that state (and lets be honest we all know you are not) then you need to commit, and not just by letting everything fly in followed by statement we cannot do anything more about it and then move on. As I said that approach is akin to shooting from the passing by car.

This is why all the "regulations" exist. To make sure states are not aiming only for the wanton destruction but actually have political goals to achieve. This is what is meant to make war difficult - difficulty here is finding reason for war, actual political goal. This brings is to the very interesting point authors have on mercenaries - they think it is stupid to "discriminate" them? This just shows how disassociated from history they are. Mercenaries are "discriminated" and put under control because these same forces were more than known to be willing to keep the wars prolonged (especially in Italian states, although Germans and Swiss were not that different) because that was good for business. Also due to the hot head nature of their captains using the marque given from the state, they could cause situations that would bring states unwillingly into the war - for the glory hunting of few, housands or millions would die.

When book was written (2017) US was thought to be leading in so many areas of military technology. Now it is visible that is not the case (to be precise they no longer have that clear advantage) - neither for land warfare nor missile technology, nor use of drones. It is very different thing to use drones in uncontested airspace than in areas under air defense (as Baryaktar can testify) or use mechanization against troops without mechanization of their own [or heavy artillery and air force].

Recent wars have shown that almost all satellites are dual purpose. In order to advertise the military industry idiots have published all in the news, from communication to taking space photos. For some reason these satellites are still untouched but in any future conflict I would not bet that foreign satellites wont be shot down while flying over certain parts of the world. This dual purpose was what you might call known secret but now it is public knowledge. Now status of some of them (especially early warning ones) is no longer guaranteed to be untouchable. Way this will mess things up (and authors are aware of it, oh yes they are) is also known fact.

Authors main argument is how no restrictions on use of new technology in war will allow defenders of the international order (comic book euphemism for West I guess) to keep that order alive and well. Otherwise they might lose the temper and throw tantrums I guess (I truly do not know how to understand the authors closing word) and use the force as they see fit when fighting opponents of that order. Which is weird because of all the talk about international regulations etc last UN sanctioned operation was 1991 Gulf War. Everything that followed, from Afghanistan, Iraq (2003), Lybia, Syria, not to mention Yemen, Yugoslavia (1999) and various Asian (air raids over Pakistan especially) and African wars were all initiated and executed by the West without any official support of non-Western countries (not participating in the mentioned wars of course). So why such a fuss about systems described in the book and requirement to have them approved and licensed by international organizations is beyond me. Drones have been used for years now, who ever opposed their use except countries attacked by them? There are a lot of works on ethics of use of remotely controlled weapons but aside the few academic or civil right groups, these are not taken seriously anywhere.

I think that authors dont mean standard international organization (like UN) when they discuss the legal ground and defenders of the international order. I think they mean Western alliances (like NATO or EU or US led alliances in Asia/Pacific). UN and likes are seen as obstructionists (which usually happens when one considers himslef way above his opponents).

Problem is that I do not see how these organizations can do better job considering they completely messed up all of their joint efforts so far - from WMDs in Iraq (oops we did it, mea culpa follwed but this did not stop destruction of this country), Afghanistan (after 20 years everything just went back to square one) to Lybia (another mea culpa) to name the few. But I guess that happens when empires are born and they think their will is the only one that matters.

World will be always divided on those who push and those who get pushed. Unfortunately this is how things go, powers that can will always push those who cannot defend themselves. But approach that authors talk about in light of events from 2017 'til say last year would mean world war in matter of days today. New polarization will take place and on both poles are states with developed industry and means to fight wars on various fronts. If people do not want armageddon then return of international institutions (like UN) will be required (as was required during the original Cold War). This might irritate west after almost 30 years of dominance [that they completely wasted] but they have created this brave new world and we all need to find ways to live in it. Fact is that unfortunately there is no way back to the old ways.… (meer)