Explain and Illustrate the concept of "limited war" in the context of the cold war

Résumé du document

After 1945, the parallel rises of US and USSR, emerged two superpowers in competition at all levels, fighting for hegemony on the post war world. Characterized by the possession of the nuclear weapon, obtained and used in 1945 by the United States and developed in USSR in 1949, this new conflict called the Cold War, and ruled by the realist vision of international relations in which states are fighting for power through war and deterrence, generated a new sort of war: the limited war. Actually, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki underlined the fact that total war could no longer be possible. The development of "mass destruction weapons" destroyed the idea that war was a continuation of politics by other means(1) and forced the US to find another way to deter USSR than massive retaliation. Kissinger, in 1957, explained this obligation: "As the power of modern weapons grows, the threat of all-out war loses its credibility and therefore its political effectiveness. Our capacity for massive retaliation did not avert the Korean War, the loss of northern Indo-China, the Soviet-Egyptian arms deal, or the Suez crisis. A deterrent which one is afraid to implement when it is challenged ceases to be a deterrent."(2)The classical strategy wasn't working anymore; hence a new one had to be found to achieve the US objectives against the Soviet-Union. Indeed, the American strategy was characterized by what Osgood calls "the twin fears"(3) which necessitated a real action against communism.

Extraits

[...] Explain and Illustrate the concept of “limited in the context of the cold war After 1945, the parallel rises of US and USSR made emerge two superpowers in competition at all levels, fighting for hegemony on the post war world. Characterized by the possession of the nuclear weapon, obtained and used in 1945 by the United States and developed in USSR in 1949, this new conflict called the Cold War, and ruled by the realist vision of international relations in which states are fighting for power through war and deterrence, generated a new sort of war: the limited war. [...]

[...] Osgood argues that, with Korea, the US learnt that war wasn't an end itself but only a mean to an end, a continuation of politics(14). The decision of defending the Republic of Korea against the democratic people's republic of Korea was indeed driven by the purpose of containment: while the military effort was to be limited the political aim was to avoid a spreading of communism in Asia. Here, the purpose for which US fought was clearly reduced to a “well defined objective”: the expulsion of all North Korean forces from the south of the 38th parallel. [...]

[...] This reality is based on the Clausewitz's idea that war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means(10) and is well illustrated by Kaufman(11) “they offer the prospect of bringing military means and policy aims into much closer relationship than they have enjoyed for many years”. But the necessity of victories on the battlefield is also evident. The only thing is that, instead of winning to destroy the enemy, the military force fights to fulfil limited political goals, for psychological effects first. As Schelling observes: "the critical targets are in the mind of the enemy as much as on the battlefield . [...]

[...] USSR made itself collapse, with no link with the country's involvement in any limited war which confirms the fact that this sort of war is really kept in a limited area and has limited goals. As a word of conclusion, we can assert that limited war is based on five principal characteristics: a military confrontation fulfilling precise objectives, with reduced use of military means, in a limited geographic area, demanding a fractional commitment of the belligerents' resources and permitting their way of life to be preserved. [...]

[...] Actually, Henry Kissinger was speaking about “holding the conflict within the desired limits” which illustrates the fact that, in limited war, the belligerents are fighting for “specific political objectives” and not for the enemy's destruction. These goals were numerous and mostly focused around foreign policy necessities. Actually in the US case itself, the most important during the Cold War was to protect its interests all around the world, and mostly in Europe by, as we have already said, deterring USSR without loosing its credibility. [...]