In 'The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War' Stephen Van Evera talks about how it was in the days leading up to the world war 11 that the offensive strategies really came about and how since then the offensive strategies picked up pace and grew quickly to all the states around the world such as Germany, France, Britain and so on. He discusses how the states such as Germany believed that it was better to attack first so as to get the better advantage and to destroy their enemy rather than wait and defend which would lead to them getting attacked and maybe even defeated. What puzzles Evera is the fact that why states wanted to go on the offensive because in those days technology preferred defensive strategies and that defensive strategies could lead to better results rather than offensive strategies.
However in looking at Evera's argument, one could say that the offensive realists argument holds that because there is anarchy in the world and states have no idea what another state would do, so the state would not want to sit around and wait for another country to attack it and be destroyed. Rather they state (along with the leaders as well as citizens and all fractions of the state) would rather be safe than sorry and attack the state whose intentions they do not know but believe that that state would attack it.
In today's world due to the advance of several dangerous technologies such as the nuclear weapon, I believe that the offensive strategies have subsided to an extent. Any country that has nuclear technology and strike back capabilities which would lead to a destruction of both attacking state as well as defending state; total destruction of both states. Which is why there would be a deterrence of going to war.
However in looking at Evera's argument, one could say that the offensive realists argument holds that because there is anarchy in the world and states have no idea what another state would do, so the state would not want to sit around and wait for another country to attack it and be destroyed. Rather they state (along with the leaders as well as citizens and all fractions of the state) would rather be safe than sorry and attack the state whose intentions they do not know but believe that that state would attack it.
In today's world due to the advance of several dangerous technologies such as the nuclear weapon, I believe that the offensive strategies have subsided to an extent. Any country that has nuclear technology and strike back capabilities which would lead to a destruction of both attacking state as well as defending state; total destruction of both states. Which is why there would be a deterrence of going to war.
I agree with your point that offensive strategies have become less important as using weapons such as nuclear power is not anything like using weapons before. It would destroy both he sides and even the allies of the the defending and attacking states would get involved causing anarchy in the international system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said and what Van Evera believed that yhe mutually assured destruction that comes with nuclear armaments certainly plays a very important role in detterence. And that can contribute overwhelmingly to the supression of the cult of the offensive.
ReplyDeleteGood points and Van Evera's highlights how the cult of the offensive led to the outbreak of war. I like that you bring up the issue of nuclear weapons because most scholars agree that nukes are a defensive weapon first and foremost, but some people in Pakistan argue that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are primarily offensive.
ReplyDelete