Although the modern world is sufficiently civilized, war between states and within their borders remains one of the main methods for solving political problems. Despite the presence of international organizations and protective states, armed conflicts are not uncommon in Africa and the East. Some states are in a state of constant sluggish armed confrontation. This nature of modern wars and armed conflicts is increasingly found in states where ethnically diverse populations are forced to live within a common border.
Types of wars depending on the scale of the conflict
Due to globalization, the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts is gradually changing. All members of the military-political or economic bloc can be drawn into an active power conflict. And today there are three of the most high-tech armies. These are the troops of NATO, Russia and China: a hypothetical active war between the two representatives of this list will automatically be large-scale. This means that it will take place on a large territory without forming a united front of confrontation.
The second, fundamentally different type of war is a local armed conflict. It either arises between two or more countries within their borders, or flows within the framework of one state. In such a confrontation, armies of states participate, but not military blocs. It has a small number of participants and suggests a front.
Nature of the fighting
The nature of modern wars and armed conflicts can be briefly represented in the form of pairs: active or sluggish, positional or generalized, interstate or civil, conventional or illegitimate ... An active war is accompanied by maintaining the front or conducting sabotage activities, supporting constant military operations.
A sluggish war is often accompanied by a lack of meaningful clashes between opposing armies, while priority is given to sabotage activities or the rare use of remote attack weapons. Sluggish conflicts are often local and can continue even continuously in the absence of hostilities.
Such a situation is possible in regions with insufficiently formed statehood, which does not have any legitimate right or authority in order to initiate peace. The result of this confrontation is the emergence of a local “hot spot”, which often requires the presence of a foreign peacekeeping contingent.
Conventional and illegitimate wars
This classification of the nature of modern wars implies their division depending on the observance of human rights and international agreements regarding the use of weapons. For example, conflicts involving terrorist organizations or self-proclaimed states directly destroying or causing infrastructural harm to existing countries will be called illegitimate. Such are conflicts with the use of prohibited weapons.
“World arbiters” may form military blocs against participants in such conflicts with the goal of destroying organizations and armies, the tactics of waging war which are contrary to international norms and conventions. However, this does not mean that conventional wars are hotly supported.
Conventional warfare simply does not violate international rules, and the warring parties use authorized weapons and provide assistance to the wounded of their adversary. Conventional wars are aimed at preserving the civilized image of warfare, which is designed to save the maximum number of human lives.
Precision weapon
In view of the technical equipment of large armies, the priority in conflicts in which they were involved is given to a global disarming strike. This type of warfare involves a comprehensive and simultaneous neutralization of known enemy military installations. The concept involves the use of precision weapons designed to hit only military targets, providing maximum protection for civilians.
Distance wars
An important feature of the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts is the maximum increase in the distance between the opposing armies in order to conduct remote attacks. They must be carried out with the maximum use of ammunition delivery vehicles and with the minimum involvement of human resources. Priority is given to means of warfare that ensure the safety of a soldier in his army. However, those that provide maximum damage to enemy troops are used as the main military means. An example is artillery, navy, aviation, and nuclear weapons.
The ideological background of wars
In such a broad concept as the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts, OBZH as a field of knowledge emphasizes ideological preparation. This is the name of a system of values and knowledge that is natural for a certain nation or artificially cultivated. It is aimed either at creation, or brings up the goal of destroying its ideological opponents. A vivid example is the direct follower of Christianity - radical Islamism.
In the Middle Ages, Christianity as a very aggressive religion led to numerous wars, including with adherents of Islam. The latter were forced to defend their states and wealth during the Crusades. At the same time, Islam as a system of knowledge and as a religion was formed against aggressive Christianity. Since that moment, wars have acquired character not only as a means of achieving advantages in geopolitics, but also as a measure of protecting their value system.
Religious and ideological wars
Strictly speaking, after the formation of various ideologies, power confrontations began to take on a religious character. Such is the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts, some of which, as in the inhumane Middle Ages, are aimed at seizing territories or wealth under favorable pretexts. Religion as an ideology is a powerful system of values that draws a clear line between people. Then, in the understanding of opponents, the enemy is really an enemy that has no common ground.
The importance of ideology in modern warfare
Having such an attitude, the soldier is more cruel, because he understands how far he is from his opponent in understanding even basic things. Fighting armed with such beliefs is much simpler, and the ideologically prepared army’s effectiveness is much higher. This also means that modern wars often arise not only because of the desire to obtain geopolitical advantages, but also because of national and ideological differences. In psychology, this is called an overvalued idea, armed with which a soldier can forget about condescension to the vanquished and about international conventions adopted to reduce casualties during wars.
Aggressor Definition
The main paradox in the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts is the definition of the aggressor. Since in the context of globalization, many countries are part of economic or political blocs, the warring parties may have a number of allies and indirect opponents. In this case, one of the most important tasks of an ally is to support a friendly state, regardless of its correctness. This leads to international problems, some of which are provoked by distortions of reality.
Both frankly negative aspects and positive ones can be distorted. Such crises in international relations threaten war with those states that did not participate in the armed confrontation before fulfilling allied obligations. This is one of the paradoxical features of the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts. The content of the literature on geopolitics directly confirms such conclusions. Examples are easy to find in military conflicts in Syria and Ukraine.
Prospects for the Use of Nuclear Weapons
The hypothetical nature of modern wars and armed conflicts of the Russian Federation suggests the possible use of nuclear weapons. Their use can be justified by the UN Security Council both in relation to the Russian Federation and against other states. Such a development of events is possible for the reason that nuclear weapons are highly effective as a means of pre-emption and disarmament. Nuclear weapons like WMDs also have no shortcomings in terms of long-term environmental damage. That is, in the case of the use of atomic weapons in a certain territory, the defeat arises from the blast wave, but not due to radioactivity.
The nuclear reaction stops immediately after the use of weapons, and therefore the territory will not be contaminated with radioactive substances. And unlike local wars, confrontations at the global level are of a different nature. In modern military conflicts, the main approaches are reduced to the maximum protection of the civilian population of the warring parties. This is one of the main pretexts on which the use of nuclear weapons to disarm an illegitimate enemy can be justified in global wars.
Prospects for the use of other WMD
Chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the global war, as analysts suggest, will not be used. It can be used by warring parties as part of local conflicts. But an armed confrontation of a global scale, in which small states are involved, can also lead to the use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction by poorly equipped armies.
The army of the Russian Federation, China and NATO are parties to international conventions and have abandoned chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, the use of such weapons does not fully fit into the concept of a global disarming strike. But within the framework of local wars, and especially in the case of the emergence of terrorist organizations, such an outcome should be expected from non-governmental armies not burdened by international treaties and conventions. The use of chemical or biological weapons is harmful to both armies.
Military warning
The best war is the one that failed to take place. Strange, but such utopian ideals are also possible under conditions of constant “rattling” of weapons, which is often seen in the politics of Russia, NATO, and China. They often conduct demonstration exercises and improve their weapons. And in the context of identifying the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts, the presentation of military equipment and achievements should be seen in the context of a demonstration of its military strength.
This tactic allows you to show your army and thereby prevent an active attack by a potentially enemy state. For a similar purpose, nuclear weapons are now stored. It is obvious that its stock in the world is excessive, but developed countries contain it in large quantities for the purpose of the so-called nuclear deterrence.
This is one of the tactics of preventing military operations, requiring the owner of a WMD to have a sound mind and a desire to achieve diplomatic resolution of conflicts. This also confirms that the modern concept of warfare comes down to building up combat power. This is necessary in order to achieve victory with minimal consequences for their army and their own state. However, this applies to defensive wars, and in a civilized world, predominance in military power is not a sign of aggression - this is one of the tactics of preventing war.