Conventional warfare is presumably the ultimate mode of conflict, and often extends from economic measures of one type or another. In warfare, some situation of conflict has perhaps gotten out of hand. At the same time, economic dealings may contain the seeds for more severe conflict. Peace is not necessarily arrived at through consensus, but may be an outcome coincident with defeat and subjugation. Therefore, a swift victory through physical combat may at times appear to be the most direct pathway to peace; perhaps this is a view of the devil's advocate.

Michael Guest ,

Thank you very much for your insightful and perceptive answer. I really appreciate it, especially the way you suggest causality and the possibility of a chain reaction effect. Best regards.

A successful war can extend a state's economic might. In the 2nd World War the USA loaned a considerable amount of money and as a victor gained control of several post war markets, at the same time as containing older rivals. It had expanded its economic base during this period in part as a consequence of not itself being invaded. Its pre-war rivals industries were bombed and at times destroyed.

That said, the USA would have gained the same position if peace had prevailed although its progress would have been slower as a consequence of isolationism and determination not to get involved in world affairs.

A model that goes wrong can be seen in South Korean, Japanese and American stimulation of the Chinese economy in order to beef up world trade thereby promoting Chinese supremacy by default.

When conflict festers and economic or diplomatic sanctions fail, a structured and time-tied military action could be required to force adversaries back to the negotiating table. As increasingly seen in the recent wars, a militaristic defeat is not the end of hostilities, only a structured ,just ,equitable and fair process can guarantee sustainable peace. Without these, whatever perceived peace achieved by force remains a negative peace.

We should distingish two cases:

First is when there is no breach of peace yet:

To use conventional warfare is to use the armed forces against another state. That is an act of aggression and breach of peace. Economic measures as such are not breaching the peace, despite the fact that they may potentially lead to the situation that threatens international peace and security. This is why e.g. economic countermeasures, in contrast to military countermeasures, are not unlawful in international law. If your ideal is world peace then economic measures are more suitable as military measures because of armed force corrupt the aim per se. The only case when military measures may be used is upon UN Security Council resolution if the situation in case is likely to escalate to a breach of the peace or serious violations of human rights etc. In such cases, if the UN Security Council can prevent such harms by measures involving the use of armed force, then they should be taken. Otherwise, economic measures should prevail.

Second is when the breach of the peace is already there:

Than military measures may contribute to quicker resolution of an armed conflict and maybe potentially more efficient than economic measures. e.g. war between to states may take years, even though other states are imposing economic sanctions on aggressor. The result is a prolonged war with a high number of casualties and suffering of civilians. If the other states decide to military aid the defending state through so-called collective self-defence this may lead that the aggressor will understand that it has no chance and will decide not to proceed with aggression, alternatively, the armed conflict will end in a much shorter period of time.

Conventional warfare and economic warfare (if such a concept exists) are applied in different ways. Economic warfare requires a joined up approach that is not subject to typical partisan conflicts as well moreso than conventional warfare. A greater degree of political trust in the military leadership is required with conventional warfare and those on the battlefield need to have confidence in the political leadership as do those who are at home and not fighting. Conventional warfare is waged against a budget and therefore political and financial pressures. It is unlikely economic warfare will result in casualties (although not always true). Economic warfare requires a political appetite to exert influence on a country and its population in ways that might oppose the Geneva Convention and result in breach of International Law. International Law might not be mature or modern enough to allow states to fight an economic war efficiently. Are economise and businesses too interdependent to ensure efficiency of economic warfare and if so is that why states often prefer conventional warfare? Would an economic war have prevented the Civil war in Syria and brought Assad to the diplomatic table? Possibly not...

Conventional warfare uses forceful military means and operations to resolve political crises. The economic war involves relatively softer means of pressure to change unacceptable policies. Undoubtedly, this strategy is preferred by civilized societies. The choice and combination of these strategies is always political. The two strategies are closely interlinked. Economic contradictions are the dominant (though not the only) cause of conventional conflicts. However, their results always lead to different effects for the countries involved. The winners gain and the losers lose the resources they have. When choosing an appropriate strategy, decision-makers must take into account their limited resources to achieve the desired goals. Thus, conventional war is not without its economic grounds.

To some extent, it depends on the enemy, its identity and its size. As Mary Kaldor and many other scholars would agree, contemporary conflicts involve numerous (often unpredictable) actors and hybrid warfare. Thus, relying separately on economic expertise or conventional warfare could be limited. I think an adaptive method is needed according to the enemy.

Share

"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the height of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the height of excellence."

- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Dear people,

Aggressive brutality is not a usual trait of humanity. It is exception, observed in psychopathic persons.

“We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise,” says Proctor. Even though knowledge is ‘accessible’, it does not mean it is accessed, he warns...the knowledge people have often comes from faith or tradition, or propaganda, more than anywhere else.”

We should help all the people to reach real knowledge about evolution of human civilization. It is available already.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338149356_THE_PHILOSOPHICAL_REFLECTIONS_ON_HUMAN_HISTORY_INTERPRETATION

Konstantin M. Golubev

Let's be all united for peace: https://youtu.be/KVBf1goHN1Y

Peace is a prerequisite for human progress. Happy International Day of Peace, everyone! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360000943_Flawless_Peace_Alphabet

To WW3 or Not To WW3, That is The Question!... to Ask Scholars, in light of the Wars and Conflicts threatening the World's Security. https://www.researchgate.net/post/To_WW3_or_Not_To_WW3_That_is_The_Question_to_Ask_Scholars What Work of Pedagogy, Explanation, Teaching, and Analysis the Scholars of the World must undertake, to generate Peaceful Narratives likely to promote the Defusing of Current or Potential Conflicts in all Areas under tension. Twelve Paramount Red Spots have been inventoried [1]: (i) Europe vs. Russia (C1); (ii ) China vs. Taiwan (C2); (iii) South Korea vs. North Korea (C3); (iv) Pakistan vs. India (C4); (v) Japan vs. China (C5); (vi) Japan vs. North Korea (C6); (vii) Greece vs. Turkey (C7); (viii) Israel vs. Middle East (C8); (ix) U.S. vs. China (C9); (x) U.S. vs. Russia (C10); (xi) U.S. vs. Russia Allies in Latin America (Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela) (C11); (xii) U.S. vs. Iran (C12). What are the Historical Facts that support these Conflicts? The Ins and Outs that drive them? the Global Security Issues they Involve? Possible and Impossible Solutions to Imagine? What Conciliation Steps should be put in place to Avoid Possible Escalations and Encourage Their Defusing? This Discussion, intended to be Academic, aims to Stimulate Reflections, Analyses, and Opinions, to constitute a Platform for Exchange between Scholars likely to bring about Prospects for Peace in the World.

[1] Ruiz Estrada & Mario Arturo, 2022 "Welcome to the World War 3 (WWIII), Available at

Preprint WELCOME TO THE WORLD WAR 3 (WWIII)