What are the most significant ways in which the nature and conduct of warfare have changed since 1945?
This essay will examine the most detrimental developments in military strategy and how they affect modern warfare. The immensely profound World War 2 “one of the major transformation events in the 20th century, with 39 million deaths in Europe alone” (Kesternich, Siflinger, Smith, Winter, 2014, p. Introduction). Although it is incredibly difficult to analyse how all of warfare has changed, my topics of interest will include nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, asymmetrical warfare, non-state actors, technological military advancements, globalisation of warfare, ethical restraints, insurgency, counterinsurgency, and the decentralisation of modern conflict. The Cold War and the Afghanistan conflicts will be my primary resources when thoroughly examining how exactly war has changed since 1945. The article will be based on the premise that after World War I and II, even civil warfare is now a globalised threat, present examples being the Russo-Ukrainian and Israel-Hamas conflicts, which have developed substantial international support networks.
The end of World War 2 marked a change in the nature and conduct of modern warfare, the devastation was a result of conventional warfare yet introduced globalisation and total conflict. World War 2 is often recognised as the evolution of globalised warfare as it was the first instance on a global scale. Globalised warfare involves multiple nations with far-reaching political and economic impressions outside the targeted country. The aftermath of World War 2 established a new generation of military tactics consisting of technological advancements and financial and geopolitical dynamics, which would become present in the Cold War. Further, to understand the changes introduced by World War 2, I will briefly summarise what made it distinctive from prior conflicts. Warren Chin perfectly describes the change in modern warfare as a “scientific advancement in the form of nuclear weapons made modern war impossible, due to the lack of soldier mobilising due to technological and nuclear power” (Chin, 2019, p. Technology).
After World War 2 and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, both the United States of America and the USSR engaged in a nuclear arms race between 1947 and 1991. Both countries sought strategic advantage by developing more powerful nuclear bombs. The creation of the Hydrogen Bomb and other bombs of mass scale resulted in “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) and “Second Strike Capability,” the release of any nuclear warheads would result in an immediate reaction. There was a wide understanding that “the development of the hydrogen bombs in 1957 diminished the hope that a nuclear war could be survivable” (Moore, 2009, p. Hydrogen); the understood devastation of the nuclear warheads resulted in a deterrence.
The Cold War of 1947-1991 was one of the most prolific instances of modern warfare in the latter stages of the 20th century. The Cold War would introduce nuclear weapons deterrence programs, cyber-warfare, and advancements in other forms of military strategy. The advancements of nuclear weapons were particularly profound and would introduce the “Mutually Assured Destruction” terminology (MAD) recognising that if either the USSR or America used their nuclear warheads, there would be a catastrophic effect globally, historian Jeremi Suri alludes that “atomic war means national suicide. The ultimate delusion of the atomic era is the notion that national suicide is a feasible means of defence (Suri, 2008, p.1013). Core “politicians, generals and most academic strategies believe that Americans nuclear arsenal restricted the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War” (Lebow & Stein, 1995, p.157) further iterating the power nuclear deterrence was holding during the Cold War conflict.
Terrorism is a key element in contemporary warfare; the New Left wave of terrorism of the 1960s–1980s sought to destroy capitalist structures and American imperialism. The terrorist groups emerged amidst a globalised political upheaval, especially as a response to the Vietnam War of 1955 to 1975. The New Left wave of terrorism introduced multiple factors to the display of terrorism, including bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and hijackings, primarily of political figures.
After 1980, New Left terrorism slowly disappeared and transitioned into modern religious terrorism, which functioned from 1979 to the present day. Religious terrorism differs as it is not driven by nationalism, colonialism, or Marxist ideals. Examples of religious terrorism that resulted in a global war are the bombings of 9/11 and the emergence of the “War on Terror” and the Afghan war, which lasted 20 years. Prominent religious terrorist groups include the Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other fundamentalist religious groups. The evolution of terrorism since 1945 demonstrates how ideological and religious motives can be exceptionally dangerous, as displayed by the New Left and present religious terrorism.
David Rapaport’s “The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism” (2013) demonstrates the evolving evolution of terrorism, with crucial features to answer the question of “What changed in warfare after World War 2”. Rapaport separated each terrorist development into groups; the anarchist terrorism phase was before World War 2 and was demonstrated by the Anarchist phase, which sought to destabilise the government for an anarchist regime. The second wave of terrorism related to World War 2 is described as anti-colonial terrorism. World War 2 played a crucial component in anti-colonial movements globally as the conflict wounded European powers and spurred nationalist groups worldwide.
Rapaport’s second wave, “Anti-Colonialism”, co-occurred during World War 2 between 1920 – 1960’s. World War 2 left European countries such as France, England and other colonial powers, resulting in less military power in their colonies and independence movements having more effect. The weakening of European powers caused an insurgence for independence occurring in British India and Vietnam but also the Japanese in the Maya’s. The rise of nationalism was also a result of the weakening of states due to World War 2. The global conflict of World War 2 created a divide between Soviet Marxist-Leninist politics and American capitalism, supporting their political agendas globally, such as Soviet movements in Africa and Asia, whilst America sought to extend its influence in newly formed nations. These superpowers clashed, resulting in warfare in Vietnam and North Korea. Anti-colonialism resulted in the end of the colonial empires; India gained independence from Britain in 1947 and African independence in the 1950s and 1960s in locations including Ghana, Algeria, and Kenya from French powers, amongst others. Therefore, the destruction of colonial empires was heavily weighed upon World War 2 and its results.
The New Left wave of terrorism is Rapaport’s third wave, emerging in the 1960s until the 1980s. It originated in the socio-political upheaval post-World War 2, creating conditions for radical left movements. World War 2’s display of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany polarised the political world, polarising regimes between socialism and the United States capitalism. The Vietnam War was a direct connection between Soviet Socialist ideals and America’s prerogative to destroy socialism globally. New Left terrorism, according to Rapaport, was anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, which came to life in the Vietnam War. The New Left’s prerogative was to dismantle American capitalism and imperialism. Rapaport mentions that “the third wave radicalism and nationalism often were combined as evidenced by the struggle of the Basques, Armenians, Corsicans, Kurds and the Irish” (Rapaport, 2013, p.118), the violence of the Left Wave was demonstrated by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) “only terror could remove Israel” (Rapaport, 2013, pg.118).
Rapaport’s fourth wave is the religious wave of 1979-present day, demonstrating the drastic change in modern warfare. Jihadist movements depict how warfare has changed to a nationalist ideal to a global initiative. No longer are conflicts regional; they are now international organisations such as Al-Qaeda, founded in 1980 by Osama Bin Laden, with cells in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and many others whilst originating in the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. World War 2 can be connected to the internationalisation of conflict; before World War 2 and World War 1, warfare was region locked. The evolution of “total war” and globalised war is intertwined with modern-day conflict.
The explanation of Rappaport’s waves of anti-colonialism, New Left and Religious exemplify the influence of international, globalised, total warfare and its implications on global politics and further conflicts. Rapaport’s depictions are important in understanding modern conflicts, and his explanation of religious terrorism questions what the next form of terrorism will be and what will influence it.
Many wars after World War 2 have become de-centralised, involving local actors, militia groups and international intervention. There are now next to no conflicts that do not involve interstate support, whether economic or military forces. De-centralised warfare is difficult to resolve as they do not share traditional diplomatic resolutions. A current war that is de-centralized is the Israel-Hamas war of the present day; both sides have international support and political prerogatives. Israel is currently being supported by most of the Western world, mostly by the United States of America, whilst Yemen and Lebanon are supporting Palestine. Before World War 2, most conflicts were internalised and nation-based; the introduction of international warfare and globalisation of conflict was implemented after 1945, with one prominent example being the Korean and Vietnam wars of 1950 and 1955, respectively. This is further exemplified by a recent conflict, the Afghan war, which was significantly shaped by global powers such as Russia and the United States. There are few instances after the total war in World War 2 which are not influenced by international affairs.
The dissemination of media post-1945 developed tremendously, allowing all corners of the world to have an opinion on the current warfare. Social media, real-time reporting, and propaganda were detrimental to developing a public perception, and often, as propaganda was used, they supported their government’s prerogative. International shock reporting became a core feature in many global terrorist organisations, such as the beheadings and executions delivered by groups such as ISIS. If these forms of media were not present, the globalisation of warfare and the development of the public perception rate would not exist. Propaganda has become used by both state and non-state actors, which incurs a separate message. Terrorist organisations are now able to shock and drive fear on a global scale, which, as a terrorist, is the main agenda, using violence, fear, and intimidation to create a global message. The footage of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in 1945 “showed the world the horrors of nuclear warfare” (Moor & Moore, 2009, p. Intro), spreading fear of modern warfare and nuclear power.
Technological advancement was rapid after 1945, where “the diffusion of military technology also affected the wider economy and society, leading to a form of internal power transition” (Chin, 2019, p. technology). This is present in the yearly American military budget, which sits at 2.4 trillion dollars, paid by taxpayers’ money. This is also prevalent in the Russian and Chinese military budgets, which are $84 billion and 181 billion, respectively. This is potentiated by the “technological instruction in defence to its limits to demonstrate its military superiority” (Chin, 2019, p. economy). This arms race between America and the other superpowers is due to internationalised warfare in the Middle East and the global threat because of globalised military initiatives. The safety of the nation’s themselves is of utmost importance as the threat ever increases; this military excess before 1945 was less present as warfare was often internalised. Chin concludes, “I contend that the importance of technology increases dramatically in the conduct of war from the nineteenth century onwards” (Chin, 2019, p. reconceptualising war).
After 1945, asymmetrical warfare was introduced, which is a conflict between opposing forces in which the military differs and usually involves guerrilla attacks and unconventional warfare tactics. This kind of warfare became increasingly present after 1945 and includes wars such as the Vietnam War of 1955 and the Afghan conflict of 2001. Insurgencies in countries such as Afghanistan used ambushes and IEDs to offset military advancements, much like the traps used by the Vietcong in the Vietnam War. The Taliban was an insurgency group operating in Afghanistan while under attack by the Americans because of the 9/11 terrorist bombings. Support for such insurgency groups is incredibly common as the “Soviet Union would encourage the outbreaks and feud and provide moral support, training and weapons” (Rapoport, 2013, p.119). These forms of asymmetrical warfare are extremely prominent after World War 2 as internalised conflict became influenced by international powers, the American military budget drastically exceeded terrorist organisations and guerrilla tactics, thus asymmetric warfare. Historian places this simply that “conventional war…would take the form of sub-state violence waged by terrorists and guerrillas and bandits” (Strachan, 2000, p.345), alluding that anti-symmetrical warfare, terrorism, and guerilla groups are the future of conflicts.
The World Wars also resulted in legal, ethical, and human rights restraints because of total warfare and genocide. The Geneva Convention of 1949 established legal standards for humanitarian treatment in warfare; the treaty occurred in three stages: the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers, the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibiting torture and lastly, the protection of civilians. These laws were implemented as a direct result of Germany’s genocidal against their Jewish population. Although these laws have been implemented as a global initiative, not all countries abide by the Geneva Convention rules.
Following the genocidal atrocities of World War 2, the Nuremberg was established to hold Nazi leaders accountable for the terrible actions conducted by America, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and France. The defendants were charged for their actions, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, where thirteen of the twenty-four accused Nazi members were executed.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act of 1948 established the fundamental rights for the freedom of individuals regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or religion. The declaration is comprehensive and includes thirty articles that cover civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights further including the right to life, liberty, security, and freedom from torture. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is intended to be implemented globally, some countries do not accept the act.
The difference in warfare from 1945 to the modern day has experienced significant shifts in military strategy and conduct, spearheaded by technological advancements, geo-political dynamics, the globalisation of conflicts, and how certain conventions have sought to improve future conflicts. The introduction I have included involves the USSR and America’s involvement with nuclear weapons, leading us to concepts such as nuclear deterrence, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), and Second-Strike Capability, defining the international relationship between the USSR and America as they both understood the worldly catastrophic effects of nuclear warfare.
Additionally, I have observed the prevalence of asymmetrical warfare, including non-state actors and terrorist organisations. While highlighting the prevalence of these conflicts in the modern world, I have also given examples of the Russo-Ukrainian war and the Israel-Hamas wars of 2024. The international support for both initiatives demonstrate the internationalisation of warfare and the lack of civil, internalised warfare since 1945.
I have also included frameworks for modern warfare, such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which have emerged since World War 2, holding perpetrators of atrocious events accountable, such as the German genocides.
My explanations of such events demonstrate how the nature and conduct of warfare have drastically transformed since 1945 and World War 2, creating a re-examination of military strategies, ethical guidelines, and international support for conflict.
Understanding how modern conflict develops is crucial for understanding the complexities of warfare. This is because we live in an interconnected world with significantly divergent economic, political, and social contexts.
References:
References:
Akhtar, N. (2008). PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN, AND THE TALIBAN. International Journal on World Peace, 25(4), pp. 49–73. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20752859
Chin, W., 2019. Technology, war and the state: past, present and future. International Affairs, 95(4), pp.765–783. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz106
Kesternich, I., Siflinger, B., Smith, J.P. and Winter, J.K., 2014. The effects of World War II on economic and health outcomes across Europe. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(1), pp.103–118. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00353.
Lebow, R.N. and Stein, J.G., 1995. Deterrence and the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly, 110(2), pp.157–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/2152358.
Moore, G. and Moore, B., 2009. Threats to our nation, 1957-1959: a public health retrospective. Public Health Reports, 124(2), pp.323–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490912400221.
Rapoport, D.C., 2013. The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism. In: A. K. Michelle and L. K. Judith, eds., Terrorism in Perspective, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications, pp.111-128.
Strachan, H., 2000. Essay and reflection: On total war and modern war. The International History Review, 22(2), pp.341–370. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40108371.
Suri, J. (2008). Nuclear Weapons and the Escalation of Global Conflict since 1945. International Journal, 63(4), pp. 1013–1029. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40204434
4o
