Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare

Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare

by Colin S. Gray

NOOK Book(eBook)

View All Available Formats & Editions

Available on Compatible NOOK Devices and the free NOOK Apps.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9781780223919
Publisher: Orion Publishing Group, Limited
Publication date: 02/23/2012
Sold by: Hachette Digital, Inc.
Format: NOOK Book
Sales rank: 727,972
File size: 3 MB

About the Author

Colin S. Gray is Professor Emeritus of Strategic Studies, University of Reading. He has published thirty books on strategic matters.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare 4 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 1 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
In this fascinating book, Colin Gray, Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies at Reading University, continues the argument of his classic `Modern Strategy¿ - Clausewitz still rules. ¿Technology is important, but in war and strategy people matter most.¿ There is no golden key to military success. His argument is that war and warfare will always be with us. War has an unchanging nature but a variable character, so history is our best guide to the future. Irregular warfare between states and non-state foes may be the dominant form of warfare for some years, but interstate war, including great power conflict, is not over. The political context is the main driver of war¿s incidence and character. Above all, warfare is political, though also social and cultural. Surprise in future warfare is certain. Efforts to regulate war by international political, legal and moral measures and attitudes are worth pursuing however, perceived belligerent necessity can always trump them. His particular conclusions are unconventional but well argued: ¿the less active we are in attempting to speed reform in the Islamic world, the better. Such reform is the only comprehensively effective answer to Al Qaeda, but it cannot be imposed from outside.¿ ¿Terrorism will neither vanish nor be comprehensively defeated (technically an impossibility, since it is a mode of warfare), but it may resume its more usual position as a permanent background danger, typically of much lesser gravity than interstate war.¿ ¿nuclear weapons are useful. If they are not useful, why do the declared nuclear weapon states continue to hold them and why do others aspire to join their ranks? It so happens that biological, chemical, and radiological weapons also can be useful. The phenomenon that impedes comprehension and strategic empathy amounts to nothing less than demonization.¿ However, in contrast to these realistic judgements, he espouses the idealist notion that the US state is the prime defender of `world order¿, a notion that whitewashes all those illegal US aggressions to enforce selfish US interests. So he joins Bush and Blair in opposing `efforts to regulate war¿ - ¿we need to be careful lest an ill-advised and undue respect for UN rules and procedures is permitted fatally to obstruct the forces of order, which is to say principally the United States.¿ Bush and Blair see themselves as the sheriff and deputy of `world order¿, but why share their delusion?