(CJ450) Understanding Terrorism Week 1 Discussion Post

Content type

User Generated

Type

Homework

Uploaded By

gbcbspynff

Pages

Rating

Terror and Total War

Question A

Question B

Total war is “warfare that uses all possible means of attack, military, scientific, and

psychological, against both enemy troops and civilians” (Total War, 1966). It was the prevailing

military doctrine applied by combatant nations during the Second World War. Allied and Axis

military planners specifically targeted civilian populations. In the cases of German and Japanese

strategists, the war was fought as much against indigenous populations as against opposing

armies. The massacres and genocide directed against civilian populations at Auschwitz, Dachau,

Warsaw, Lidice, and Nanking and countless other atrocities are a dark legacy of the 20th century.

An important doctrine of the air war on all sides was to bomb civilian populations, so that the

cities of Rotterdam, Coventry, London, Berlin, Dresden, and Tokyo were deliberately attacked. It

is estimated that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed, respectively,

70,000 and 35,000 people (Jablonski, 1965).

References

Total War. (1966). Webster’s new twentieth century dictionary of the English language,

unabridged (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Publishers Guild.

Jablonski, E. (1965). Flying fortress. New York, NY: Doubleday.

In your opinion and based on our readings, is the practice of total war by individuals or

small and poorly armed groups different from its practice by nations and standing armies?

How so or how not?

In our reading, we understand that total war is defined as “force indiscriminately applied

to destroying the military targets of an enemy combatant to absolutely destroy them.” (Martin,

2013, p. 60) Also in our reading, we understand the term combatants as it encompasses

“conventional or unconventional adversaries who engage in armed conflict as members of

regular military or irregular guerrilla fighting units.” (Martin, 2013, p. 49) I believe this

particular discussion question opens a great number of doors for healthy discussion and even

debate.

In my opinion, the practice of total war by individuals or small and poorly armed groups

is not different than the practice by nations and standing armies. I feel that small and poorly

armed groups have just as much if not more motivation to conduct acts of terrorism that would

ultimately result in total war. If the purpose of total war, which is explained in its very definition,

is to destroy military targets of enemy combatants, small armed groups certainly have the

capability to destroy such targets. The question also remains, are small and poorly armed groups

an indiscriminate force that is also applying terrorist tactics against noncombatant targets; if in

fact they are, this would encompass the ideation of total war/unrestricted terrorism.

The practice of total war conducted by nations and standing armies is a powerful force

that acts and reacts in well-trained and synced manners. If the difference was to avail between

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Terror and Total War Question A Question B Total war is "warfare that uses all possible means of attack, military, scientific, and psychological, against both enemy troops and civilians" (Total War, 1966). It was the prevailing military doctrine applied by combatant nations during the Second World War. Allied and Axis military planners specifically targeted civilian populations. In the cases of German and Japanese strategists, the war was fought as much against indigenous populations as against opposing armies. The massacres and genocide directed against civilian populations at Auschwitz, Dac ...
Purchase document to see full attachment