ot lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they can’t solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesn’t promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even

Post-modern warfare is a new term used to justify the new type of warfare, whereby it is fought with precision weapons with minimal collateral damage and extensively improved types of immediate information (speed of sending info), surveillance and of equipment for locating targets. This new type of warfare has been possible due to the new military technology available, the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) and the information technology.

Now you may ask yourself “What is the difference between post-modern warfare and the traditional war?” Who is responsible for its development and creation? And most important, other than its lesser implications on collateral damage comparing to traditional warfare, how valid or legal is it for it to be practised on sovereign nation-states?

To answer the two first questions pose no difficulty, while the last question can be found to be very debatable. To start off, post-modern warfare development and the ideas can be traced back a fairly long time ago. The usages of catapult and far distant weapons that can fire their weapons against the army are examples of weapons that shield the people who are firing them from getting killed or hurt. The usage of these weapons was to destroy the enemy with getting the least damage to one self. Although these weapons were not as precise and mobile as todays, lets say airplanes and ships; they were a sort of a foundation for this new age in warfare. Like John Donne a metaphysical poet mentioned sometime during the 1500’s giving recognition to the catapult and long-distance artillery saying that we are moving into a new era of warfare which can bring less bloodshed to future wars.

Skipping forward a few hundred years we can see as the technology in the military developed. At the beginning of the 1970s the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) which still operates today is observed to developing a technology for the use in military that aims at decreasing casualties or death to people. It seeks to control what ever it is attacking.

This new type of warfare has been made possible thanks to the RMA, the programme created for the sole purpose of returning war to the West to its position as the prolongation of politics by other means. As the two superpowers during the Cold War were competing, the only way they could confront each other was with nuclear weapons which they couldn’t use. This created a stalemate and opened up for developing of conventional or non-nuclear weapons that the other side did not have. The advantage of these weapons was that they actually could be used. These weapons could be applied only in certain ways and with some restrictions. They had to be politically and morally approved and accepted by different charters and human rights laws and declarations.

Also, in order for this new type of weaponry to be accepted they need to be more effective and efficient in comparison to the traditional warfare before the post-modern one. The necessity to avoid human losses of the people who are actually firing these weapons was one of the factors to its efficiencies. Retaining these people as far away from the battlefield frontiers to decrease, if not fully eliminate, the risk to them. Decreasing collateral or civilian damage by providing better accuracy or precision on the target is usually second on the priority list. This all means war that has to be fought needed to be as bloodless, risk-free and precise as possible.

The US military is seen as having a much greater technological advancement than any other nation in the modern world and is the founder of these great new technologies. Always one step ahead of the rest, the US military lies overwhelmingly militarily-technologically advance than any other nation. That is why it’s running a monopoly in this new technology for military! As the only one with this capacity of waging war in this way it could give you the expression of them being the “World Police”. Other people disagree with the image of the US as the “World Police” claiming US foreign policy is aimed at helping nations in need and restoring their government to follow the democratic polices. There are now self-interests in any countries they are involved in.

Their claim that through these less bloody actions of post-modern warfare (more victims but less severe) peace can be brought about in the world where conflicts arise. How authentic is this statement actually, considering what the US has done in Serbia (Kosovo), Iraq and Afghanistan? But disregarding their aims are we aware and how can we justify or validate these sorts of actions. Yes, the US military and NATO have not lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they can’t solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesn’t promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even

hem from getting killed or hurt. The usage of these weapons was to destroy the enemy with getting the least damage to one self. Although these weapons were not as precise and mobile as todays, lets say airplanes and ships; they were a sort of a foundation for this new age in warfare. Like John Donne a metaphysical poet mentioned sometime during the 1500’s giving recognition to the catapult and long-distance artillery saying that we are moving into a new era of warfare which can bring less bloodshed to future wars.

Skipping forward a few hundred years we can see as the technology in the military developed. At the beginning of the 1970s the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) which still operates today is observed to developing a technology for the use in military that aims at decreasing casualties or death to people. It seeks to control what ever it is attacking.

This new type of warfare has been made possible thanks to the RMA, the programme created for the sole purpose of returning war to the West to its position as the prolongation of politics by other means. As the two superpowers during the Cold War were competing, the only way they could confront each other was with nuclear weapons which they couldn’t use. This created a stalemate and opened up for developing of conventional or non-nuclear weapons that the other side did not have. The advantage of these weapons was that they actually could be used. These weapons could be applied only in certain ways and with some restrictions. They had to be politically and morally approved and accepted by different charters and human rights laws and declarations.

Also, in order for this new type of weaponry to be accepted they need to be more effective and efficient in comparison to the traditional warfare before the post-modern one. The necessity to avoid human losses of the people who are actually firing these weapons was one of the factors to its efficiencies. Retaining these people as far away from the battlefield frontiers to decrease, if not fully eliminate, the risk to them. Decreasing collateral or civilian damage by providing better accuracy or precision on the target is usually second on the priority list. This all means war that has to be fought needed to be as bloodless, risk-free and precise as possible.

The US military is seen as having a much greater technological advancement than any other nation in the modern world and is the founder of these great new technologies. Always one step ahead of the rest, the US military lies overwhelmingly militarily-technologically advance than any other nation. That is why it’s running a monopoly in this new technology for military! As the only one with this capacity of waging war in this way it could give you the expression of them being the “World Police”. Other people disagree with the image of the US as the “World Police” claiming US foreign policy is aimed at helping nations in need and restoring their government to follow the democratic polices. There are now self-interests in any countries they are involved in.

Their claim that through these less bloody actions of post-modern warfare (more victims but less severe) peace can be brought about in the world where conflicts arise. How authentic is this statement actually, considering what the US has done in Serbia (Kosovo), Iraq and Afghanistan? But disregarding their aims are we aware and how can we justify or validate these sorts of actions. Yes, the US military and NATO have not lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they can’t solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesn’t promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even

ld confront each other was with nuclear weapons which they couldn’t use. This created a stalemate and opened up for developing of conventional or non-nuclear weapons that the other side did not have. The advantage of these weapons was that they actually could be used. These weapons could be applied only in certain ways and with some restrictions. They had to be politically and morally approved and accepted by different charters and human rights laws and declarations.

Also, in order for this new type of weaponry to be accepted they need to be more effective and efficient in comparison to the traditional warfare before the post-modern one. The necessity to avoid human losses of the people who are actually firing these weapons was one of the factors to its efficiencies. Retaining these people as far away from the battlefield frontiers to decrease, if not fully eliminate, the risk to them. Decreasing collateral or civilian damage by providing better accuracy or precision on the target is usually second on the priority list. This all means war that has to be fought needed to be as bloodless, risk-free and precise as possible.

The US military is seen as having a much greater technological advancement than any other nation in the modern world and is the founder of these great new technologies. Always one step ahead of the rest, the US military lies overwhelmingly militarily-technologically advance than any other nation. That is why it’s running a monopoly in this new technology for military! As the only one with this capacity of waging war in this way it could give you the expression of them being the “World Police”. Other people disagree with the image of the US as the “World Police” claiming US foreign policy is aimed at helping nations in need and restoring their government to follow the democratic polices. There are now self-interests in any countries they are involved in.

Their claim that through these less bloody actions of post-modern warfare (more victims but less severe) peace can be brought about in the world where conflicts arise. How authentic is this statement actually, considering what the US has done in Serbia (Kosovo), Iraq and Afghanistan? But disregarding their aims are we aware and how can we justify or validate these sorts of actions. Yes, the US military and NATO have not lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they can’t solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesn’t promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even

een as having a much greater technological advancement than any other nation in the modern world and is the founder of these great new technologies. Always one step ahead of the rest, the US military lies overwhelmingly militarily-technologically advance than any other nation. That is why it’s running a monopoly in this new technology for military! As the only one with this capacity of waging war in this way it could give you the expression of them being the “World Police”. Other people disagree with the image of the US as the “World Police” claiming US foreign policy is aimed at helping nations in need and restoring their government to follow the democratic polices. There are now self-interests in any countries they are involved in.

Their claim that through these less bloody actions of post-modern warfare (more victims but less severe) peace can be brought about in the world where conflicts arise. How authentic is this statement actually, considering what the US has done in Serbia (Kosovo), Iraq and Afghanistan? But disregarding their aims are we aware and how can we justify or validate these sorts of actions. Yes, the US military and NATO have not lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they can’t solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesn’t promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even

ot lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they can’t solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesn’t promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even ever.