Invulnerability without Threat
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338201900301 |
| Author | Dietrich Fischer |
| Published date | 01 September 1982 |
| Date | 01 September 1982 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Invulnerability
without
Threat:
The
Swiss
Concept
of
General
Defense*
DIETRICH
FISCHER
New
York
University
The
notion
of’military
strength’
must
be
divided
into
two
different
concepts.
One
is
offensive
power,
the
ability
to
inflict
harm
on
others
or
to
exert
threats.
This
stimulates
the
arms
race
and
is
detrimental
to
international
security.
The
other
is
defensive
power,
invulnerability,
the
ability
to
resist
harm
intended
by
others,
which
strengthens
international
security.
This
paper
classifies
various
measures,
both
military
and
non-military,
intended
to
protect
national
security,
along
the
offensive-defensive
dimension.
Among
the
defensive
measures
considered
is
the
potential
for
self-sufficiency
in
vital
sectors
of
the
economy,
such
as
food
and
energy,
during
an
emergency,
as
an
alternative
to
reliance
on
obtaining
such
supplies
from
abroad,
if
necessary
by
force.
It
is
then
examined
to
what
extent
the
Swiss
concept
of
general
defense
corresponds
to
a
desirable
model.
Ways
are
proposed
in
which
a
country
can
contribute
to
international
peace,
without
risking
its
security
through
unilateral
disarmament,
through
a
form
of
’transarmament’,
a
shift
to
purely
defensive
measures,
which
do
not
reduce
the
security
of
others,
but
may
indeed
strengthen
it
as
well.
1.
Introduction
With
the
ever
increasing
destructiveness
of
modern
weapons,
especially
nuclear,
bio-
logical
and
chemical
weapons,
the
world
faces
the
danger
that
a
future
world
war
could
bring
an
end
to
human
civilization,
or
even
human
life.
To
prevent
this
is
the
most
urgent
task
of
all.
Most
ordinary
people
want
peace.
But
in
the
approaches
to
safeguarding
peace,
people
differ.
Some
seek
’peace
through
strength’,
through
overwhelming
military
superiority
over
their
opponents.
But
if
both
pursue
that
goal,
this
only
leads
to
an
uncontrolled
arms
race
and
ultimate
inse-
curity
for
all.
Others
advocate
unilateral
disarmament
as
a
form
of
peace
initiatives.
Yet
history
has
shown
that
defenseless
na-
tions
easily
fall
victim
to
aggressors,
regard-
less
of
their
proclaimed
neutrality.
Is
there
a
way
out
of
this
dilemma?
One
approach
to
international
security
is
negotiated
mutual
disarmament.
Unfortun-
ately,
the
recent
history
of
disarmament
negotiations
has
proved
this
approach
to
be
a
failure,
partly
because
of
the
lack
of
a
supranational
entity
that
can
enforce
agree-
ments
reached.’
Yet
there
exists
an
alterna-
tive.
Countries
can
maintain
their
own
se-
curity,
without
contributing
to
an
arms
race,
by
concentrating
on
pure
defense.
This
strengthens
their
own
security,
with-
out
posing
any
threat
to
others.
This
paper
will
explore
these
concepts,
and
examine
to
what
extent
Switzerland’s
approach
to
national
defense
corresponds
to
them.2
Section
2
differentiates
between
the
two
components
of
the
notion
of
’military
strength’:
invulnerability
and
the
capability
to
inflict
harm
on
others.
Whereas
being
invulnerable
is
a
desirable
attribute,
posing
a
threat
to
others
is
seen
as
undesirable.
The
two
are
quite
different,
but
they
have
long
been
confused,
and
this
confusion,
whether
intended
or
accidental,
has
had
dangerous
&dquo; :1
preliminary
version
of
this
paper
was
presented
at
the
Conference
on
Militarization,
Development
and
Alternative
Strategies
for
Security,
Lysebu,
Oslo,
May
25 - 27,
1981.
I am
grateful
to
Johan
Galtung
for
many
inspiring
discussions
and
valu-
able
insights
into
the
concepts
and
theories
under-
lying
this
paper,
and
to
the
Human
and
Social
Development
Program
of
the
United
Nations
Uni-
versity,
whose
support
facilitated
the
undertaking
of
this
study.
I
also
wish
to
thank
Richard
Falk
and
Robert
Johansen
for
helpful
comments.
Further
comments
will
be
greatly
appreciated.
206
consequences.
Section 3
discusses
the
dis-
tinction
between
offensive
and
defensive
arms,
with
a
number
of
examples.
Section 4
lists
some
non-military
approaches
to
na-
tional
defense
which
will
be
part
of
total
defense.
Section
5
considers
as
an
example
the
Swiss
concept
of
general
defense,
and
examines
to
what
extent
it
corresponds
to
a
desirable
defense
policy.
Section
6
offers
some
concluding
remarks.
2.
Threat
vs.
invulnerability
Boulding
(1978,
p.
33)
states
that
he
uses
’the
word
&dquo;strength&dquo;
not
in
the
frequently
accepted
sense
of
the
ability
to create
strain
through,
for
instance,
violence,
but
in
terms
of
the
ability
to
resist
strain’.
He
mentions
that
this
ambiguity
in
language
has
created
real
difficulties
in
thought
about
these
pro-
blems.
The
confusion
between
the
two
mean-
ings
of
strength
or
’military
power’
as
the
ability
to
inflict
harm
on
others
and
the
ability
to
resist
harm
intended
by
others
can
be
observed
in
the
call
by
certain
military
circles
for
the
acquisition
of
offensive
arms
which
threaten
the
security
of
other
nations
in
the
name
of
’defense’.
But
even
some
members
of
the
peace
movement
have
fal-
len
victim
to
this
confusion
if
they
advocate
unilateral
disarmament
in
order
to
reduce
tension
in
the
world.
To
demand
that
a
nation
be
weak
so
as
not
to
pose
any
threat
to
others
is
to
confuse
’posing
no
threat’
with
’being
vulnerable’.
To
bring
clarity
into
this
confusion,
a
diagram
adapted
from
Menger
( 1934)
can
help.
He
categorized
people
into
those
who
tend
to
hurt
others
(’unh~flich’,
meaning
literally
impolite
or
inconsiderate)
and
those
who
don’t
hurt
others
(‘hoflich’,
i.e.,
polite,
considerate).
He
further
distinguished
be-
tween
those
who
are
easily
hurt
(‘empfind-
lich’,
literally
sensitive,
in
the
meaning
of
being
easily
offended,
intolerant)
and
those
who
are
not
easily
hurt
(‘unempfindlich’,
in
the
sense
of
being
tolerant).
This
yields
the
four
categories
shown
in
Figure
1.
Figure
1.
Menger’s
categorization
of
people’s
character
Menger
then
analyzes
what
types
of
people
can
get
along
with
each
other,
and
which
cannot
stand
each
other.
He
finds,
among
other
things,
that
people
who
are
considerate
and
tolerant
can
get
along
well
with
everybody.
People
who
are
incon-
siderate
and
intolerant
cannot
even
stand
others
of
the
same
type,
only
people
who
are
both
considerate
and
tolerant.
The
following
is
a
classification
of
na-
tions,
which
is
in
a
sense
analogous
to
Menger’s
classification
of
individuals.
It
is
to
be
seen
as
an
isomorphism,
not
an
anthropomorphism.
I
do
not
in
any
way
imply
that
there
are
considerate
or
inconside-
rate
nations,
only
possibly
their
leaders.
Figure
2.
A
classification
of
nations
A
nation
is
invulnerable
if
it
has
both
the
capability
and
the
will
to
defend
itself
against
any
potential
threat.
Neither
of
these
two
ingredients
alone
is
sufficient.
Similarly,
a
nation
is
aggressive
only
if
it
both
possesses
offensive
arms
and
also
has
To continue reading
Request your trial