Transarmament: from Offensive to Defensive Defense
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338402100204 |
| Author | Johan Galtung |
| Date | 01 June 1984 |
| Published date | 01 June 1984 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Transarmament:
from
Offensive
to
Defensive
Defense*
JOHAN
GALTUNG
Berghof
Stiftung,
West
Berlin
The
article
argues
that
the
most
important
cut
in
the
range
of
possible
reactions
to
an
attack
is
not
between
weapons
of
mass
destruction
and
conventional
defense,
nor
between
military
and
non-military
defense,
but
between
offensive
and
defensive
means
of
defense.
Defensive
weapons
systems
are
defined
as
those
that
have
a
limited
range
and
destruction
area
and
for
that
reason
can
(essentially)
only
be
used
on
one’s
own
territory;
offensive
weapons
systems
are
all
the
others.
The
distinction
is
based
on
their
objective
properties,
not
on
subjective
declarations
or
perceptions.
Three
types
of
defensive
defense
are
then
described:
conventional
military
defense,
para-military
defense
and
nonmilitary
defense
—
a
good
non-provocative
or
inoffensive
defense
should
then
be
based
on
all
three.
The
concept
is
explored
further
and
some
objections
are
discussed,
the
most
important
being
that
a
minimum
interdiction
capability
is
indispensable,
and
that
it
would
be
offensive
by
the
criterion
used.
The
conclusion
is
that
the
defensive
character
will
have
to
rest
on
the
overall
posture.
The
concept
developed
is
then
related
to
similar
concepts
in
the
rapidly
emerging
literature
in
this
field
in
Eastern
Europe.
1.
Reactions
to
an
attack
The
word-pair
’offensive/defensive’
is
prob-
lematic,
but
also
crucial.
In
an
effort
to
have
a
fresh
look
at
the
whole
problem
of
security,
a
figure
giving
a
spectrum
of
reactions
to
an
attack
on
a
country
may
be
useful
(Figure
I).
The
spectrum
is
one-dimensional
which
means
that
it
is
simplistic,
possibly
too
simplistic
-
but
it
may
nevertheless
be
useful.
At
the
bottom
end
there
is
no
resistance
at
all
in
case
of
an
attack;
at
the
top
end
total
destruction
-
of
oneself
as
well
as
of
the
attacker.
In
between
are
all
other
forms
of
reactions
-
the
spectrum
includes
all
’wave-
lengths’, so
to
speak.
The
basic
thesis
of
this
article
is
simply
that
almost
all
the
current
debate
concerning
which
Figure
I.
A
spectrum
of
reactions
to
attack
*
The
ideas
developed
in
this
article
should
be
seen
in
a
broader
context
of
alternative
security
policies.
My
book
on
that
topic,
There
Are
Alternatives!
(Spokes-
man,
Nottingham,
1984)
from
which
the
present
article
is
taken
and
references
to
current
literature
are
added,
is
an
effort
to
develop
a
more
com-
prehensive
approach.
This
is
important
lest
one
is
led
to
believe
that
the
road
out
of
the
present
highly
dangerous
situation
is
a
question
of
new
types
of
military
hardware
only.
I
am
indebted
to
Nils
Petter
Gleditsch
and
Jan
0berg
for
helpful
editorial
comments.
reactions
to
make
use
of
is
focussed
on
two
major
cuts
along
this
dimension,
between
nuclear
and
conventional
arms
on
the
one
hand,
and
between
violent
and
non-violent
reactions
on
the
other.
The
latter
is
the
distinc-
tion
around
which
not
only
pacifism
but
also
large
sections
of
the
peace
movement
are
organized:
the
rejection
not
only
of
nuclear
arms
and
other
weapons
of
mass
destruction,
but
also
of
violence
in
general,
meaning
all
To continue reading
Request your trial