In this essay I will argue that the nature of war has changed since 1945, with many of the components that contribute towards the phenomena of war being altered over time. The change in who can be involved within and start wars shows an adjustment in the very definition of war. Moreover, the clear changes in the ways in which wars have been fought since 1945 delineates a further change to the nature of war. Furthermore, the distinction between combatant and civilian being blurred further reflects a change to the essence of war since 1945.

The change in the nature of war over time can be first observed by acknowledging the modification of what exactly defines a war. Before this change over time, war was seen as mainly between two or more different states engaging in conflict against each other (Orend 2008). This was illustrated with the Second World War, with there being clear state belligerents on each side. On one side there was the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan whilst the opposing Allies were composed of the United States, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union and to some extent China (Hughes 2014). Over time however it is no longer just states that can engage in conflict and war. Instead, there are now non-state actors that can start and have significant impacts on a conflict and war (Pearlman & Cunningham 2012). One of the major groups that reflect this change is the rise in prominence of terrorist groups. These actors have gained power through the use of violence, in both conventional and unconventional ways (Simpson 2012). They have also risen in power as a result of Globalisation. This is because it has facilitated the capacity to communicate amongst like-minded individuals whilst also bolstering the recruitment tools at their disposal. Moreover, these organisations’ power can be observed by acknowledging that some States have “lost their monopoly over the utility of violence”, with these new non-state actors like terrorist groups now able to potentially have significant influence on a conflict or war (Simpson 2012). Some of the most notable groups include Al Qaeda and Islamic State (Gunaratna 2002 & BBC 2014). Al Qaeda is arguably the most prominent group, with them being known as the group who carried out the September 11 attacks in 2001 with the aim of pushing the “US into declaring war on the Islamic world” (Simpson 2012). Another component of war that illustrates a change in the nature of war is the development in the ways in which wars have been fought since 1945.

The evolution of the methods in which wars are carried out and fought demonstrates a further modification to the phenomena of war. Since 1945 there has been a rise and shift towards what is known as asymmetrical warfare. The term was first mentioned in U.S. government documents around 1995 and basically outlined the concept as “asymmetric engagements as those between dissimilar forces” (Buffaloe 2006). Differences in personnel sizes, weapons, technology, access to funds are but a few of the ways two sides may now differ significantly, all of which prompt each side to use their own strengths in order to exploit the other sides’ weaknesses (Miles 1999). The use of this type of warfare has been observed on a number of occasions since the end of the Second World War, one of which being the Vietnam War. After realising the disparity in the resources available to them, the Vietcong decided to shift its tactics that would shift the odds of success clearly in their favour. This included utilising their knowledge of the land, ambushing their enemies and implementing the use of tunnels in order to remain hidden by the United States’ technology (PBS 2014). The use of these tactics is in contrast to the United States’ use of superior technology, such as napalm, daily air strikes of bombs and the use of chemical warfare such as Agent Orange (Greig 1995 & Jones 2013). All of these different instruments of war show asymmetrical warfare at work and further show the change in the nature of war especially when looking at other means used in the past, such as symmetrical warfare. This is essentially the polar opposite of asymmetric warfare. This type of warfare generally involves two somewhat analogous forces, mainly states, fighting against each other (Pfanner 2005). So unlike asymmetric warfare, the two sides are on roughly equal ground. This was seen through both of the two World Wars, where both of the two sides used similar instruments like tanks, submarines, machine guns and artillery. Comparing and contrasting these two types of warfare shows a discernible change in the ways in which wars have been fought, thus a change in the nature of war. The line between combatant and civilian being blurred further exhibits a change in the nature of war.

The decline in the differentiation between combatants and ordinary and innocent civilians also lends support to the notion that the nature of war has changed since 1945. Throughout the 20th Century, it was expected that civilians and combatants partaking in a war were to be handled differently, with many of these distinctions later codified in the Geneva Conventions of August 1949 (International Committee of the Red Cross 2014). There was a clear difference in how to treat and interact with adversaries and non-combatants. This can be observed in both Article 51 and 54 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which both prohibited indiscriminate attacks on civilians and direct attacks on civilian populations (International Committee of the Red Cross 2014). Over time however the line between combatant and civilian has been blurred. Some theorists propose that this is in part because of the increase in the utilisation of violence by non-state actors, such as insurgents (Wood 2010). Some non-state actors may choose to cross the line and attack civilians as it may provide benefits that may help them achieve their aims and objectives, such as wanting to gain support (Wood 2010). Others suggest that this decline in differentiation has come in part because of the type of warfare used by actors. Michael Gross suggests that the propensity to attack civilians is different in symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare respectively. He proposes that within symmetrical warfare, the two roughly analogous sides have a shared interest to restrict the amount of people, who are vulnerable, being attacked. Whilst when it comes to asymmetrical warfare, both sides usually neglect this notion and use the vulnerability of a proposed wider group of society to their advantage (Gross 2009). This disregard for the rights of civilians can be observed through the recent actions of the terrorist group Islamic State. Islamic State are a terrorist group and share similar aims to that of its former partner, Al Qaeda, one such being to form an Islamic Caliphate (BBC 2014). Some United States officials believe that they have upwards of 31,000 fighters at their disposal, with more than 12,000 of those being foreign nationals not from Syria or Iraq, this includes 2,500 from Western States (BBC 2014). Their blatant disregard for human rights can be observed through them carrying out abhorrent and archaic killings, including beheadings and crucifixions, as well as mass shootings (BBC 2014). These actions have clearly impacted the death toll of Iraqi civilians within Iraq, with a United Nations report declaring that “the violence in Iraq has killed more than 5,500 civilians over the first six months of the year” (The Guardian 2014). These events show the line between combatant and civilian being blurred, thus showing a further change to the nature of war.

Throughout this essay I have delineated how there has been a clear change in the nature of war since 1945, with many of the elements of the phenomena of war being modified over time. The alteration of who can now be involved and start wars illustrates a change in the very definition of war. Moreover, the clear development of technology and the ways war are fought further demonstrate a transformation in the nature of war. The distinction between combatant and civilian being blurred further echoes the sentiment that the composition of war has in fact changed since 1945.