Combating Climate Change

The emergence of new threats in the 21st Century arguably require strategies unlike those used during the Cold War. Among these new threats, environmental issues rank among not only some of the most pressing, but also the most unique international security issues. The problem of climate change fits the mold of an issue that marks a significant departure from Cold War approaches as climate change was not as recognized and extensively studied during the Cold War compared as it is in the present day. 

Although climate change’s nature as a collective action that is truly global in scope makes it different from most other international security issues, there are nonetheless a number of similarities with the fundamental issues facing international climate action and past lessons in international security. Parallels can be made between disarmament and climate change. Not only do approaches to both issues states primarily involve actions taken up by individual states, but distrust of other states presents itself as a significant problem in both disarmament and efforts to combat climate change. An individual state will not necessarily pursue relevant actions, be it to disarm or curb emissions, if it does not trust other states to do the same. Just as one state’s disarmament makes it more vulnerable if adversarial states do not do the same, states may not pursue emissions reducing activities that unintentionally harm their economy and make them less competitive in the short-run if other nations do not also curb their emissions. No matter what is done by one state, the very nature of collective action problems like climate change mean that there will be relatively little positive consequences if other states do not do the same (Bordoff, 2020). 

Despite the number of similarities between climate change and other international security issues, there remain a significant number of areas in which climate change is unlike more historical issues. Unlike how other international security issues have conventionally been handled, dealing with climate change will require experts and experience from different disciplines. Trends towards solving climate change are currently on the rise as much of the global economy transitions away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy. The repercussions of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may play a role in addressing climate change, not just because climate change will increase the likelihood of future pandemics, but also because of how the pandemic has spotlighted social and economic inequity and the role of government in times of crisis. Only time will tell what implications COVID-19 will have for efforts to deal with climate change, but there may be impacts on how governments and citizens work to deal with collective action problems (Davenport et al, 2020).

American soldiers in Alam Khel, Afghanistan, in 2011. (Tyler Hicks/The New York Times)

The Move to Fourth Generation Warfare 

It’s important to understand that the weapons we use and the tactics we employ have changed since the foundational theories of international security were established.  Warfare since World War II has changed due to political, economic, social, and technological factors.  The style of war fought in World War II and the Korean War is known as third generation warfare.  Third generation warfare focuses on “destruction of the enemy’s command and control and logistics as the fastest way to destroy his will to fight (Hammes 2006, 31).”  This goal was made possible by technological advancements that allowed nations to “project power over much longer ranges (Hammes 2006, 31).”  After World War II, International organizations emerged and became primary actors in the international arena, the number and diversity of nations increased, and the number of influential stateless actors increased (Hammes 2006, 34-35).  Also, the internet has spawned the latest social revolution, allowing “citizens of today’s developed nations have virtually unlimited access to the people and ideas of other cultures (Hammes 2006, 39).”  These changes have allowed states and nonstate actors to more effectively coordinate their actions without state support, leading to a fourth, and distinct, generation of warfare.  Seen in Vietnam, fourth generation warfare is more political than tactical.  Fourth generation wars are “wars of attrition, accompanied by intensive national and international propaganda to weaken… resolve (Hammes 2006, 64).”  Simply put, the U.S. rarely encounters enemies who are willing to meet them on the battlefield in a tactical sense.  Enemies aim to make the pain of fighting so unbearable and never ending that the political resolve of the U.S. gives way.  Understanding this fundamental difference in the type of battles that are fought is crucial to continued success.  However, just because the tactics and weapons have changed, doesn’t mean that states don’t respond to deterrent threats and compellent action.  It means that states must modify their tactics because old methods used to deter and compel don’t have the same effect as they once did.

Non-State Actors

One of the biggest International Security threats of the 21st century is the presence of non-state actors. These groups have created some of the largest security challenges of the last couple of decades. Some examples of non-state actors are ISIS, Al Quaeda, and the Taliban, all of which have used terrorist attacks to challenge global security. This threat is very different than those of the Cold War, which opens the argument that the lessons of the Cold War would not apply to the threat of non-state actors. While the specific strategies used against these organizations might be vastly different than those used against the Soviet Union, the overarching principles from the Cold War still apply. Non-state actors present a threat that was not present during the Cold War, but the lessons learned during this period can be applied to deal with these groups. 

There has been a drastic shift in the nature of global conflict since the end of the Cold War, for there is far less conflict between states. Instead, the most notable conflicts have been between states and non-state actors. This shift has forced many states, including the United States, to change many of their military strategies. This includes the addition of counterinsurgency strategies (COIN), that are designed to limit the threat of these terrorist organizations. While COIN is very different than the strategies employed during the Cold War, many of the principles from that era remain relevant. This includes the strategies that we focused on in our analysis, deterrence, and compellence. 

Compellence and deterrence are still very applicable to the field of international security today. There is an argument to be made that these strategies are outdated and they are more effective in the case of conflict between states. However, these lessons can be used in any conflict, even those involving non-state actors. This argument fails to recognize that non-state actors are still susceptible to these types of persuasion. The fact that compellence and deterrence are effective in two dealing with two wildly different opponents, ISIS and the USSR, proves that the lessons of the Cold War are not only relevant but profound.