Preventing Proxy Wars: 

To avoid the occurrence of proxy wars, nations should build coalitions and partner with their allies when choosing to get involved in a war. In doing so, nations avoid the perception of the war becoming a proxy war and have further legitimacy from the international community to pursue military intervention. Analysis of the US’s response to the usage of chemical weapons in Syria demonstrates one such instance in which the Obama administration arguably avoided a worse situation by preventing a proxy war. Factors that might have influenced the US and other Western powers’s decision-making process regarding Syria may have included concerns about humanitarian intervention breaking out into a proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia given Russia’s support for the Assad regime. Considering that the British Parliament ultimately decided to not support military intervention in Syria, there remains a very realistic possibility that perceptions of a proxy war could have emerged had the US chosen to pursue military intervention in Syria alone (Lombroso and Goldberg 2016).

A greater emphasis should be placed in evaluating the decision of whether or not to pursue military intervention. Military intervention should be perceived as the last resort, and non-military approaches, such as sanctions or diplomacy, should be first utilized to attempt avoiding a proxy war. Other institutions and opinions should also have a greater role in authorizing support for a war; for example, the US Congress could reauthorize its authorities under the War Powers Act as it did during the 2019 bipartisan resolution to end American military involvement in Yemen. Most importantly, policymakers who make decisions regarding military intervention must also take into consideration what long-term implications military intervention may have for the nation’s populace and economic and political development.For too long, military powers intervening in other nations’ conflicts have not properly considered the issues that may arise after the military conflict is over, thereby raising difficult but important questions about future governments and power vacuums.  

If military intervention in a proxy war is deemed to be a necessity, then the protection of civilians should be more heavily taken into account. While it is admittedly difficult to always differentiate between civilians and combatants given that the distinctions between them have blurred in the midst of Fourth Generation Warfare, the targeting of civilians may contribute towards ideological opposition against the intervening military force. Attacks on civilians can ultimately increase internal and external opposition to intervening in a war. This was the case for the Vietnam war, in which significant opposition to the war among Americans partly emerged as a result of perceived excessive brutality and violence in Vietnam (Walzer 2002, 928).

Dealing with Further Nuclear Proliferation:  

Non-military ways, such as sanctions and diplomacy, should be heavily utilized to deter states that have an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons from doing so. While nuclear disarmament should be the ultimate goal, maintaining the status quo is currently a more realistic objective. Maintaining the status quo for which nations possess nuclear weapons should be the minimal goal as it is not desirable for any other states to acquire nuclear weapons. To achieve these goals, sanctions can be imposed on nations that fail to live up to the terms of or withdraw from the Non-Proliferation treaty. To add to their effectiveness, these sanctions would ideally be imposed on the culpable state by a number of other states to demonstrate the international community’s commitment to non-proliferation. Through pursuing these policies, countries that are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation treaty would also be heavily stigmatized. 

While some may argue that more nations should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons because nuclear balancing would allow for more stability and prevent the polarization associated with mutually assured destruction, the fact is that the implications of a new nuclear power emerging do not end there (Walz 2012, 2). One state’s acquisition of nuclear weapons triggers a domino effect in which other states are incentivized to develop a nuclear arsenal of their own; as George Shultz summarized it, “proliferation begets proliferation” (Sagan 1996, 57). For instance, if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, both Iranian allies and adversaries could be empowered to develop their own nuclear weapons, thereby setting off a domino effect in the Middle East. With these considerations in mind, an economic and diplomatic approach to preventing future nuclear powers from emerging is the most appropriate solution. 

Confronting Cyber and Information Warfare: 

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

The emergence of cyber and information warfare has resulted in nation states being able to devise conflict for their adversaries outside the conventional battlefield, thereby evening the playing field and potentially undermining an adversary’s conventional military superiority. One such well-known example is Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Russia is not as militarily powerful as the US in the current day and age, but available technology allowed them to interfere in the US election. Because technology has evolved at a rate faster than policymakers can understand it, there is a greater need for cooperation with engineers, technicians, and academics who do understand the relevant technology (Elias 2020). The interdisciplinary and multifaceted nature of cyberwar requires that approaches to combating cyberwar and strengthening information security reflect the nature of the problem. 

The emergence of fake news in recent times has resulted in another avenue in which conflict between adversarial nations can exist. The rapid expansion of the internet and its impact on the ways in which humans communicate and get their information has changed the ways in which authoritarian regimes can undermine democratic institutions and nations. To this end, domestic factors can undoubtedly also play a role in shaping how information is perceived and whether or not access to misinformation is permitted. Further educating the public and policymakers alike about the dangers of fake news can help people deal with the issue, especially since there currently is little research about the issue (Lazer et. al. 2018, 1096).

At the macro level, both the US and the EU have begun to take steps to regulate the largest social media companies given the role that said companies have in promulgating false and inaccurate information to their respective populations. These aims can be pursued through antitrust mechanisms, thereby reducing the influence that these companies have, or through other ways like fact-checking or cooperating with the companies. Existing trends in regulating big tech companies should continue such that issues surrounding misinformation and fake news are better understood and dealt with.