Each civilisation, social or technological revolution gives rise to its own way of conflicts, wars and strategies. Prussian military thinker Clausewitz had noted, “Each age has had its own peculiar forms of war. Each therefore, would also keep its own theory of war.”

The industrial revolution ushered a new dimension of mass-produced weaponry. The strike capability of combat forces focused on reach, mobility, and destructive power. The length of the sword, the range of the aircraft or missile, the number of combat forces, how fast they can be committed, how deep they can be sustained, and what total damage they can cause on the adversary: all these became key combat capabilities affecting the outcome in a conflict. Such capabilities reached their near total extreme in the last half-century. This also brought about the likelihood of ‘mutual assured destruction’, if any nuclear power ever decide to go for an all out war.

A distinctive feature of the current strategic and security-related environment has been the unprecedented change in the paradigms, concepts and complexities of national security. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the rapid advances made in science and technology, particularly in the field of information technology. Secondly, globalisation, multilateralism and regionalism are replacing bilateral international relations and a straitjacketed concept of sovereignty. Thirdly, a more liberal approach to security — there is greater focus on peace, development and cooperative security, thus a greater awareness of the comprehensive nature of security. Fourthly, close monitoring of conflicts and conflict situations by the media. This ensures greater public accountability of the governments. And fifthly, the high cost of maintaining standing armed forces, costly new weapon systems and equipment, and the likelihood as well as abhorrence of very high civilian and military casualties and destruction.

... contd.