IR-meaning, nature and

importance

MA BADILLO
CAS Faculty
ESSU
Importance
 The world has become a global village
due to technological advances

 Therefore, an event in one part of the

world has an immediate effect on the
other part

 All the states in the world are now under

compulsion to interact with each other
Importance
 International relations existed since long
among different states like Egypt, Greece
and china but they were based on morality
and were not scrupulously observed

 These earlier relations were among the

neighbors and they may precisely be called
“ regional relations”. It was only in
seventeen century that the states
established relations beyond their regions
Importance
 The improvement in the means of
communications, and the industrial revolution
further brought the states together

 At this time the study of IR was mainly concerned

with the study of diplomacy, law and philosophy

 Today the relations among the states are

interdependence, and IR enables us to
understand the motives of individual states and
problems faced by the world
Importance
 IR teaches us that peace could only be
achieved if the world actors subjectively
solve the problems faced by the world
politics like excessive nationalism and
narrow national interest

 Modern theory of IR demonstrates that the

traditional concept of sovereignty has
become outdated and needs modification
Meaning of IR
 The term “international” was for the first
time used by Jeremy Bentham in the
later part of eighteen century

 Consequently, the term IR was defined

as officials relations between the
sovereign states. However some
scholars include economic, social and
cultural relations in it
Meaning of IR
 There are two views regarding the meaning of IR, one is Broader
and the other narrow

 Those who take narrow view assert IR include only “the official
relations conducted by the authorized leaders of the state”

 To them relations like trade, financial interaction, missionary

activities, travel of students and cultural relations do not fall in the
domain of IR

 Professor Dunn takes a narrower view and define IR as “the

actual relations that take place across national boundaries or as
the body of knowledge which we have of those relations at any
given time”
Meaning of IR
 Those who take broader view of IR include, apart
from official relations, all other relations among the
states like movement of people, goods an ideas

 Quincy wright says “it is not only the nation which

international relations seek to regulate. Varied
types of groups-nations, states, governments,
people, regions, alliances, confederations,
international organizations, even industrial
organizations, cultural organizations shall be dealt
within the study of IR”
Meaning of IR
 Professor Hoffmann says “ international
relations is concerned with the factors and the
activities which affect the external policies and
the powers of basic units into which the world is
divided”

 It comes from the above that international

relations is not only concerned with official
relations among the states but it also covers the
all those factors and organizations which affect
the external relations of a nation
IR and international politics
 Scholars of international relations have ignored
the distinction between IR and International
politics and they consider them as identical

 E.H Carr, Quincy Wright treated the two as

identical. However some writers have tried to
draw a distinctions between the two. To them
IR is the totality of relations and therefore a
wider term which includes politics, war,
diplomacy, economy and even culture
IR and international politics
 On the other hand International politics is concerned
with diplomacy and the relations among states and
other political units

 International politics include only those aspects of IR

in which conflict of purpose or interest is involved

 In its broadest sense IR is comprised myriads of

contacts among the states, people, organizations and
groups however all these relations are regulated by
the governments of the states and in this sense IR
and international relations become identical
Scope of IR
 In modern world the scope of IR has greatly expanded.
Initially it was the study of diplomacy. Later on
international law became the subject matter of IR. It
became more wider with the establishment of league of
nations and the study of international organizations was
also included in IR

 The scope of IR expanded during the second world war

with emergence of USA and USSR as super power, the
multiplications of nation states, the danger of thermo-
nuclear war, increasing interdependence of states and
rising expectations in the people of the underdeveloped
world
Scope of IR
 Greater emphasis was made on the scientific study of IR
which developed methodologies and introduction of new
theories

 Today IR includes the study of behavior of political actors

and groups and it has an extensive scope

 On the other hand the writers seem divided on the scope

of IR and as Alfred Zimmern says that IR is not a discipline
but a combination of History and political science. It is
heavily dependent on other disciplines and has so far
failed to develop a coherent body of knowledge
Scope of IR
 According to Organski “as a science, IR
today is in its infancy, it is still less a
science than a mixture of philosophy
and history and its theories are
shockingly unstable”
 Modern states-system
-organic kaleidoscope
 Historical forces of wealth, demography, military power,
personal ambitions and ideology – shifting patterns of
alliances and enmity
 Component pieces of the picture alter in size
 States grow, then shrivel; they rise and decline in power
over the ages
 IR attempts to understand how the various patterns work:
1. single state becomes powerful - dominant
2. several great powers with minor allies can be kept in
balance with each other
3. rapid changes can be manages without the violence of
war
 Nature of the Cold War
-produced a simple pattern
-Two states, US and USSR, dominate most of
the planet
-bar magnet – IS led to a clustering of minor
states round the two superpower poles
- BIPOLAR WORLD was rendered even simpler
by two other factors:
1. ideological hatred which kept the two ends
determinedly poles apart: CAPITALISM and
COMMUNISM were mutually repellent
2. Possession by both powers of nuclear weapons
 Any attempt by one superpower to neutralize the
strength of the other would probably entail mutual
annihilation.
 Dual balance of power was sustained by the
balance of terror

COLD WAR was characterized by three major

features:
-geopolitical relationships
-ideological tensions
-arms race
 The following quotation places the cold war in
historical perspective:
There are the present time to two great nations in
the world…I allude to the Russians and the
Americans…the Anglo-American relies upon
personal interest to accomplish his ends, and
gives free scope to the unguided strength and
common sense of the people; the Russian centers
all the authority of society in a single arm. The
principal instrument of the former is freedom; of
the latter, servitude. Their starting point is
different, and their courses are not the same; yet
each of them seems marked out by the will of
Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe.
-Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835
 csSecond World War- this forecast became a
reality and the two giant powers became bitter
rivals
 1950- Two power blocs became solidly in place
 US spawned military , naval and air bases
across both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
-command system integrating the forces of
North America and the Western Europe – NATO
 Non-aligned movement of Afro-Asian states
also grew up to prevent the Third World from
being attracted to its magnetic field of either the
American-dominated or the Soviet-dominated
worlds
 Spheres of influence
 US –Latin America
 Soviet Union- Middle East and Africa
 John Foster Dulles – non-alignment was
immoral
 Struggle between good and evil
 Righteous and should be supported
 Power political rivalry
 Intensifying element of ideology
 Teachings of Karl Marx- secular creed-
alternative to spiritual religions
 Heaven, paradise and nirvana
 Promise or threat of revolution- challenge to
existing orders
 Communist governments-authoritarian style
 Western World hostile to the ideology
 Soviet leaders-”We will bury you”
 Pres Reagan – “evil empire”
 “Cold War” – “cold” - “hot”
 Verbal confrontation
 Only one sp is involved
-US vs Vietnam, Ussr vs Afghanistan
 Conventional weapons
 1947-90 CW period
 Taut sp relations – could hardly fail to be a
dominant influence in IR during the cw period
 Some members were less wholly loyal or
committed
 Constant sub-zero temp
 Tension was occasionally wound up
 Relations were happier – American, Soviet,
British and French leaders- Geneva Summit
Conf
-International politics is often considered the realm
of power politics.
-world government
-realists – IP is a struggle for power
-liberals – sought alternatives – to organize
-constructivists

 What are the causes of war?

- What, if anything, can be done to preserve and
promote international peace?
 It is a perspective portraying international
relations as inevitably a realm of conflict and
competition for power among states.
(Shimko,K 2016)
 “peace through strength”
 National political campaign
 “through”
 It reflects a commitment to power politics, a
perspective in which international politics
inevitably entails “perceptions of insecurity;
struggles for power, the use of Machiavellian
stratagems; the presence of coercion;
attempts to balance power; and the use of
war to settle disputes.”
 Guiding assumptions
 Nations have two options: 1. alternatives –
probable suicide on the one hand and the
active playing of the PP on the other.
2. imperatives and logic of international
anarchy compel states to pursue power.
 Is there an alternative to power politics?
Kenneth Waltz tells us that “the state among
states…conducts its affairs in the brooding
shadow of violence…some states may at any time
use force,” so “ all states must be prepared to do
so – or live at the mercy of their militarily more
vigorous neighbors.”

ANARCHY LEADS TO POWER POLITICS

International society is anarchic, meaning that
there is no world government with the right,
obligation, or capacity to protect nations.
 United Nations – IGO
 Nations have no alternative but to protect
themselves as best as they can.

 Why do nations in international society worry

about their power and groups within nations do
not?
 Is it because nations come into conflict,
whereas as people and groups within nations
live in harmony?
 Is it that people within domestic societies are
never threatened with violence, whereas
nations are?
 Nations differ greatly in their level of
domestic violence

 Domestic societies – conflicts occur in a

context with central political authority – public
agencies are organized to prevent and
counter the private use of force.
 “Difference lies not in the use of force but in
the different modes of organization for doing
something about it.” (Waltz)
 A national system is not one of self-help.
The international system is.
-the necessity for actors to make provisions for
their own security in the absence of any central
authority to protect them from potential threats.
-an inevitable component of anarchy
-security dilemma-logical consequence of self-
help.
 States can protect their security by relying on
their own resources, or they can combine
power with others.

 Every nation must fend for itself – utilize their

power – increase their power

 Mere existence of states claiming sovereignty

in a world without central government creates
a dynamic that encourages competition and
violence .
 SECURITY DILEMMA – logical consequence
of SH
 This is the dilemma that nations face
 When the actions taken to make one nation
feel more secure inevitably make other
nations feel less secure.
 One nation’s security is often another’s
insecurity
 Anarchic Insystem, nations have to worry
about the capabilities and intentions of other
states.
 Easy part is determining capabilities
Power Politics 1:THE BALANCE OF
POWER
 Power and balance of power
 Ability to prevail in conflict, to influence the
behavior of other actors.

 States have two kinds of power: military power

and latent power – closely related but not
synonymous
 Latent power refers to the socioeconomic
ingredients that go into building military power –
based on state’s wealth-overall size of the
population-raw potential
 Balance of power – refers to a situation in
which two nations or alliances are roughly
equal – favorable balance of power –
suggests that power is not balanced at all.
-here the term refers to a distribution of
power
-X and Y
Balance of power theory- the grand old theory
of international relations
-predicts that states will do exactly what the
theory’s name suggests – balance against the
power of other states.
-increase power or band with other states.
 These options are often referred to as internal
and external balancing.
 Bandwagoning – joining forces with the
stronger power-unlikely according to bptheorists
 Illustrative metaphor: seesaw
 When less powerful actors align with the most
powerful ones. Inconsistent with balance of
power theory, which predicts that nations will
align (and hence “balance”) the most powerful
nation.
 Tendency for states to balance – has the
benefit of contributing to peace and stability.
 Argument is straightforward – antagonists are
roughly equal in power – neither side can be
confident of prevailing – neither is confident of
victory - initiating war will be low, although it is
never zero.
POWER POLITICS II: Balance of Threat
Theory
-assumes that states focus on the power
of other states because intentions are
unknowable.
-those with the greatest capabilities pose
the greatest threat and balance against
them.
-Great Britain and France-
-states make assessments of both power
and intentions
 Alignment pattern of the early cold war: most
nations aligned with the US rather than the
Soviet Union bec the latter was seen as more
threatening despite its more limited power.
 WWI and II coalitions defeated Germany and
its allies grew to be far more powerful. –
Germany and its allies were more threatening
though weaker and caused others to form a
more powerful coalition in response.
 Important caveat: nations balance against
others that are perceived as posing a threat,
and assessments of threat may be wrong just
as measurements of power can be mistaken.
POWER POLITICS III: Preponderance
Theory
 States are distinguished by their degree of
power and degree of satisfaction
 DS – refers to whether a state is satisfied or
dissatisfied with the current international order
and its place in it.
 DP – refers to a state’s position in the
international power hierarchy – that is,
whether it is a great power, a middle-range
power, or a weak state.
 A theory arguing that nations tend to align on the
basis of interests – those that are satisfied with the
status quo as opposed to those that are
dissatisfied.
 Peace and stability are more likely when there is a
great imbalance of power in favor of the status quo
states – that is when there is a preponderance of
power in support of the existing order.
 4 types of nations:
1. The powerful and satisfied
2. The powerful and dissatisfied
3. The weak and the satisfied
4. The weak and dissatisfied
 Top of the power hierarchy: dominant power or
hegemon
 US at the end of WWII – last major war
victor/hegemon
 Hegemon – status quo power interested in
preserving the existing order
-great powers
-middle powers
-small powers
-and dependencies
-illustration of differences
WAR AND DEMOCRACY
 Democratic Peace Theory
 Variety of reasons why democracies might be
less willing or able to wage war
 All versions share the basic prediction that
democracies will not wage war against one
another.
 Absence of any wars

 Spread of democratic political institutions

 1989 – the first time majority of the worlds
population lived under some form of
democratic govt.
 Overall trend of global democratization – US
 D – is associated with greater respect for
human rights
- GD is welcomed as a triumph – values
- a matter of national interest
- related to capitalism, free markets, and
trade – spread contributes to global prosperity
- US has an interest in peace- it is more
peaceful
- D is more peaceful than nondemocracies is
widely accepted – article of faith – perhaps the
only “iron law” of IR
The Sources of Democratic Peacefulness

 Immanuel Kant – Liberal International

Theory
 Perpetual Peace – that the emergence
and spread of “republican” or liberal
democratic political institutions would be
accompanied by the emergence of a
zone of peace among them – republican
or democratic pacific union.
-democracies will not wage war against
other democracies
 Basic observation – people are citizens, not
subjects
 Mechanisms that allow the desires and
interests of citizens to influence govt policy –
including decisions about war and peace
 More to lose than to gain from war
 Pp are generally unwilling to support policies
that do them harm
- so dangerous an enterprise
- would mean calling down on themselves all
the miseries of war – doing the fighting,
supplying the costs of war, making good the
ensuing devastation, burden of debts
 Rational or Pacific public thesis – democracies
are more peaceful because their foreign
policies reflect the desires of an inherently
rational and peaceful public.
 View is no longer popular – support and
enthusiasm for war – WWI
 Kant was not content – important features of
democracies- political power and decision
making are distributed in a manner that
presents obstacles to war making. - cultural
constraints widespread adherence to certain
values
 Institutional Thesis – emphasizes that
democratic political systems are usually
characterized by a dispersion of political power
– undemocratic systems – concentrate power
in the hands of a single person or small elite –
Louis XIV, Joseph Stalin, Kim-Jung II

 What are the essential

features of democracy?
 D- competing political parties, elections,
public opinion, separate government
institutions that limit the executive’s freedom
of action, legislatures possess budgetary
authority, leverage over anything that
requires expenditures – US Checks and
balances
 dispersion of power makes it difficult for
democracies to do anything
 A certain degree of consensus is required
for democratic govts to act – radical or
controversial
 More difficult to go to war
 Political-cultural thesis – a variant of
democratic peace theory that sees political
and cultural norms or peaceful conflict
resolution as the most important reason that
democracies are less likely to wage war,
especially against each other.
 Very few resort to violence once they lose in
the political arena – example: Al Gore
loyalists did not circle the White House on Jan
2001 – to prevent G. Bush from moving in
 D requires consensus that conflicts be
resolved without force
 What is democracy?
 Any definition would encompass nations such
as the US, Phils, Japan and India
 What makes a country democratic?
 What are the essential features of
democracy?
-regular elections for major govt offices
-competitive pol parties
- near-universal adult suffrage
-certain basic political and individual rights
 Some measure of peacefulness: number of
wars that nations are involved in
 What is a more meaningful indicator of
peacefulness?
 What about covert operations, threats of
force, military interventions that fall short of a
formal state of war.
 Peacefulness of society is broad and will
differ on the measure chosen
 Are democracies more peaceful?
 Democracies are more peaceful than
nondemocracies – can be traced to Kant’s
vision of a ‘democratic pacific union’ in which
democratic states would refrain from war in
their relations with each other.
 End of Cold War and the dramatic spread of
democracy in the 1980s and 1990s, there
has been renewed interest in DPT among
academics and policymakers alike.
 DPT has two major variants:
1. Institutional variant- division or dispersion of
power in democratic states makes it very
difficult for them to initiate and wage war.
2. Cultural version- argues that the norms and
values that permeate democratic societies
esp to the commitment to resolving political
disputes without resort to force, also shape
the foreign policies of democratic states.
There is no example of an unambiguously
democratic state engaging in war with another
unambiguously democratic state.
 Critics and skeptics are unconvinced by the
evidence
 Rarity of war and rarity of democracy
 Lack of war between democracies is neither
surprising nor compelling
 Mcdonalds’s peace thesis; underlying point is
critical: empirical correlation is not sufficient
grounds for inferring a causal relationship.
 War and lottery: nonoccurrence of an event is
surprising only if there was a good reason to
expect it in the first place.
 Spread of democracy will provide a real-
world test of DPT in the coming years
Key controversy: Is war part of human
nature?
 Uncontrollable force that drives people to
engage in warfare
 Opposing view sees war as a culturally
learned practice, a forms of collective
violence and not a manifestation of
aggression.
 Combination of nature or nurture
 Man is an aggressive creature will hardly be
denied.
 292 years of peace in the last 5600 years
And during that time , more than 3.5 billion pp have
died in, or a result of, more than 14,000 wars.
 Military and civilian casualties and from the
common consequences of war – disease,
famine, and civil violence.
 War is the second-leading cause of death in
human history
 For some: Element of human nature that leads to
war is an INNATE AGGRESSIVE DRIVE OR
INSTINCT
 Greed, irrationality, or group-forming tendencies
 Human nature imply: inevitability of war
Aggression, Instincts and War
 Philosophical and theological assumptions
about HN are simply foundational beliefs one
either accepts or rejects.
 Attempts to trace the origins of human
aggression and war to biological and
physiological instincts
 Sigmund Freud argued that pp have a life
instinct(eros) and a death instinct ( thanatos),
with aggression resulting from the deep-
seated death instinct
 Other side: those who see war as LEARNED
BEHAVIOR – culmination of a socialization
process that encourages to think aggression,
violence and other social groups in ways that
make systematic killing acceptable, even
desirable in some situations.
 War does not come “naturally” like s e x – it is
something that people learn and must
sometimes be coerced to do it is more like
slavery and wearing black to funerals
 Disagreements about the relationship between
war and human nature are specific examples
of age-old nature versus nurture debate.
 View of HN: “Men are not gentle creatures who
want to be loved, and who at most can defend
themselves if they are attacked; they are on the
contrary, creatures among whose instinctual
endowment is to be reckoned with a powerful
share of aggressiveness…manifests itself
spontaneously and reveals man as a savage
beast.”
 The most influential instinctual theories of war –
ethologists (those engaged in the study of
animal behavior)
 Some books (Morris, Tiger, Fox, Ardrey)portray
WAR as a manifestation of an aggressive
instinct that humans share with other animals.
 Most prominent proponent: Konrad Lorenz:
On Aggression: provided the intellectual and
theoretical foundation – observation about the
near-uniqueness of human slaughter;
 why do humans fight with one another, why
do they frequently kill one another?
 INSTINCT – a psychologically and biologically
predetermined behavioral response to
external stimuli. Example: hibernation
 Lorenz and Morris – instinctual from learned
behaviors by the presence or absence of
biological or physical “symptoms”. Example:
sexual arousal – attractive mate
 For L and M it is significant that aggression
and fighting are also accompanied by
physiological changes such as
 rapid breathing
 Elevated bp
 Accelerated heart rate
 Higher levels of adrenaluine
 A cessation of food digestion
 Muscle tension and
 Various neurological changes
 These are all indicators of an instinctual
response
 Ethologists view Instinct in ET: emerge and
survive bec they serve useful purposes – it is
adaptive- they help assure the survival of a
species- fear, sex, hunger, and aggression.
 E see aggression as fulfilling several useful
functions: 1. spacing – tendency of animals to
disperse themselves over a given territory so
as to prevent overpopulation and depletion of
resources.
2. hierarchy – the unequal distribution of
power and authority in an animal-grouping.
Linked to reproduction
3. defense of the young
 Critical puzzle is not why human beings fight
each other but why we kill each other.
 Lethal aggression: all animals fight with their
own kind; the difference is that they rarely kill
members of their own species-this is the
genuinely puzzling thing about war.
 Culture, Social Learning and War
 Views: War is the inevitable result of human nature
-“war has been a constant of human history”
-Others are struck by war’s rarity , not its constancy
 In any given year, vast majority of people are at peace, not
war.
-Does this sound like A,La,war are an integral part of HN?
-War is a rare event, inevitability and connection to HN can be
called into ?
 More compelling to view aggression, lethal aggression and
war as the result of social learning, cultural norms,
conditioning, peer influence, and other environmental forces
that shape our behavior.
 PATTERNS IN THE HISTORY OF WAR AND
PEACE
 These themes formed the foundation of the
realist approach to international relations.

 The recurrence of war and conflict between

civilizations, peoples and empires
-armed struggle
-alliances is based on short-term need or
convenience
-historical inevitability
-prudent are prepared for it
The rise and fall of civilizations and
empires
 Explanations are many and varied
 Fate is often linked to the emergence and
decline of a single great ruler or the
dynasty established.
 Empires have been subject to conquest
either at the hands of other empires or
from invasion by barbarian peoples
 Empires suffer from internal decline due
to a combination of economic failure,
social decay, and the costs associated
with protecting a growing territory.
The recorded political history of the world is
primarily the history of the activities of
great civilizations, empires and states

 H is made by the powerful

 H can be described in terms of the
machinations of hegemonic powers,
civilizations, great powers, or empires
that dominated all others.
The development of an intellectual
tradition on statecraft, drawn from
historical experience

 Advice to leaders –kings, princes, or

emperors – privilege of only a very few
individuals
 revealing about these writings is the
extent to which they share common
themes about the nature of the conduct
of IP.
The rise of political geography and geopolitics

 Before WWII diplomatic historians conducted

most of the research on international affairs.
 They studied historical patterns and the
leaders and officials of empires and states
 Political geographers developed theories that
promoted the decisive influence of geography
on state power in general and the calculations
of decision makers in particular.
 Political geography or geopolitics – use of
geographic explanations or arguments to
characterize political decisions or advocate
certain policies.
 Most famous – Sir Halford Mackinder and Alfred
Thayer Mahan
 Geopolitical thought – has a profound influence
on the conduct of many states and has served as
the cornerstone for many national security
strategies including those of the European
imperial powers, Nazi Germany, and the US
during Cold War.
 Beginning of 20th century was a time of general
peace and growing prosperity.
 Except the RUSSO-Japanese War (1904-05)
 No major war in Europe since 1970
 International dev-long-term peace was in the
offing
Sir Halford Mackinder
 British geographer who wrote a famous paper
on “geographical pivot of history”
 He argued that the world could be divided into
3 regions: the Heartland (at the center of
Eurasia); the Interior or Marginal Ring
(Europe, Middle East, southern and northern
Asia); and the Ring of Islands or Outer
Continents (North and South America, Africa,
and Australia)
 Geographic pivot was the Heartland
 Geopolitical calculations: whoever controls
the Heartland controls the World
Island(Europe, Asia and Africa); whoever
controls the World Island controls the world.
 Russia must not be permitted to expand into
the Interior Ring –Russian world domination
 This theory was influential in Europe-
Germany, US to contain the Soviet Union
 Alfred Thayer Mahan
 American Naval strategist
 The Influence of Sea Power on History 1660-
1783 influenced the naval doctrines of the US
and the European imperial powers
 Central conclusion: naval powers rather than
land powers were dominant in history
 Principles of naval strategy and naval warfare
remained constant
 Key to state power lay in powerful naval forces
supported by a network of overseas
possessions and naval bases.
 From these possessions and bases, naval
forces could dominate the seas, and with that
dominance came control of the merchant traffic
of the world.
 Influence was felt in Europe in the struggle for
naval mastery between Great Britain and
Germany and in the US where it provided aa
rationale for American imperial expansion
during and after the Spanish-American War.
 World War I
 Generally marked by the assassination of the
heir to the throne of the Astro-Hungarian
Empire, Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand at
Sarajevo on June 28, 1914
 Assassination set in motion a series of actions
and reactions that led the European powers to
war
 Europe had divided into two hostile alliances:
Triple Alliance of Germany, Austro-Hungary, and
Italy
Triple Entente of Great Britain, France and Russia
 Military defeat, economic chaos, collapse of
Russian war effort and the Bolshevik rev
 Consequences were enormous
 More than 13 people had died and millions more
were wounded
 State, nationalism, and the Industrial Rev had
combined to create a lethal mix
 Three empires had collapsed Austro-Hungarian,
Russian and Ottoman and new independent
nations emerged-
 Nationalism intensified
 Fascism as a major political movement
 US emerged as a global power but slowly turned
to isolationism with respect to E affairs
 As Richard Overy has remarked,
“To be able to wage total war
states would have to mobilize all
the material, intellectual, and
moral energies of their people; by
implication the enemy community
as a whole – its scientists,
workers and farmers – became
legitimate objects of war.”