Citation

Galtung J. J. Peace Res. 1984; 21(2): 127-139.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1984, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338402100204

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The article argues that the most important cut in the range of possible reactions to an attack is not between weapons of mass destruction and conventional defense, nor between military and non-military defense, but between offensive and defensive means of defense. Defensive weapons systems are defined as those that have a limited range and destruction area and for that reason can (essentially) only be used on one's own territory; offensive weapons systems are all the others. The distinction is based on their objective properties, not on subjective declarations or perceptions. Three types of defensive defense are then described: conventional military defense, para-military defense and nonmilitary defense -- a good non-provocative or inoffensive defense should then be based on all three. The concept is explored further and some objections are discussed, the most important being that a minimum interdiction capability is indispensable, and that it would be offensive by the criterion used. The conclusion is that the defensive character will have to rest on the overall posture. The concept developed is then related to similar concepts in the rapidly emerging literature in this field in Eastern Europe.