War is a stable and most acute phenomenon of resolving social conflicts, and thus attracts the attention of philosophers of various historical eras. Philosophers approach the study of war from different angles: someone talks about the moral side, morality, religion, psychology, and someone considers the relationship of war with industrialization, the use of science and technology. Technological development is moving forward and in this regard, the problem of war does not lose its relevance. The current state of development of military technologies and the sufficient openness of states to innovations are new challenges for philosophy. Today, understanding war is impossible without understanding what reasons determine the readiness of states to accept the concept of revolution in military affairs (RVD) and what contributes to the successful implementation of the latter.

Philosophers talk about war

The attitude towards war in the scientific and public consciousness is extremely wide: from complete denial and condemnation to open recognition of it as the most important instrument for solving international problems. According to the Russian philosopher-educator of the eighteenth century. V.F. Malinovsky, the origins of the war lie in the construction of people into an absolute of their differences, leadership in behavior by ignorance and double morality. From his point of view, as long as people think that the difference between peoples makes people different, wars will continue. In his understanding, peace is only a rest from war.

In his work “Recognition of a Slavophile”, F.M. Dostoevsky reflects on the moral paradox of war and its purpose and comes to the conclusion that it is the achievement of eternal peace, war in his understanding is a forced disaster, the result of which is the spiritual rebirth of people and good. Is it fair to say that the ultimate goal of the militarization of science is also the peaceful existence of states? Is it possible to speak of a moral paradox in the context of the militarization of science? Can militarization be regarded as a necessary measure for the benefit of the peaceful existence of states? If we follow the logic of F.M. Dostoevsky, then yes, the militarization of science, based on spiritual considerations and the need to ensure the security and prosperity of the people, has a positive meaning. In the language of a philosopher, the militarization of science cannot be evil.

Andrei Evgenievich Snesarev, author of the work "Philosophy of War" considers the problem of the continuity of wars. The study of the position of this military theorist is interesting for us in connection with his views on the relationship between industrialization, which occurs due to the fruitful development of science, and the incitement of wars. Considering the possibility of the finiteness of wars, Snesarev turns to the economic justification. Even A. Smith wrote that a decrease in the militancy of peoples will occur as a result of economic development. A similar position was also held by O. Comte, G. Spencer with his idea of ​​"industrial societies" as less aggressive societies. From the point of view of G. Bockl, the war begins because of the barbarian countries, which are deprived of the modern results of intellectual activity. However, Snesarev himself is rather skeptical about the idea of ​​​​reducing aggressiveness as a result of industrialization, believing that industrialization is capable of reducing the aggression of states to a certain limit, but as a result, industrialized countries may turn out to be much more aggressive.

In his historical and philosophical ideas about the war, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev, one of the most prominent representatives of the galaxy of Russian thinkers of the 20th century, perceived the war as a spiritual phenomenon and treated the supporters of the war "to the bitter end." He put the purposeful formation of national consciousness as the preservation of national identity into the basis of the war and considered it as an inevitable "struggle for the domination of a different spirit in the world", while noting both sides of the medal of nationalism. He considered the inevitability of war from the point of view of the religious philosophy of history: "War is an immanent punishment and an immanent redemption." From his point of view, the unleashing of war and the end of the world is the Last Judgment, but the judgment is not as God's punishment, but as an immanent consequence of the paths of evil that man himself creates. War in itself is not evil, but it exposes the evil that comes from man. In this regard, Berdyaev sharpens the problem of the social responsibility of the actors of the historical process for the ongoing positive and negative events in history, saying that the war begins and continues in the people themselves and gives rise to a “militarized” person who is alien to the ideas of evangelical morality. Berdyaev was looking for the meaning of the war and its justification, but he came to the conclusion that the war is meaningless, "there is a desecration of the meaning, irrational and fatal forces operate in it". Berdyaev calls the victory over the enemy the only goal of the war. He proposes to replace the question of the meaning of war with the question of its causes and tasks. From the point of view of the philosopher, the nature of war is undergoing such a transformation that it will imply an increasing involvement of the people as a whole in the war. Berdyaev is sure that the outcome of wars depends on the psychology of peoples. Developing this idea, F.A. Stepun, another religious thinker of the 20th century, spoke about the phenomenon of “concrete moralism” of people, which he explained by the different attitude and permissibility of actions in relation to the neighbor and to the state, as to an impersonal beginning. A dismissive and suspicious attitude towards the state forms the basis of the gap between society and the state, and the inability of the state to establish a constructive dialogue with society inevitably leads to a weakening of the military and defense potential of the state. In his philosophy, Berdyaev pays great attention to the transformation of war in the conditions of technogenic civilization. Thus, he noted the change in the usual ideas about war as a phenomenon that has its own morality, and that "the combination of militarism and industrial capitalism" leads the war to totality. Berdyaev associated the concept of militarization with the blurring of the demarcation line between the active army and the rear, which meant the maximum involvement of all national resources in the war, and the acquisition of a war of a public and popular nature, when there is universal military service and mobilization of all popular forces takes place. Of great importance for a new type of war was industry, technology, science, and the general spirit. According to Stepun, the First World War revealed the need for partial nationalization and state regulation of the economy in the national interests, since the mobilization ability of the fruits of capitalism did not justify itself: “military setbacks on the fronts and the food crisis in the rear showed the unpreparedness of most Russian entrepreneurs, both agrarians and industrialists, to sacrifice their economic interests in the interests of the country. An important place in Berdyaev's philosophy is occupied by the analysis of the significance and consequences of the wide use of the achievements of science and technology for military purposes. The thinker notes in an original and correct way that the threats lurk not in scientific achievements per se, but “in the asynchrony of the pace of the material, technical and moral and spiritual development of society” and the crisis experienced by a person of the discrepancy between the mental and physical organization of a person and modern technology, which entails toughening of methods of war, mass casualties, spatial expansion of hostilities. Berdyaev characterizes modern war as depersonalized, with vague ideas about military ethics, heroism, valor, where there is no winner, because in the arms race everyone refuses to be defeated and destroyed, if not from a physical, then from a spiritual point of view.

Against the background of statements that war is evil, Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov wrote that the meaning of war is not limited to defining it as a disaster, and, of course, it cannot be considered a normal phenomenon, but it must be admitted that it is a necessity under certain conditions: “The war was a direct means for the external and an indirect means for the internal unification of mankind. Reason forbids throwing this weapon while it is needed, but conscience obliges us to try so that it ceases to be needed. The German philosopher G. Hegel believed that war heals the morality of a society that rots and decays with a long peace. Freud Z. believed that war is a destructive attraction to self-destruction and death, an attempt at the psychological self-preservation of the people.

An attempt to classify wars on the basis of the criterion of justice and moral categories was not successful, since different peoples have their own understanding of what is fair and unfair in war, moral and immoral in it. The ideological (formational) and civilizational classifications of wars were also subjected to great criticism. To date, the most developed classification of the “generation of wars”, which is based on a mixture of social and technical parameters of wars, but which does not have scientifically based criteria for such a typology of wars.

Reflections on war lead philosophers to the question of the demilitarization of the world community. Various spheres of society's life were considered as ways to this: politics, international relations, culture, spiritual and moral foundations. V. Solovyov saw the achievement of militarization through the complete integration of Asian and European cultures through a war between the historical West and the historical East. In contrast to him, Berdyaev saw the solution of the problem of militarization by overcoming the slavery of a person as opposed to national-state necessity and wrote that the individual is higher than state power. The problem of demilitarization is faced with the education of people with militaristic thinking, which is based on preparing a person for current and future wars. Such attitudes of educating a “military” person permeate science and culture, the sphere of education and the mass media.

The problem of militarization of science through the prism of philosophy

The viability of a military revolution depends on society's tolerance for militarization, in particular the militarization of science. In order to achieve greater social tolerance, the boundaries between the negative and positive perception by society of this form of manifestation of the interaction between the state and science are being erased. Society's tolerance for the militarization of science lays the necessary and stable foundation for the implementation of the concept of the WFD in any state.

Science, like military confrontation between states, between individual communities of people, is an integral part of the life and development of mankind. Science for almost the entire history of mankind has been interconnected with war, in the sense that, on the one hand, scientific knowledge did not ignore the presence of such a phenomenon as war, but, on the contrary, saw it as an object of study, sought to explain the nature, causes and characteristic features of war . At the same time, on the other hand, the achievements of scientific thought, primarily the applied developments and inventions of scientists, even those created for exclusively peaceful purposes, were ultimately directly or indirectly used to ensure the conduct of wars. Since the 19th century, this symbiosis has become all the more evident, since scientific and technological progress has become the most important factor in winning the war. The state in every possible way motivates, and sometimes directly sets goals for the scientific community to participate in military preparations and ensure defense capability. But, recognizing the objectivity and predetermination of the relationship between science and war, is it possible to speak of some special phenomenon of the militarization of science?

In accordance with the definition of the explanatory dictionary, militarization (from Latin militaris - soldier, military, military) is the subordination of economic, political and social life to military goals and the transfer of methods of military organization to the field of public relations. Thus, this concept does not contain a denial or a negative assessment of war as a phenomenon in the life of society. At the same time, militarization is a dynamic process, the result of which is the establishment of war as the dominant development of society, the maximum mobilization of the material, human and intellectual resources of society for the needs of self-defense (a manifestation of the positive ethos of militarization) or aggression (respectively, the manifestation of its negative ethos). In terms of impact directly on science, militarization can manifest itself in the following phenomena:

• Militarization and militarization of scientific discourse: any accumulated knowledge is considered primarily in the context of benefit or harm to the combat capability of the state and nation. Useful knowledge and methods are actively accepted for consideration, systematization and subsequent discussion, i.e., according to Lakatos, they are included in the research program or, according to Kuhn, in the scientific paradigm, while harmful ones are denied, hushed up and discriminated in various ways in various ways.
• Militarization of scientific activity: the process of cognition is subject to the needs of ensuring defense capability, is implemented in conditions of mobilization
• Militarization of scientific institutions: the academic community receives negative and positive incentives for the types of scientific knowledge and activities that correspond to the actual military needs of the state. This can be implemented both in the form of coercion (deprivation of research or even personal freedom), and in the form of encouragement with grants, orders, an increase in social status, etc. A special role here is played by the impact on the ethos of science, in particular, by suggesting the importance of the current historical moment, promoting the priority of the state interest over the personal, removing moral and ethical barriers and denying the humanistic principles of scientific ethics. Indirectly, the processes of militarization of science are also influenced by the general situation in a society waging war or experiencing real or imaginary threats of military aggression, since, as noted above, scientists are also part of society and face its problems directly.

Raising the issue of the militarization of science, we touch upon a common problem that lies at the very center of the ethics and philosophy of science - the problem of evaluation, which underlies the perception by society of this form of manifestation of the interaction between the state and science. In this context, the militarization of science can be considered as an acceptable and unacceptable component of science, an erroneous or correct direction of its development, receive the approval of society or be condemned by it. From the point of view of Stephen Toulmin, a British philosopher and founder of the post-positivist concept of the development of science, we can raise the question of the standards or criteria that determine value judgments and the influence of these criteria on the real power and consequences of evaluations in both the moral and intellectual spheres. The philosopher says that considering the system of moral assessments as a whole implies the study of criteria in two dimensions - sociological and historical, and notices that the concept of morality is different over different historical periods. In this regard, in a moral assessment of the militarization of science, one must take into account the historical development that determined the viability of this phenomenon and its long existence within the framework of science.

Speaking about the problem of the militarization of science, one must take into account the various interpretations of this concept. As the French philosopher, a representative of philosophical hermeneutics, Paul Ricoeur, wrote, there is a difference between what is brought into the understanding of the term and how different people interpret it. Regardless of what methods of understanding are guided by, understanding will continue to be intuitive. This is due to the fact that the one who comprehends the phenomenon experiences it through his imagination, sympathy, professional affiliation, intellectual outlook. The differences in the explanation and understanding of the militarization of science lies primarily in the correlation of two opposing positions with two different spheres of reality. From this arises the multiplicity of human interpretations of the militarization of science. Differences in the interpretation of the concept and the conflict of interpretations are not a disadvantage, but rather an advantage of understanding this phenomenon, since they allow us to more fully consider the militarization of science, to study its various aspects and from all sides.

Is it possible to equate the concepts of militarization and war? One can meet philosophical discussions about the nature and meaning of war, but not about the militarization of science as such. It seems that these are concepts of a different order, which, nevertheless, are very interconnected. Clifard Girtz, an American anthropologist who studies different cultures and the influence of the concept of culture on the concept of man, said that the meaning of a phenomenon is given by its perception by society. He also noted that the external interpretation of a phenomenon is made up of internal interpretations of the action itself, and it is not the action that constructs the interpretation, but the interpretation that constructs the action. An important component of understanding is the prejudices that are characteristic of human existence, and, according to the apt remark of the German philosopher and founder of philosophical hermeneutics, Hans Georg Gadamer, which are an integral and necessary part of the process of understanding, do not interfere with it at all.

Consideration of the problem of the militarization of science from the point of view of hermeneutics is due to the fact that our task is not to criticize the supporters or opponents of the militarization of science, but to understand the positions of all parties and comprehend the consequences of the influence of militarization on science. Friedrich Schleiermacher says that understanding the individual, in this case the militarization of science, through the whole, here through philosophy, and the whole through the individual forms scientific knowledge. At the same time, the simplest and most understandable should be explained and provided to a person for understanding or rethinking. If a person has already dealt with such concepts and phenomena with the help of which we speak with him, then it will be easier for him to operate in a familiar and understandable “language of thinking”. This process will certainly provide clues to future communication difficulties, or broaden the scope and focus of attention. When something is already clear to us, we can devote more time to other aspects of the phenomenon.

Understanding the phenomenon of the militarization of science should occur simultaneously in two directions: grammatical and psychological. The grammatical interpretation must precede the psychological one and eliminates temporary difficulties. In our case, we are talking about terms associated with the phenomenon of the militarization of science. Psychological interpretation follows from the grammatical and covers the area of ​​meanings and human positions, attitudes towards the subject under consideration. It follows from this that the misunderstanding of the terms distorts the meanings. In theory, these two directions must be considered separately in order to advance in them so that the other direction becomes necessary for us.

Paul Feirabend, the author of the concept of epistemological anarchism, says that there are no universal methodological rules in science, which means that there are reasons to consider the militarization of science as a phenomenon by studying it in the context of various philosophical directions and concepts. From the point of view of the philosopher, science is as intuitive as the choice of research methods by scientists is intuitive. In his letter "Against methodological coercion" addressed to Imre Lakatas, P. Feyrabend raises questions about what science actually is - how does it work and what are its results, and what is the value of science? It is important for us to answer these questions, since speaking about the militarization of science, we must understand how science is formed and develops, what are its goals in order to go further and comprehend what militarization is taking place and whether there is some kind of militarization in this process. value?

Feirabend writes that science is a set of rules with an established procedure for their application that govern the activities of science. That is, in other words, science in this sense is a set of methods for comprehending the truth. The philosopher notes that few people ask the question of the value of science, although it is necessary to comprehend the essence of the existence of science as such, its reactions and changes occurring under the influence of the external environment. Scientists do not raise the question of the value of science, since science is an indisputable reality for them, and its absence in people's lives is unthinkable and absurd. Considering the question of the value of science, Feyrabend resorts to understanding it through the institution of the state. From our point of view, such a beginning is quite interesting and is the correct line of thought, critically reflecting the perception of science as a science by representatives of the scientific world. In this context, we are talking about the fact that the meaning of science is in comprehension and research. However, would science develop in other conditions than in the state? Is the correct angle of view reflected in the position of scientists, or is there a different vision? Perhaps the key point that sets the goal of science is not what to study, but for what purpose, because the results of scientific thought should be for the good, and not gather dust on library shelves?

In his reasoning, Feyerabend comes to the conclusion that science and the state are inextricably linked. As evidence, he calls state funding for scientific research, the state monopoly on the definition of scientific disciplines that are mandatory for study, ensuring the minimum literacy of the country's citizens and teaching them scientific laws, the formation of people's perception of science as a space of facts that do not require the latter to be questioned. In the end, the state gives authority to science and makes further development in the direction of science accessible to everyone. The scientific community is an authoritarian leader of public opinion and the human worldview. It is this that sets people's understanding of the ongoing processes and phenomena. A person thinks in a certain way, not because the majority in the country and in the world decided so, but because the scientific community adheres to such a position. It is beneficial for the state to educate its citizens and introduce them to science at least at the most elementary level, since human skills in the future in various manifestations benefit the state and can be applied in various fields. The state provides people with a public education and makes its decision to do so its duty, as it is aware of the need for a constant source of personnel for various industries, including those providing defense and defense of the state. According to J. Locke, the state was the result of a people's agreement on joint protection, therefore it would be legitimate to say that all sectors developed in the state and spheres of society are aimed at fulfilling the goal originally set for the institution of ensuring the security of citizens and the viability of the state. If the original purpose of the institution of the state was to ensure the security of its citizens, then can we criticize the militarization of science in this context, if we consider this phenomenon as obtaining scientific personnel and the results of scientific activity for the benefit of the state? Both the education of citizens with their involvement in science, and the militarization of science essentially pursue the same goal - to have results for the benefit of the state and the performance of its functions. If we completely deny the militarization of science, then the education of citizens actually becomes education for the sake of education and has no purpose, benefit, purpose for the state, which means that the obligation of this institution to educate its citizens loses all meaning. Is it right to use scientific benefits and not give the state anything in return?

The current society lives by the categories of liberalism. However, as Feyerabend notes, liberalism has an ambiguous influence on science. Liberal intellectuals admire democracy and focus on rational thinking, which denies the ideas of religion, freedom of worship, and so on, which speaks to the intolerance of liberalism, which few people notice. But is it really possible to speak of the equivalence of democratic ideas and liberalism in science? The intolerance of liberalism towards religions and myths and the subsequent demythologisation do not fit into democratic ideals. Science cannot be democratic as long as it expresses rejection of the identity of isolated cultures, denies a different path of development and seeks to "impose" scientific thinking and a rational vision of the world. The philosopher attacks the adherents of science and asks that since science on the one hand and religion, ideology, myths on the other are so different and the latter have little in common with the real world, it might make sense to eliminate religion and myths from the center of human spiritual life and put science in its place? Discussions about the essence of the influence of liberalism on science and the commitment of the majority of its representatives to democratic principles are important for us in the context of studying who makes decisions in the scientific environment and sets the tone for its development, determining its various trends.

Democracy tends to limit science to the opinion of the majority. However, does an ordinary person who is not involved in the scientific environment and does not have an idea of ​​the value of specific scientific research carried out in a certain area have a sufficient level of knowledge to make decisions? It would be more logical to leave the solution of fundamental problems to specialists, but in a democratic society such a scenario is impossible. So can the scientific community blame the state for its troubles, which has also become dependent on liberalism and is obliged to take into account the opinion of citizens, and not the democratic way of life of society itself? Perhaps the reason for all the problems of science is the dissonance between the scientific and non-scientific communities, which seem to adhere to the same democratic principles and therefore are looking for the culprit of all their troubles in the face of the state.

Feyerabend touches upon the problem of the maturity of democracy and the distortion of its meaning. Today, every citizen believes that he has the right to influence decisions. But when a person is not ready to take responsibility for all the events taking place in the life of the state and for all decisions made, the satisfaction of his demands for participation in democracy reaches the point of absurdity and is fraught with ridiculous, and sometimes irreversible consequences and mistakes. According to the philosopher, maturity is even more important than special scientific knowledge, since it is precisely this that decides the question of the scope of this knowledge.

Liberalism has a significant impact on science, which is due to the current stage of historical development, and as we can see, the scientific community is subject to the delusion that democratic principles are good, and all because science identifies itself with the ideals of democracy, when in fact it simply keeps up with the times and follows the fashion for democratic development. In this context, is criticism of the militarization of science viable, or is it a new trend of blind pacifism, the desire to put the sphere of state security under civilian control, which, based on the reflections above, is fraught with unbalanced and cardinal decisions being made in this area without a clear understanding of threats to the security of the state.

The interaction of science and the state for the benefit of protecting the country is traditional. It should be noted that in the scientific community there is still no consensus on what is good and in what direction it is necessary to continue moving in science. The democratic nature of the consciousness of scientists is to some extent harmful and dangerous, since it constructs a different vision of the mission of science, otherwise comprehends the responsibility for the decisions made. Today we can observe a movement towards the realization of supranational, global responsibility for the results of our activities. And of course, this position is true in a world where there are no wars or where a course has been taken to prevent them. But human nature is such that sooner or later there will be a war for resources and influence.

Scientists have a gigantic level of responsibility for people's lives, and of course, the conscious and in some cases subconscious choice of each representative of the scientific community depends on personal qualities and interpretation of events taking place in the world and the angle of view on them. For example, what are nuclear weapons? It can kill a huge number of people, cause irreparable harm to the environment and cripple the lives of future generations, and can become a deterrent to fomenting war. When a scientist discovers something new, he rarely knows what exactly he is doing in the process of research. He cannot yet know what it is, and he cannot predict future events or how his invention or theory will be used. P. Feyerabend writes that history is subject to accidents and surprises, which demonstrates "the complexity of social change and the unpredictability of long-term consequences or human decisions" .

With regard to the use of scientific methods and the results of scientific activity, there is no consolidated position in the scientific community itself. It is impossible to refuse to use the achievements of scientific work for military purposes or put some restrictions on it, it is impossible to establish some generally accepted rules that would limit the work of the scientific community for military purposes and become as unconditional for humanity as the fundamental theories and laws of science. This is due both to human psychology and the existence of cultures that have no concept of scientific knowledge. In addition, any rule, any paradigm, sooner or later, lends itself to rethinking, which gives impetus to something new in science. Feyerabend writes that no "naive" and shaky rules can cover the entire "web of interactions." Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn believed that changes in science occur as a result of scientists joining a movement that has a chance of success and recognition. For this reason, they viewed the scientific revolution as irrational changes and felt it necessary to view it in terms of crowd psychology. Developing these thoughts, Kuhn noted that it is necessary to study the thinking not of an individual scientist, but the thinking of the entire scientific community, since the psychology of the individual is replaced by social psychology. So, if representatives of the scientific community cannot reach an agreement, then in such cases decisions on such issues pass into the hands of interested citizens. People, due to the general availability of a certain level of knowledge and confidence that they understand the subject, do not stand aside when they have the opportunity to evaluate scientific trends and phenomena, including such as the militarization of science. When a dispute arises between the various flanks of the scientific community, the parties begin to use various methods to win over to their side as many supporters as possible. In this regard, the position of the scientific flank, which is sometimes less popular in a democratic environment of citizens immature for decision-making, remains without due attention or faces criticism and public discontent that interferes with work, which can be seen in society's attitude towards the militarization of science. At the same time, those who appeal to people who protest against old ideas and the scientific canons associated with them win this confrontation. In addition, it would be wrong to idealize the enlightenment of the scientific community. Of course, there must be control over science, and its authority should not be absolute, as this can lead to the falsification of science. But can civil society not only control, but also give impetus to science to develop and finance the activities of the scientific community, as the state does?

Paul Feyerabend views science as an anarchist enterprise and writes that anarchism in science ensures more progress in it than following law and order. What does the philosopher mean by scientific anarchism: the free use of methods, laws, rules, hypotheses that contradict confirmed theories, the creation of new methods and paradigms, the stimulation of the development of new trends in science? From his point of view, the only principle that would not hinder progress in science is the principle of the admissibility of everything. If we talk about the militarization of science, is scientific anarchism in this sense a negation of the traditional goals and objectives of science, of the established links between science and the state, which fall under the concept of law and order in science? The desire for the admissibility of everything in science raises concerns when we talk about the militarization of science. Absolute admissibility of everything should not be, otherwise, sooner or later, the thin barrier between research aimed at strengthening the security of the country and its citizens and the moral and ethical principles of applying the results of scientific work will collapse.

Feyerabend notes that uneven development is characteristic of various parts of science. In this regard, it is natural that the state has a more thorough and systematic approach to the traditional areas and goals of science than to new ones, but it is not rational in such a situation to criticize the militarization of science for its greater development in some areas and a more elaborate approach to it. If we consider the militarization of science as a constraint on the freedom of scientific creativity in the fields of research, then in this regard, the philosopher says that scientific research does not at all require absolute freedom of speech, and even that a certain kind of lack of freedom does not prevent the development of science.

Is it possible to say that the militarization of science imposes restrictions on methodological rules and dictates rigid, unchanging and mandatory principles of scientific activity? For the military, the effectiveness of scientific research is important, therefore, of course, they are to some extent affected by the desire for low-risk research with a high degree of obtaining the product of scientific work as a result of research. Nevertheless, the military is ready to get acquainted with new inventions and discoveries of scientists, but in fact, they will pay great attention to the effectiveness of the result of scientific research, the financial costs of its implementation and possible alternatives. Based on these points, a decision will be made on taking the result of scientific work into service and financing its implementation in practice. In the case when new scientific principles form the basis of scientific research, the interest and readiness of the military to develop scientific innovation leads to the "legalization" of new methodological rules.

The restrictive nature of the militarization of science is nevertheless manifested precisely in the set goals of scientific research and the non-dissemination of information about the conduct and results of scientific research both within the scientific community and beyond, which, in fairness, is due to objective reasons for the security of the state. As for the limitations of science by methodological rules, this phenomenon is typical for science in general, however, in the history and philosophy of science there are a large number of precedents for the conscious and involuntary expansion of these rules and their violation. Feyerabend writes that progress in science based on law and order will occur only in the case of at least occasionally emerging anarchist movements. Thomas Kuhn notes that the transition from one paradigm to another through a scientific revolution is a common pattern for the development of a mature science. In essence, science consists of scientific activity within the framework of given paradigms and violations of methodological rules, followed by the construction of new paradigms.

Is the war an impulse for the development of science and how does it influence the development of new scientific paradigms? Undoubtedly, the war is the factor that stimulates the consolidation of the scientific community to solve acute problems that require comprehensive consideration. Individual investigations of problems in normal science do not, for the most part, have the same fruitfulness as collective work on a problem. The militarization of science is a synthesis of old and new paradigms. With the concentration of scientists on a small area of ​​problems, research within the framework of the paradigm begins to be carried out in such a deep and detailed way that it could not be carried out under other circumstances. The militarization of science is typical not only for wartime, but also takes place in non-wartime conditions and, due to a relatively constant and regulated list of tasks, allows you to study concepts, patterns in depth and conduct fundamental and applied research within certain paradigms, thoroughly studying its capabilities and their compliance. realities. Thus, we see that the militarization of science is not something unnatural and alien to peacetime and does not prevent research within the framework of scientific paradigms, but, on the contrary, ensures the natural and healthy development of normal science.

What should determine the scientific work of a scientist? Karl Popper said that research does not arise in itself as an end in itself, but begins with a vision of problems. From his point of view, first we get some idea or face a problem, and only after that we begin to act. When choosing the direction of scientific research, a scientist according to Feyerabend is guided by the “voice of reason”, which is actually a causal consequence of the upbringing and education he received.

Military practices indicate to the scientific community a range of tasks that require solutions, and if normal science is not able to solve the emerging puzzles within the framework of existing paradigms, they are rethought and the boundaries of hypotheses are expanded. Since normal science, according to Kuhn, has a mechanism that allows weakening the limitations dictated by the paradigm and starting to work when it is realized in the process of researching its inefficiency, the tactics of scientists and the nature of the problems they study are changing. A change in scientific paradigms, the emergence of a new view of scientists on solving problems or tasks as a result of a change in the perception of the environment by representatives of the scientific community, leads to a change in military tactics and strategy, which underlies the revolution in military affairs, which consists in a qualitative change in the conduct of hostilities due to technological innovations, but not all innovations can equally be considered to have the same value. The revolution in military affairs also depends on the achievements of scientists in science and paradigm shifts.

The impetus to the development of scientific research can have reasons of both applied and fundamental nature and be given both by military theorists and practitioners, depending on who first sees the potential of innovation. So, for example, an Italian general, military theorist and strategist in his work “Supremacy in the Air” deduced the military-strategic pattern “to win air supremacy means to win, and to be defeated in the air means to be defeated”, based on the conviction that that the development of science and technology dramatically changes the form of future wars. This gave impetus to the development of aircraft - new combat weapons with broad tactical and strategic capabilities, and, of course, had a fruitful effect on the development of scientific theories and laws of fundamental science.

Today, science is faced with the problem of the necessary orientation towards the applied nature of scientific research. Both fundamental and applied results of scientific work have always been useful and of interest to the state. But today the role of science has changed dramatically: its development and existence is becoming increasingly applied, and its activities and results are becoming practical. The emphasis on basic science runs the risk of getting less return and generally getting some kind of result in the end. However, applied science cannot develop in isolation from fundamental science. In this regard, is it possible to criticize the militarization of science for the support and development of military research institutes, if in this way conditions are created for the development of fundamental theories and research in this area, albeit a specialized one?

States are aware that the development of relevant results of scientific work and engineering in the military industry is a highly intellectual, costly and risky process, but they are also aware of the need to ensure the country's defense capability. Recently, one can observe the introduction of an innovative approach to the organization of military-oriented scientific research. Initially, the idea of ​​consolidating the military and civilian industries and rationalizing military spending was adopted as the basis for solving problems of reducing risks and financial costs in the military sphere. Consolidation of the military and civilian industries has always been presented as an opportunity to transfer civilian production capacities to the production of military products in wartime. However, over time it became obvious that the traditional approach of consolidating the military and civilian industries was not enough, the problem of retaining the country's intellectual capital and the lack of highly qualified personnel became apparent. There was a need to find new ways to generate ideas in both the military and civilian sectors of the economy, that is, to stimulate the development of science. As one of the methods, such a direction as “technology brokering” was proposed. Its essence lies in bringing together unrelated industries and markets so that the technologies used in one industry could become a breakthrough in another or give impetus to the creation of innovations of a new quality in a cheaper way and at a faster pace. Technological brokering, as one of the ways to manage the industry, implies not just connecting the capabilities of various industries, but also creating new communities within the framework of emerging innovative combinations. It focuses on creating new networks - new social structures around emerging ideas, that is, it is a tool for cooperation and consolidation of the scientific community.

Technology brokering is based on scientific and information activities: collecting, analyzing and summarizing information about scientific and technological achievements around the world, establishing relations with foreign representatives of science, exchanging information, ensuring scientific and technological progress and promoting technical knowledge. If earlier scientists themselves were engaged in all this, then with an increase in the amount of information, information activity gradually emerged into a separate area. The functions of a technology broker as a technology transfer mechanism and a data storage system are to assess the needs of a potential technology application market, maintain their database, compare existing technologies and developments with market demand, and commercialize innovations. Technological brokering combines the interaction of government, business and academic structures, which, of course, on the one hand significantly complicates the system of management and control over this process, and on the other hand, increases the speed of scientific discoveries and their implementation at the application level. The network approach to the organization of research, development and production of weapons and military equipment reflects the ongoing changes in the economy, which create a stable basis for the implementation of the RMA concept. International scientific and technical cooperation is developing intensively both on a bilateral and multilateral basis. Strengthening international and domestic cooperation in the development of advanced weapons and military equipment. All this makes it possible to talk today not just about an arms race, but about a "race of military innovations."

"The Ogarkov Doctrine" or how it all began

Marshal of the Armed Forces Nikolai Vasilyevich Ogarkov was the first in the USSR in the late 1970s to speak about the inevitability of radical changes in military development. He believed that mass armies would lose their significance and the emphasis in military affairs would be shifted from the quantitative superiority of the army to the quality of preparation for conducting military operations. At that time, the United States had a theory of "limited nuclear war", which meant the transfer of a nuclear conflict zone to Europe and did not provide for the use of US strategic offensive forces. The marshal was faced with the task of developing such a counteraction strategy that could be opposed to the American one. On his initiative, a large-scale simulation of various scenarios of a clash between the USSR and the armies of NATO member countries in the European direction was carried out. However, the potential at the disposal of the Soviet army forced the use of conventional forces and tactical nuclear weapons. It was important for the USSR to avoid the use of nuclear weapons in the European theater of operations, which at that time was possible only through the use of conventional weapons. However, the forces and tactics in this case were equal, and the simulation of all scenarios ended in the end not in favor of the USSR. For N.V. Ogarkov, it was obvious that he needed to gain an advantage over the enemy. It was impossible to rely on the use of conventional weapons in such a situation. Thus, the question arose of how and with what it was possible to deliver a disarming strike that would deprive the enemy of the advantages of the defending side. The marshal saw a way out of the situation in the development of high-precision non-nuclear weapons, increasing the mobility of troops, and developing the organization and command and control of troops. In addition, it was necessary to link all this into one with the means of reconnaissance and destruction. Suggested by N.V. Ogarkov, the changes contributed to an increase in the efficiency of command and control of troops.

As a result, a command combat control system (CSBU) was created. It united the control points of the missile forces, fleet and aviation and allowed the exchange of data, as well as receiving intelligence data. This system made it possible to act in advance and strike first. On the basis of the Belarusian military district in the 80s, the "Maneuver" system worked. It was not fully introduced into the troops, however, it can be called the forerunner of modern systems for automating command and control of troops.

To test the new principles of control and effectiveness of weapons and military equipment, the Zapad-81 exercises were held, which are distinguished by a large scope for attracting troops and fleet forces, and the Shield-82 exercises, known in the West as the "Seven Hour Nuclear War". The exercises demonstrated the ability of the Soviet Army to sweep away NATO resistance without entering into a global nuclear conflict with the United States, which buried the doctrine of "limited nuclear war". Based on the results of the exercises N.V. Ogarkov organized the revision of the fundamental statutory documents relating to the preparation and conduct of operations.

N.V. Ogarkov paid great attention to the development of the theory of command and control of strategic nuclear forces, the preparation and conduct of strategic operations in the theater of operations, and missile defense issues. The military figure supported the creation of the Center for Operational and Strategic Studies of the General Staff and contributed to the development of military theory. His ideas were reflected in the 12-volume History of the Second World War 1939-1945, the 8-volume Soviet Military Encyclopedia and the Military Encyclopedic Dictionary.

Despite the great success of the Ogarkov Doctrine, the leadership of the USSR considered the Marshal's ideas too radical. In 1884 he was removed from the post of Chief of the General Staff. The state was not ready for such drastic and serious changes in military affairs. The marshal was distinguished by a “sense of the new”, his ideas on reforming the armed forces had supporters, but all this could not correspond at that moment to the level of openness of the state to innovation.

Nevertheless, it can be said with certainty that Ogarkov's ideas had a serious impact on the perception of the RMA concept by domestic military science. While the United States believes that military technology is the dominant element in the RMA, Russia continues to place great influence on the organizational part of the concept.

From innovation to military revolution

The implementation of the RIA concept in various states poses new tasks of an applied and theoretical nature to the academic community. The RMA implies a radical change in the way of conducting military operations, accompanied by the development of military technologies, an increase in the level of weapons efficiency, changes in military doctrines and concepts. In other words, the concept includes two aspects: technological and organizational. Failure to comply with one of the points gives reason not to consider any changes in the military sphere as a new revolution in military affairs. It must be understood that the adoption of new technologies does not mean a fundamental change in the nature of the armed conflict. The WFD reflects the holistic nature of the changes and, in addition to new military technologies, includes doctrinal changes and changes in the organizational structure of the armed forces. The RMA as such does not focus on increasing destructive potential, rather it can be a consequence of the unlimited use of military technology. To perceive technological superiority as a universal remedy in war would be a mistake.

Despite the fact that the concept of the WFD contains the term "revolution", it must be understood that not all changes are revolutionary in nature. The WFD can be viewed from the point of view of evolutionary and revolutionary concepts. According to the evolutionary concept, technological changes that occur over several decades cannot by their nature be a revolution, since a revolution implies a sudden and abrupt process occurring in a short period of time. At the same time, the gradual transition from lower phases of technological development to higher ones, expressed in the constant improvement of military technologies and equipment, is called evolution. Adherents of the revolutionary approach to the WFD believe that it is not the duration of the changes that is important, but their quality, importance and scale of the changes. Consideration of the WFD from the point of view of various criteria of revolutionary character entails various definitions of this concept.

The role of capital in the implementation of the WFD is great. High and rising prices for the development, production, sale and repair of weapons divide countries on the basis of the principle of technological advantage. The development of military innovations widens the gap between countries. Establishing partnerships in the field of military-technical cooperation are unions of states at the technological level. States with equal rights in the "alliance" strive for the joint production of weapons, while the sale of weapons is carried out with countries in respect of which a lower priority is set in the foreign policy. This is supported by the fact that states sell weapons that have not received sufficient success in their own armed forces or are outdated compared to the latest weapons developed in the exporting state.

The last stage of the RIA is called informational. The current revolution in military affairs is based on information technology, which ensures the continuous collection of information from the battlefield and its transmission to the appropriate military units. A characteristic feature of the information revolution in the RMA is the increase in the accuracy of existing types of weapons and their modification. The ability to continuously collect information in real time dispels the "fog of war" of Carl von Clausewitz, who said that in war the actions of the enemy are uncertain, and that the development of events is difficult to predict.

Information plays a key role in both the civilian and military sectors. Well-established processes for collecting, processing and transmitting information allow you to gain an information advantage over the enemy. The use of information technologies in military affairs makes their owners vulnerable to new threats emanating from cyberspace: the enemy not only develops the same technologies, but also seeks to comprehend the art of hacking, theft, damage, substitution of information and data overload of the information flow. The information revolution in military affairs has expanded the range of potential security breaches. If earlier the army used technologies that were predominantly produced by the military industry for military needs, then information technologies came from the civilian sector. The information WFD differs from all other stages of its development precisely in such a feature as the wide dissemination of technologies in the civil sector. The high saturation of the civilian market with information technologies makes it difficult to control them and blurs the border between the civilian and military sectors, and therefore blurs the concepts of combatant and non-combatant for the enemy.

The use of information technologies in the military sphere, as well as weapons in our usual sense, is due to two reasons: the impact on the enemy and countering his offensive actions. At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of “war on the network” and cyberwar. The first concept includes actions aimed at the formation of public consciousness and attitude to power, that is, carried out at the social level. "Network wars" are a propaganda tool. The use of mass media and electronic technologies makes it possible to have a stronger influence on human feelings, such as fear, anxiety, panic. Cyber ​​warfare is an action aimed at capturing, distorting, destroying information and implemented only within the information space.

The combination of achievements in the fields of computer science, robotics, automation and nanotechnology has allowed the development of weapons that are highly accurate. In general, there are ten characteristics of weapons within the framework of the modern RMA: range, accuracy, durability, miniaturization, automation, speed, action from cover, the effect of surprise, the influence of the social factor and action modeling.

The information revolution in military affairs sets higher standards for weapons, since for the effectiveness of actions it is important to ensure their interaction and the merging of individual components of the armed forces. Thus, it erases the boundaries between the branches of the armed forces. Today, more and more countries are investing in the creation of high-precision weapons. This is explained by the fact that the increased accuracy of weapons allows the use of fewer pieces of military equipment, and this is extremely important in terms of reducing defense spending, which goes not only for the development and production of weapons, but also for maintaining them in operational condition. Modern systems are developed taking into account the need for a clear definition of the target and its precise defeat, as well as the ability to assess obstacles on the ground when building a route of movement and adjust it. In other words, work is underway to ensure the flexibility of weapons, which is important for responding to the dynamics of hostilities and emergencies, and reducing civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. Achieving strategic goals while avoiding a direct clash between the armed forces of the country and the armed forces of the enemy makes it possible to avoid dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with the authorities on the part of public opinion. The trend towards miniaturization of weapons is explained by the need to reduce the risk of becoming an easy target for the enemy. The creation of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons makes it possible to reduce the cost of military personnel training. Communication, maneuvering, access to information are carried out by ground control systems. Of course, their work requires additional costs, but the ability to simultaneously control various operations while reducing staff provides greater system performance.

Today, modern weapons are not yet able to completely replace soldiers in a military operation, however, they represent a good alternative when performing tasks within such dangerous situations as, for example, mine clearance, detection and neutralization of biological or chemical pollution. The use of high-precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles is changing the way war is waged and will make it possible to speak of such a phenomenon as “war at a distance”. A feature of such a war is the remote control of military operations and less human losses. Information technology makes it possible to provide greater security for military personnel than before. Soldiers have the ability to use existing technologies to determine their position in space and constantly keep in touch with the command.

Wunshpunsh: speed up

Each new revolution in military affairs accelerated the conduct of hostilities more and more. The role of army mobility has increased. Effective action became possible under the condition of rapid receipt, analysis of information and decision-making based on it.

With the collapse of the bipolar system, the threat of asymmetric military operations arose. In response to this, mass armies were replaced by mobile and specially trained units that have the ability to operate with high accuracy in detecting the enemy and eliminating him. Changes of this kind posed new challenges for the logistics and supply system, now it had to become as flexible as new military doctrines and concepts. The goal of the resulting "oriented logistics" was to be able to provide the joint forces with the appropriate personnel, equipment and resources in the right place, time and quantity necessary to fully conduct the planned operation of any level, as well as be ready to deliver the necessary resources to hard-to-reach regions and quickly respond to changes. Achieving flexibility and orientation of the logistics system was made possible by combining traditional logistics with the latest developments in information technology.

The concept of logistics includes not only the issue of supply, but also the choice of transport for delivery and the correct route for this transport with resources to its destination. The use of different types of weapons and branches of service in an ongoing operation requires the integration of logistics systems intended for various armed forces, and the establishment of logistics under a single command. As a result of the merging of information on logistics issues, a special structure is formed - an intranet, which provides access to all authorized persons to the data necessary for making a decision. For example, aircraft are considered the most effective means of providing units with resources and assistance. However, not always the states through which the nearest route lies give permission to cross the air border, not all states where hostilities are taking place have the necessary coverage for landing. If we talk about the use of ships to supply military units in the war zone, then you need to understand that, for example, large ships cannot come close to the coast, that smaller ships will most likely be needed for unloading. In addition, you need to understand how much time is available for unloading and whether the enemy will overtake the enemy at this time. If you use armored trucks or other ground vehicles, then you need to understand how vulnerable the route is, how to build it correctly, whether the information about the safety of the route received 20 minutes ago is relevant, whether you have lost your way along the roads located far from the main roads and trails and not marked on maps, etc. The information integration of military resources makes it possible to quickly obtain the necessary information about all ongoing changes, receive confirmation or refutation of the information available, and, based on the current situation, make decisions as quickly as possible.

The increased speed of war creates one of the paradoxes of the modern military revolution. It lies in the fact that a quick victory at the tactical and operational level does not at all mean a potential victory at the strategic level. The development of military technology increases the asymmetry. At the same time, in conditions of asymmetric military conflicts, the concept of a strategic level is blurred: after one of the parties announces the end of hostilities, the other side can continue them. This can be confirmed by the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The CNN Effect"

The information revolution in the RVD caused the "CNN effect". Media representatives working in hot spots inform the public about the course of hostilities. Of course, the personal position of a correspondent or journalist also plays a big role in shaping the opinion of society. The development of information technologies creates difficulties for states to ensure control over the transmitted information. The institution of military censorship is being transformed, and such a side of life as war is becoming more open to citizens, they can form their position on the basis of more information, on the basis of no longer facts published in newspapers, but on the basis of personnel that have a greater psychological effect on a person. , as they allow him to see what is happening on the scene.

The "CNN effect" has a strong social impact. Viewers, watching the course of hostilities on their screens, subconsciously feel themselves at the scene, at least what is happening becomes more real for them than before. They want to feel more secure, and they want the soldiers to be more secure too. This public opinion is faced by the authorities of states taking part in hostilities. This leads to the following consequences:

• A bet on the development of high-precision weapons and automated military technologies, that is, such weapons and technologies, the use of which will ensure greater security for the soldier or exclude his presence in the theater of operations;
• Development of weapons that are not aimed at destroying the enemy, but only at depriving him of the ability to operate at full strength (for example, chemicals that cause corrosion of vehicles, which are not widely used due to limited effectiveness compared to traditional methods of warfare)
• The development of military strategies that involve moving away from mass armies and relying on mobile units;
• Absolutization of the air force (in the spirit of the Douai doctrine);
• Accounting for the opinion of civil society and the ever-increasing influence of civilians in the decision-making process in the military sphere;
• Separation of military operations, police operations and peacekeeping operations;
• Bet on winning the war with minimal human losses among combatants and non-combatants;
• Humanization of war (less losses not only among the population of one's own country, but also among the enemy country).

The level of tolerance of civil society to hostilities in modern conditions varies depending on the following components:

• Benefits expected as a result of victory;
• Probability of winning;
• The costs of the operation;
• Support from other countries;
• The attitude and expectations of the world community in relation to ongoing military operations.

Thus, the higher the potential benefits and the likelihood of winning in military operations, the lower will be the social sensitivity among soldiers and civil society.

Features of the Western understanding of the RIA

USA in response to the ideas of N.V. Ogarkov also began to develop new options for military strategy. In the United States, Andrew Marshall is credited with creating the concept of the WFD. Today, the United States is the leading country in NATO in the field of MFA. Operation "Desert Storm" in 1990-1991 allowed the United States to become a leader in the field of RMA. The United States developed the C4ISR system, which combines command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The country's course towards the transformation of the armed forces based on the improvement of modern advanced military technologies has allowed the state to achieve an undeniable advantage in this area. Of course, in this regard, there is a gap in NATO between the United States and other members of the Alliance. In the interests of both sides, within the framework of NATO, actions are being taken to level the existing differences.

American achievements in the field of RMA formed the basis for the transformation of the North Atlantic Alliance in the 90s, by virtue of its leadership in this area, the United States began to determine the direction and dynamics of changes in NATO. The 1999 operation against Yugoslavia showed the crisis of a technological gap in the potential of the Alliance member states. Up to 70% of this operation used the potential of the United States, while the European Air Force forces were only able to carry out high-precision attacks on a scale of 10%. In addition, only American weapons were equipped with technologies for rapid force projection and technology to reduce the visibility of stealth combat vehicles. As for conducting surveillance, reconnaissance, reconnaissance, Washington's European allies in NATO completely relied on the United States in this.

Despite the announcement of a successful operation, the United States incurred significant costs, after which a discussion began in NATO about the contribution of other states to the budget of the organization and responsibility for this. The issue of saving and optimizing the spending of funds is relevant for NATO to this day, since only a few member states other than the United States contribute the required 2% of GDP to the budget. Operation Allied Force exposed the deep differences between the US and existing NATO members at that time and raised the question of the success of military cooperation within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the future. Alarming forecasts also appeared as a result of Operation Unified Protector in Libya in 2011. It showed that the disproportion in military-technological development between NATO members continues to increase, despite a number of measures already taken within the Alliance. For the United States, it was also a signal that European countries have not invested enough in the development of their own armed forces and continue to rely on the potential of NATO. Despite the economic side of the implementation of the WFD, today you can see that some NATO countries, such as Great Britain and France, are actively involved in the process of joint development of advanced weapons and military equipment.

A characteristic feature of the Western understanding of the WFD is militarism, which seeks to limit risk (risk-transfer militarism). This is manifested in the minimization of risks for the military personnel of Western countries. Examples of reducing risks for military personnel are a targeted air attack, the involvement of allied states in joint military operations, the use of private military companies, the use of long-range precision weapons, the robotization of the armed forces, etc. The Western concept of RMA is associated with the high efficiency of military operations.

Viewed from a Western perspective, the evolution of warfare concepts is centered on technological leadership, while organizational structure takes a back seat. The adoption of new types of weapons entails changes in the organizational structure and changes in the doctrinal nature. In this regard, Michael Howard singled out in the WFD such a phenomenon as the "war of technicians", that is, the existence of conflicts, the outcome of which depended primarily on the "duels" of a relatively small group of military equipment experts. With regard to the RMA, one can also speak of technological fundamentalism, the basis of which is the belief in the possibility of waging war without the loss of military personnel and civilians.

The Western way of warfare is an expression of civil militarism and involves the participation of civil society in the military decision-making process. The Western understanding of the WFD is characterized by its generalization and even some simplification of the peculiarities of the perception of the concept by individual countries. Nevertheless, in each country, the perception of the WFD concept occurs in accordance with the national characteristics inherent in each country. Most theorists in the field of WFD come from the United States, the spread of ideas comes from this “epicenter”, therefore, today the Western understanding of WFD prevails. The RMA transfers the post-heroic mentality to the states that adopt the Western model of the development of the armed forces.

Trojan horse in action

Poland is one of the NATO member states consistently expressing its desire to implement the WFD. Warsaw strives to become a recipient country of the Western understanding of the concept of the RMA, focused primarily on the development of military technologies. After the end of the Cold War and the cessation of the activities of the Warsaw Pact, Poland found itself in a difficult situation. The Polish military-industrial complex lost financial support from the USSR, which was experiencing severe economic difficulties. The blow fell on the defense doctrine of the state. Warsaw faced the need to build a new system of decision-making in the military sphere. Strengthening cooperation with Washington and NATO was the best option in the current realities from the point of view of Poland's interests to modernize its military complex.

In the face of the need for major changes in military development, NATO offered Warsaw an unprecedented leap forward. Warsaw was interested in the maximum possible integration of the national army with the standards of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Membership in NATO was and remains for Poland an opportunity to realize a revolution in military affairs in its Western understanding.

After the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of Russia on the international arena, Poland expressed fears about the spread of Moscow's political influence on Warsaw. NATO was interested in such a position, which accelerated the integration of Poland into the ranks of the North Atlantic Alliance and joining its initiatives within the bloc. However, gradually Warsaw began to artificially create the image of the enemy in the face of Russia. After the Crimean referendum and the inclusion of the peninsula into Russia, based on the will of the people, Poland declared "Russian aggression" and decided to increase the size of the army. It should be noted here that since 2008, universal military duty, characteristic of post-Soviet states, has not been in force in Poland; Warsaw has abandoned it in favor of creating a professional army. At the same time, Poland has taken a number of measures to improve the image of military service in the country. Today, the Poles explain their choice in favor of entering the military service with a sense of patriotism, a reliable place of work and a decent salary.

Raising the image of military service reduces the sensitivity of Polish society to participation in hostilities and makes war more acceptable in its eyes than before. Warsaw's stake on training professional military personnel, gaining real combat experience through participation in NATO missions, striving to obtain and develop advanced weapons gives the Polish soldier confidence in greater security and superiority over the enemy, and this in turn increases the level of aggressiveness in the international arena.

The increase in Poland's aggressiveness can be seen both in the foreign policy rhetoric of state representatives, for example, Defense Minister Anthony Matsarevich, and in internal changes in military development. Thus, Warsaw adopted a new law that provides for the creation of the Territorial Defense Forces. It entered into force will enter into force in Poland on January 1, 2017. By 2019, it is planned to increase the number of this type of troops to 53 thousand, which will be one third of the total number of the Polish army.

In October 2017, Anthony Matsarevich announced the creation of cyber troops in Poland. At the same time, he directly accused Russia of projecting threats in the field of cybersecurity, without providing any evidence. Warsaw also joined the European Center for Countering Hybrid Threats, established in Finland in September this year, which closely cooperates with the European Union and NATO.

findings

In pursuit of unraveling the essence of the RMA phenomenon, we stop thinking about the main thing: what is war, what are its origins and can it be avoided? The focus of the study of war is shifting, although the answers to eternal questions are somewhere very close and slip from our field of vision, as we are carried away by watching the technological "competition". Speaking about the WFD, one must understand that the driving forces for the implementation of the concept can be different goals: the protection of the state, the desire to spread influence, strategic stability, an attempt to take "historical revenge" and others. But can the WFD contribute to the establishment and maintenance of peace? Or is it a "Trojan horse" that deceived the world community?

The aim of the state to implement the concept of revolution in military affairs in the country stimulates the militarization of science. In its essence, this phenomenon is not negative, but the likelihood of using scientific achievements for military purposes increases with a high aggressiveness of the state.

It must be remembered that the driving force behind militarization and the warmonger is always man himself. The danger of a person's possession of new military technologies is due to the dissonance of the mental and physical organization of a person with modern technology, which entails an increase in the aggressiveness of society.

Adopted technologies depersonalize war. Depersonalization increases the impulse to start a war and hardens the methods of warfare. In the war of precision weapons and automated drones, there is no place for compassion and other human feelings, as the technological solutions provided by science to ensure greater safety for soldiers create the illusion of superiority over the enemy and permissiveness.

The Western understanding of the concept differs from the Russian one in its emphasis on technological fundamentalism. The spread of such a perception of the WFD among other states is dangerous, since in the pursuit of a technological advantage over the enemy, one can lose all humanity, replace it with technological determinism, and plunge the world into a new war.

Nikolai Vasilyevich Ogarkov has a book called "History teaches vigilance." These words make us look away from the technological "competition" of states and see that the "Trojan horse" has already been set in motion.

CHAPTER 4

Military Science and Theory of Wars

MILITARY HISTORY is an integral part of general historical science and one of the areas of military science that studies the history of the development of military affairs, wars and military art, the process and main trends in the development of the armed forces in the past, the experience of the military activities of states and peoples, military leaders and commanders.

The components of military history are the history of wars, the history of military art, the history of the construction of the Armed Forces, the history of the development of the military economy, the history of military thought. In addition, specific areas of military history include: military historiography, military historical source studies, military archeography, military archives and military statistics.

Many conclusions of military history are of enduring importance and are used in modern practice, while others are losing their significance, but nevertheless retain cognitive interest. (See Ch. 16.)

MILITARY SCIENCE is a system of knowledge about the strategic nature and laws of war, the construction and preparation of the armed forces and the country for war, and methods of conducting armed struggle. The object of knowledge of military science is war, which it investigates along with other social, natural and technical sciences. The subject of military science is armed struggle during various wars and conflicts.

The main branches of military science:

By subject classification - the general theory of military science (military science of science), the theory of military art (the theory of strategy, the theory of operational art, and the theory of tactics), the theory of the construction of the Armed Forces, the theory of military training and education (training in universities, combat and operational training);

According to the problematic classification - the theory of economic and logistic support of the Armed Forces, the theory of information warfare, the theory of control of the Armed Forces, the theory of armament and technical support of the Armed Forces, the theory of operational support (intelligence, engineering support, radiation, chemical and biological protection, camouflage, topogeodetic, hydrometeorological support, etc. .), the theory of moral and psychological support, the history of military art and the armed forces (other troops).

In recent years, the problems of preventing war and international terrorism, deterring them by force factors and purposeful actions of the military-political leadership of states and the world community have become the subject of study by military science.

The traditional components of military science are: the theory of war; theory of military art - strategy, operational art and tactics; the theory of military development; theory of command and control of the armed forces; theory of types of armed forces; theory of civil defense; the theory of military economy and logistics of the Armed Forces; theory of military training and education, as well as military history. A special, in some cases predictable, place is occupied by the theory of the development of weapons and military equipment (AME).

The variety of aspects in which military science is studied has led to the use of a collective term - "military sciences", for which, in particular, academic degrees and titles are awarded.

Along with them, war as a complex social phenomenon is also studied by other social, natural and technical sciences, including philosophy (essence, causes of the socio-political nature of war, forms and methods of its conduct), economics (military economy), history (history wars and military art), geography (military geography), political science (military policy), pedagogy (military pedagogy) and psychology (military psychology), theory of diplomacy (military diplomacy), etc.

Military issues are also studied by related fundamental sciences. The conclusions of the military sciences are widely used in the formation of military policy, military doctrine, as well as in military construction and in preparing the country for defense.

MILITARY PRACTICE is a special type of social practice associated with the conduct of war, the substantive practical activities of command and control bodies, troops and forces in the performance of military tasks.

It covers a set of measures and actions in the field of military development, preparation of the Armed Forces and the country for war, planning of war, its conduct at all levels. The main type of military practice is military action.

Military practice is the main criterion for the truth of the theory of war, is a means of confirming or denying its correctness. In turn, the theory of war (military theory) illuminates the path to military practice, contributes to the successful solution of military tasks, systematizes and gives meaning to military practice.

It improves with the accumulation of combat experience, research and knowledge of the laws of military affairs, acquiring new forms and directions on the basis of the theory of war and the development of military art.

An important role in military practice is played by the creative activity of commanders, their ability to catch new phenomena in military affairs, to adapt new weapons and personnel to the changing conditions of the historical situation.

MILITARY ECOLOGY branch of ecology that studies the impact of military production and construction, as well as testing and use of military equipment on the environment.

It covers all types of potentially dangerous direct and secondary environmental impacts of military and military-technical activities on humans and the environment.

It is associated with environmental conversion in terms of the desire to prevent the use and spread of environmentally harmful and dangerous technologies for the production, testing and storage of weapons and military equipment, to introduce environmentally friendly technologies for the production, disposal and neutralization of weapons and military equipment, as well as in terms of the use of certain types of weapons and military equipment to prevent environmentally hazardous situations, neutralization of their consequences and rehabilitation of the environment.

Of particular importance are the issues of test ban and environmentally safe liquidation of nuclear weapons, disposal and neutralization of nuclear waste (military nuclear ecology), disposal and neutralization of chemical (military chemical ecology) and bacteriological (military bacteriological ecology) weapons.

In the first decades of the 21st century, special attention is predicted to climate and energy, including military climate and energy ecology, associated with a continuing increase in the energy intensity of social production and the use of combustible energy raw materials (oil, coal, gas, etc.), accompanied by the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and an increase in the "greenhouse effect", which, in the absence of preventive measures, can lead to a global increase in temperature by the 20-30s of the 21st century and environmentally dangerous climate change.

Climate and energy ecology, including military climate and energy ecology, is faced with the task of finding and using environmentally friendly energy sources, proactive adaptation to global climate change and their damping.

Since the end of the 80s of the XX century, the ecological danger of a decrease in the ozone layer in the atmosphere as a result of the production and operational and technical (including military) activities of mankind began to be revealed. Prevention of this process requires limiting the release into the atmosphere of substances that destroy the ozone layer (freons, fluorine-containing, chlorine-containing substances, some rocket fuel combustion products), and the search for new technologies.

The high potential of military technologies can provide (with their appropriate orientation and international cooperation) a significant contribution of military ecology to the protection and rehabilitation of the environment at the local, regional and global levels.

MILITARY ACT is a collective term that covers all issues of military theory and practice related to the construction, preparation and operations of the armed forces of the state in peacetime and wartime, as well as the preparation of the economy, population and the country as a whole for war.

In a professional sense, it is a system of knowledge and skills of military personnel to fulfill their military duty. It includes many varieties of knowledge and skills, depending on the nature of the performance of special tasks.

The concept of "military affairs" also includes the entire set of special issues related to the provision and maintenance of the armed forces, the organization and use of various systems and types of weapons and military equipment.

MILITARY SCIENCE GENERAL BASIS system of laws and patterns of armed struggle, its connection with other forms of struggle in the war. They determine the structure, categories and methods of military science, its role and place in the general system of knowledge about war and the army. They follow from the general methodology of the natural sciences and are based on a system of general knowledge about war.

WAR MODEL is a set of formalized and systematized means of displaying the main laws of war, which make it possible to present and explore possible variants of the course and outcome of a war in a mathematical or logical-heuristic form.

War modeling is used to predict the possible course and outcome of a war, develop and verify strategic plans and calculations, identify the required forces and means, establish expedient directions for military construction and development of the Armed Forces, and prepare the state's economy for war. Models of conventional and nuclear war are being developed.

When modeling a conventional war, the main attention is paid to the description of its course, the sequence of strategic operations carried out by the parties, and the description of economic and socio-political processes. When modeling a nuclear war, the greatest importance is attached to modeling mutual nuclear strikes, repelling a nuclear attack, and calculating the immediate and secondary consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.

WAR SCENARIO - a forecast description of the possible beginning, development, end and consequences of a war based on an analysis of its goals, political and strategic nature, the ratio of political, economic and military capabilities of the parties, the state of other objective and subjective factors affecting the course and outcome of the war. Includes a description of the composition of forces, their alignment, initial position, options for unleashing a war and its conduct as a whole, by periods and stages, directions of crisis situations, the possible outcome of the war and its consequences.

The scenario usually developed contains fragments of the course of hostilities in the initial period of the war when one side or another attacks, the invasion and its repulse; the probable development of subsequent periods of hostilities, the final stage of the war. Possible war scenarios are usually fixed in documents, worked out and tested in military games and exercises.

THEORY OF THE ARMED FORCES SERVICES is a field of military science that studies the theoretical problems of organizational development, training, and strategic employment of the branches of the armed forces, combat arms, and special forces, the peculiarities of their structure and organization of combat training, and their role and place in the overall system of military operations.

In its system at the beginning of the 21st century, of particular importance is the identification of patterns of development, strategic use, operational art and tactics of actions of associations, formations and units of the branches of the armed forces and combat arms in combined arms, joint and independent operations.

It is based on the general theory of military science and the theory of military art. At the same time, it has an independent meaning and unites special subsections of other parts of military science.

THEORY OF MILITARY ART is the leading area of ​​military science, covering the theoretical foundations of the preparation and conduct of military operations, strategy, operational art and tactics. Explores the theoretical foundations of planning, organization, construction, conduct and comprehensive support of all types of operations and combat operations, the organization of their management. It is divided into theories of strategy, operational art and tactics. Considers direct and feedback links between them, their interdependence.

He develops questions of the use of the Armed Forces, their evolution in close dependence on the development of weapons, military equipment, methods of control, as well as with the specific military leadership activities of military leaders, headquarters and other control bodies.

In addition to the division according to the scale of hostilities, it includes a number of components that reflect the activities of various types of armed forces and combat arms.

THEORY OF MILITARY DEVELOPMENT A field of military science that studies the problems of building (development, reform, conversion) of the armed forces, as well as paramilitary formations, the creation of a military-material and spiritual base for the defense of the country, the development of infrastructure, the military economy, and the preparation of the country and population for war.

The theory of organizational development of the armed forces is an integral part of the theory of military organizational development, investigating the problems of substantiating the combat strength, structure, organization, manning and equipping of the Armed Forces, the correlation of the types of armed forces, military branches and special forces, combat and support means, maintaining troops and forces in combat readiness and combat readiness. condition, their preparation for the performance of combat missions, mobilization and operational deployment, the formation and training of reserves, the organization of military service. Considers the development of the armed forces in peacetime and wartime.

THE THEORY OF MILITARY ECONOMY AND AF LOGO A field of military science that studies the problems of the military economy, due to the military-strategic and military-technical nature of the war, the military aspects of transferring the economy from a peaceful to a war situation, maintaining its mobilization readiness, patterns of economic support for the construction and actions of the Armed Forces, organization Logistics of the Armed Forces and its work in peacetime and wartime.

Determines the principles of organization of military production, its location and structure, the nature of production relations, rational sizes, rates, volumes of development and production, methods of increasing and reducing production, the relationship between various branches of the military industry, economic incentives and methods for developing and mastering new military technologies, tasks and problems of energy, transport, agriculture, healthcare and communications in relation to the needs of the Armed Forces.

THEORY OF MILITARY EDUCATION AND EDUCATION is a field of military science that studies the goals, forms and methods of operational, mobilization and combat training of the armed forces, the formation of the necessary moral, psychological and combat qualities in the personnel of the troops and fleet forces, special professional knowledge and skills, military education of military personnel in the process of military service, combat training and combat activities, coordination of subunits, units (ships) and formations, training of military personnel for the successful fulfillment of their tasks.

It is based on the general methodology of pedagogy and psychology, taking into account the specifics of military affairs. It involves consideration of the issues of training and education of the personnel of the Armed Forces in close unity with each other; establishes the direction of this process in relation to the specific nature of military tasks and the conditions of the combat situation.

WAR THEORY is a set of generalized ideas, ideas and interpretations of the origins of war, explanations of the causal nature of their occurrence, giving a holistic view of the patterns and essential connections in the development of processes that give rise to wars, determine their course and completion (outcome).

There are various theories of wars:

Classical theory of war;

class theory of war;

Pluralistic theory of war;

Positivist (pragmatic) theory of war;

Biological theory of war;

Religious theory of war;

Techno-industrial theory of war.

Each of these theories is formed on the basis of relevant worldviews, the dominant military ideology, military policy, and serves their purposes.

Despite the inconsistency, and often the falsity of these or those theories, each of them contains elements of truth that reveal certain aspects of wars, their causes and consequences.

WAR THEORY BIOLOGICAL theoretical concept that considers wars as a special property of human society, a natural result of the development of negative (aggressive) biological qualities of people, the struggle for existence, the desire to achieve prosperity at the expense of others.

It is assumed that in connection with this, the war is in no way connected with either political or economic factors of development, but is an inevitable and inevitable social factor for everyone, which, of course, does not reflect the fullness of reality. However, it is impossible to completely deny the biological motives in the occurrence of wars, although many of them lie in a purely speculative sphere.

In modern Western philosophy and sociology, there are many concepts of war, the authors of which see its sources in different causes: in the eternal aggressive nature of man, in his irrationalism, unbridled desire to dominate other people, in ideological disagreements, in the divine predestination of war as a punishment of people for the evil they have done, in the demon of technology that is not subject to reasonable control, etc. This kind of concept allowed the Dutch scientist R. Steinmetz to write in his book “Philosophy of War”: “No victory over nature can inspire a person to the extreme strain of all forces to such an extent as the thought of victory over a person.” Such authors did not reveal the genesis of aggression, presenting its causes only as an objective reality. In addition, they ignored the fact that aggression, as a rule, is self-suppressing if the object of aggression (“potential victim”) is capable of active resistance, and the aggressor (“potential rapist”) is able to soberly assess its own possible damage.

THEORY OF WAR A CLASSICAL totality of the most important general theoretical, philosophical, military-political, economic, military-strategic and military-technical provisions abstracted from ideological principles on the essence, origin and content of war as the main component of armed struggle, other forms of struggle, means, forms and methods their conduct. It includes rational provisions from various theories of war, which makes it possible to reveal and substantiate its various aspects and elements.

In the classical theory of wars, it is recognized that the main sources of modern wars are antagonistic contradictions between states and peoples, resolved by forceful (violent) measures, means and methods. This theory proceeds from the fact that war is a complex social phenomenon, a continuation of politics by violent means, an open, most acute armed clash between states and socio-social forces. Its roots lie at the basis of other objective elements in the development of social relations, at the basis of generalized historical experience.

In a concentrated form, the essence of war, as a philosophical category, was defined by the famous military theorist and historian K. Clausewitz: war is nothing more than a continuation of state policy by other means. However, neither Clausewitz nor his followers gave a clear philosophical assessment of the primordial essence of wars, reducing their analysis mainly to describing war as a socio-political phenomenon.

WAR THEORY A PLURALIST theoretical concept that considers wars as one of the forms of resolving contradictions in society, and the causes of wars as a result of the complex interaction of many different political, economic, social, ethnic and other factors, each of which, depending on specific conditions, can be main.

The positive side of this theory is the dialectical consideration of the entire set of objective and subjective factors that determine the content of the war process itself, the negative side is the denial of the permanent main objective circumstances that determine the beginning and development of the war.

THE THEORY OF WAR A POSITIVIST (PRAGMATIC) theoretical concept that considers war from the standpoint of the progress of the development of society as an inevitable military-political confrontation of the parties, the result of the desire and calculation to improve their role and place in the global balance of power. This theory justifies before the world community the states - potential aggressors.

It assumes that war is a phenomenon that is one of the sources of the development of society, that, despite its destructive consequences, in the final analysis, it leads to the progress of the productive forces. The evaluation of each war is considered in terms of the extent to which it contributed to this progress. Consequently, the decisive factor determining the content of the phenomena of war, the regularity of its course and outcome, is determined by the ratio of its positive and negative elements, quantitative and qualitative characteristics (political, economic and military), which determine the capabilities of the belligerents.

One of the fundamental elements of this theory, in which the origins of aggression (war) are indirectly substantiated and scientifically interpreted, is the Darwinian theory of evolution and natural selection. Its core is, as you know, the struggle for existence, intraspecific and interspecific struggle, i.e. total competition. This theory, which appeared under the influence of the work of T. R. Malthus "An Essay on the Law of Population", essentially formed and justified the aggressive concepts of the second half of the 19th and 20th centuries, in particular, the Hitlerian concept of "living space".

WAR THEORY A RELIGIOUS theoretical concept that sees wars as the result of an irreconcilable clash of ideas and religious beliefs. This theory is based on a set of various religious dogmas. This concept is based on certain historical experience, but ignores small wars, where the religious aspect was completely absent or did not have significant significance. This theory does not explain the causes of wars between states where the same religion is dominant.

WAR THEORY A TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL theoretical concept that considers the essence, causes and role of wars in history, the patterns of their course and outcome, arising from the principles of technological determinism.

It is assumed that the unleashing and waging of wars is based not on socio-economic relations in society, but on scientific and technological progress. Accordingly, as a rule, all wars are a direct result of the quantitative accumulation and qualitative improvement of weapons and military equipment, which, in the end, gets out of the control of people and becomes an autonomous (independent) factor in the objective or accidental outbreak of wars and military conflicts. Such an approach will make it possible to clarify the organic connection between wars and the development of science and technology, but, in general, is false, since it does not explain the discontinuity of wars, the dynamics of their development.

CIVIL DEFENSE THEORY field of military science that investigates the possible consequences of the use of WMD, mass destruction and catastrophic phenomena, the problem of their elimination, the role, place and tasks of civil defense, the organization of the civil defense system, the expedient composition of the troops and forces of civil defense, their purpose and nature of actions, methods of performing tasks civil defense in peacetime and wartime, protection of the population and economic facilities, conducting emergency rescue operations, organizing the leadership of civil defense and managing its forces, the procedure for interaction of civil defense with the armed forces and the governing bodies of industrial ministries, departments and enterprises.

Acquires special significance in connection with the possibility of nuclear war. Recently, he has also dealt with the issue of protecting the population and economic facilities from international terrorism. He especially considers the problems of eliminating major natural and environmental disasters, as well as major industrial accidents that occur in peacetime.

THE THEORY OF THE CLASS NATURE OF WAR proceeds from the fact that war, with the emergence of states, constitutes a special form of class struggle, the continuation of the policy of various ruling classes by violent means.

Class theory is the most important part of the Marxist doctrine of war and the army and is a system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views on the war and the main means of its conduct - the armed forces, based on a materialistic understanding of society and its history. It states that the nature, forms and methods of warfare depend on the socio-political system of states, the level of development of production, weapons and military equipment. War is unleashed, as a rule, by the ruling classes and waged in their interests. For its conduct, the armed forces created by the state (in a civil war - by classes) are used. At the same time, the whole country, the whole people is involved in the conduct of modern wars.

Many provisions of class theory do not agree with real practice and cannot explain a number of modern phenomena of war, in particular, the causes of wars between socialist states, the possibility of preventing wars under the domination of capitalist relations, the influence of moral, religious, ethnic and other factors on the development of war.

According to Marxist theory, the main source of modern wars is imperialism, although historical experience shows that most wars arose for other reasons, and they are equally characteristic of states of different socio-economic orientations. Moreover, conflicts and wars between states of the same social system become typical. Such were all the wars of the 19th century, the First World War, more recently the Israeli-Arab wars, the war between China and Vietnam, the war between Iraq and Iran.

Nevertheless, in modern conditions, many provisions of the Marxist theory of wars are quite legitimate and can selectively be used to predict the causes of the emergence, course and outcome of modern wars and military conflicts.

THEORY OF ARMED FORCES MANAGEMENT A field of military science that studies the problems of command and control of the Armed Forces, the organization of the command and control system of troops (naval forces) and its constituent elements (bodies, command posts, automated systems and communications), regularities, principles and methods of work of command and staffs in planning, organization , the management of operations and combat operations, their support, as well as the management of operational, combat and political training, the life and activities of troops (naval forces) in peacetime and wartime. It is part of the general theory of management and is based on its laws and conclusions.

Considers the general structures and levels of military command and control, the relationship between them, the operation of all technical elements of the command and control system of troops and weapons, primarily automated control and communication systems of the Armed Forces.

WAR FACTORS A set of unfavorable objective and subjective conditions and circumstances that determine the development and transformation of potential military threats into a real military clash between states.

Objective factors are irreconcilable contradictions and antagonisms between neighboring states, caused mainly by the clash of their geopolitical and economic interests in the struggle for spheres of influence. Among the objective factors of the war, one should also include the unfavorable living conditions of the people - overpopulation, leading to a reduction in the relative living space, lack of necessary natural resources, etc. These factors are expressed in a concentrated form, as a rule, in the militant ideology of the ruling elites (groups, clans) of the state , being a breeding ground for strengthening the motives of aggression in the public mind.

Aggression is often carried out by the elite under the slogan of defending the Fatherland, restoring historical justice, conquering “living space” for themselves in the conditions of unleashing massive chauvinistic propaganda in their country. In the era of information technology, the external and internal threat to the nation and state can be virtual and imitated by means of propaganda. At the same time, aggression can satisfy both unconscious destructive aspirations and completely conscious group material interest and political egoism.

Subjective factors are the intentions and ambitions of political leaders, the calculations of the military-political leadership for the possibility of realizing their advantage in order to achieve victory. In some cases, the immediate prerequisite for the outbreak of war is an erroneous assessment of the intentions and actions of the opposing side (potential adversary), which can be largely influenced by its covert military preparations.

At different times, under different socio-political conditions and systems of power, the root causes of the war were, as a rule, personal (less often - clan), and not social in nature: a thirst for enrichment; the desire to distract society with an external war from the crisis of power and other internal political problems; the desire to mobilize society by sharpening the feeling of patriotism and neutralize the opposition in order to strengthen the regime of personal power; heightened vanity, expressed in a thirst to go down in history; the obsession with the need for a world revolution and a radical political and social reorganization of the world according to its own scheme; religious fanaticism, national intolerance, etc.

FACTORS OF DETERRING AGGRESSION (WAR) THE MAIN set of forces, means and circumstances that actively counteract the factors of war. They are used by peace-loving forces in the interests of deterring aggression and ensuring international security, as well as the military security of the state, society, and the individual.

The key, decisive factor in deterring any aggression is the threat of an inevitable and unacceptable retaliatory strike (retaliation).

Since any war has a “dueling” character (there is an aggressor and a “victim” opposing him), aggression never goes unpunished. The “victim”, one way or another, inflicts more or less retaliatory damage on the aggressor. Therefore, the aggressor always evaluates the expected "fruits of the war" and compares them with the possible retaliatory damage. Retaliatory damage is recognized as acceptable if it does not raise doubts about achieving victory with "little bloodshed" and does not threaten the life and property of the ruling elite. Therefore, in order to deter (prevent) aggression, a peace-loving state must be able to independently or jointly with other states (in the system of collective security) inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor. At the same time, the ability to apply it must be open (“transparent”) so that it can be taken into account by any potential aggressor. During a war, this factor should act as a real factor in active defense.

The principle of containment by the threat of inevitable unacceptable damage has been verified by many years of practice in relations between nuclear states, among which there has not been a single direct military conflict.

FACTORS DETERMINING THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF WAR A set of spiritual, material and socio-political circumstances that influence the development of the war and its final results. By nature, such factors can be objective and subjective; according to the type of influence on the course and outcome of the war - temporary and permanent; according to the level of significance - decisive, main and secondary.

Objective factors include specific, activated spiritual and material capabilities of the parties. Subjective factors include circumstances related to the conscious activities of people, political and military leadership, as well as the personal qualities of commanders.

Temporary factors are surprise, preemption of the enemy in the deployment of armed forces and organization of their actions, psychological impact on the population and personnel of the armed forces. Permanent factors include circumstances related to the goals of the war and the moral and psychological stability of society. They are also determined by the morale of the people and the army, the quantity and quality of weapons, the strength of the rear and its ability to meet the needs of the war, and the availability of reserve material and human resources of the country.

From the book of the Special Services of the Russian Empire [Unique Encyclopedia] author Kolpakidi Alexander Ivanovich

CHAPTER 10 Military construction, military reform, conversion

From the book "Mossad" and other Israeli intelligence services author Sever Alexander

CHAPTER 13 Military Economy MILITARY ALLOCATIONS The main part of the military expenditures of the state, expressed in the form of funds allocated from centralized funds for the financial support of the activities of the military organization. Cover direct and indirect

From the book Indians of the Wild West in battle. "Good day to die!" author Stukalin Yury Viktorovich

CHAPTER 14 Military geography INTERNAL REGIONS of the COUNTRY the central part of the territory of the country, not included in the boundaries of the theater of operations. Within its boundaries there are important administrative, political and industrial centers, rear and military facilities, and the corresponding groupings are located.

From the Bicyclist's Bible author Friel Joe

CHAPTER 15 Military Pedagogy COMBAT EXPERIENCE stable practical knowledge and skills acquired by command personnel, headquarters and troops (navy forces) in the course of combat operations. Accumulates and consolidates in a combat situation. It is one of the important qualities that contribute to

From the author's book

From the author's book

From the author's book

CHAPTER 3 The Science of Training Do you think all the world's knowledge of the sport, the best coaches in the world, the best equipment will help you win a gold medal? No. But the absence of the above factors will help you not win

From the author's book

Chapter 6. TO THE NATIONAL MILITARY DOCTRINE Russia of the future will need armed forces for new types of wars 1. Ensure the people's right to life Ensuring the defense of Russia is one of the most important duties of the country's leadership and its ruling elite. From whether he can

From the author's book

Science See also “Knowledge”, “Theory. Hypothesis”, “Scientists”, “Experiment” Science is the best way to satisfy personal curiosity at public expense. Lev Artsimovich Art is "I"; science is "we". Claude Bernard * Life is short, but science is long. Lucian

Due to the exceptional capacity of the content of forecasting in the military field, it is expedient to confine ourselves to highlighting a few of the most important trends and problems in military theory and practice. This is first of all revealing the socio-political nature and essence of wars. This direction in forecasting is fundamental because it determines the correct definition of goals, scales, duration of wars, the degree of intensity of hostilities, and much more. There can be no forecasting of the course and outcome of hostilities without research in this direction. It is necessary in each specific case, for each war in particular, to determine its political content. The appearance of nuclear missile weapons has not changed the essence of wars, which are a continuation of politics by violent means.

Another important direction in the content of forecasting in military affairs is determination of the nature of the world war in terms of means and methods of waging it. In this regard, it should be noted that in military forecasting, a large place is occupied by determining the consequences of the scientific and technological revolution, which led to the emergence of more advanced, diverse and complex military equipment and weapons. That is why one of the main tasks of forecasting in the military field is to determine what is outdated in military affairs and what will be updated in it in the future. It is very important to determine in advance with what weapons and what forces and means the war will be waged, what previously unknown methods of armed struggle will have to face, how long the war will be, and much more.

For these problems, various forecasts are put forward and substantiated:

1. War, from the point of view of the means of its conduct, from the very beginning to the end will be nuclear missile.

2. A war can start with the use of conventional means of warfare and only in the course of action develop into a nuclear missile war.

3. In a war, weapons of mass destruction may not be used at all.

4. The war will take place with the use of chemical and biological weapons.

With regard to the methods of starting a world war, there are also several options for forecasts:

1) the war may start e.local military conflict;

2) the war from the very beginning will take on a global character in terms of its scope and goals.

One of the main directions in forecasting is also the study of problems organizational structure of the armed forces, methods of command and control. The armed forces, like any other social system, have their own structure, which is subject to various kinds of changes and development. In what direction and how this development will go is one of the difficult questions that can be answered based on forecasting.

The exceptional practical significance of this problem of forecasting in military affairs is explained to a large extent by the changes taking place under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution. Based on the law of the dependence of changes in the professional composition of the army and navy on the appearance of new weapons and military equipment, and having certain information, it is possible to present quantitative and qualitative prospects for the development of the professional structure of the armed forces.

A somewhat special direction in foresight in military affairs is the assessment of the level and ways of developing military theory and practice, and the potential capabilities of the most probable adversary. Taking into account the current level of military training, in order to determine the prospects for the development of Russian military theory and practice, it is necessary not only to be aware of the impending military danger, but also to be aware of the specific practical activities of other states.

It is very important to predict (the sooner the better) the possible ways of unleashing wars by aggressive states in order to exclude any accidents and prevent surprise, since if the aggressor has weapons of mass destruction and missiles as the main means of their delivery, this can lead to sad consequences for everything humanity.

Describing the specifics of the content of forecasting in military affairs, one should point out its versatility, which manifests itself in the fact that, in addition to armed struggle, it covers the economy, politics, diplomacy, etc. This feature indicates that forecasting in military affairs can be correct and scientifically substantiated. only if it takes into account economic, political, natural-scientific and actually military factors in their unity.

The specificity of the content of forecasting always determines some features of the forms of expression of forecasts, plans, and management. If in medicine forecasting acts as a preliminary diagnosis, in meteorology weather reports are compiled, in economics - economic planning, then in the military field there are specific forms: military doctrine, charters and instructions, the decision and order of the commander, reflecting certain views on a future war, on the nature and characteristics of armed struggle, the possible forms and methods of its conduct.

Forecasting in the Russian military doctrine is distinguished by the fact that it contains a comprehensive assessment of the nature and essential features of a possible future war, the likely methods of conducting an armed struggle, and the requirements arising from all this for the organization and preparation of the Armed Forces and the country for a decisive defeat of the aggressor.

A form of forecasting on an operational-tactical scale is the requirements of regulations and manuals, which contain instructions and recommendations on the use of certain methods of combat operations in a possible war. Of course, these recommendations should not be taken as a template. Charters cannot give exhaustive instructions on all questions that arise in the course of combat activities of troops. In each specific case, taking into account the prevailing situation, the commander, relying on the requirements of the regulations, is looking for the best ways to carry out a combat order. A widely used form of forecasting in the military field is the decision and order of the commander, which gives a "outline" of the course and outcome of the upcoming armed struggle. The commander's decision is an ideal scheme for the future actions of troops based on an analysis of the combat situation.

Features of forecasting

The attitude to the war in modern Europe depended on how this war was defined. From the point of view of Europeans, there were wars of conquest, defensive, liberation. And if the wars of the first type were most often assessed negatively, then the second and third - as a rule, positively. For Chinese society, whose worldview was based on the desire to create spiritual harmony, war, regardless of its type and rank, has always been evil. She was destruction and confusion. She was the opposite (enemy) of harmony and spiritual good.

The Chinese Empire did not celebrate military victories. A well-known aphorism said: "Having won, hold on as if it were not there." Among the people there were such sayings, emphasizing the attitude to war and military affairs, such as: “A nail is not made from good iron, a good person does not serve in soldiers.”

This did not mean, of course, that the Chinese never fought. The location of their state in the neighborhood of nomadic tribes forced them to fight a lot and fiercely. But military affairs did not gain more respect from this. War has always been a necessary evil. Even though the actions of a man in war, like any other of his actions, were evaluated and considered from the point of view of spiritual concepts.

Chinese military treatises emphasized the close relationship between the spiritual state of the commander and the course of hostilities. An aphorism about the art of war stated: "War is won thanks to calmness." And defeat was considered evidence of spiritual imperfection.

In the martial arts of China, paramount importance was also given not to physical strength and dexterity, but to the mental state of the fighter, and also to the fusion (harmony) of spirit and body. And fisticuffs were supposed to serve not just external self-defense, but, like all other forms of external existence, spiritual perfection (improvement of the soul).

Not without reason, one of the most famous schools of fisticuffs arose in the Chan Buddhist monastery of Shaolinsi. Bodhidharma, the founder of Chan Buddhism, was considered its founder. And martial arts were considered as part of the spiritual development of the monks.

The correct spiritual state had to be achieved through mental concentration (a kind of meditation) and precise observance of certain bodily postures. The aphorisms of the martial arts masters taught: “All hand-to-hand combat techniques are not worth one particle of inner accomplishment”, “Before learning the arts, learn the ritual. Before you engage in military affairs, understand what virtue is.

All movements in wushu practice were performed in an arc, a circle, and ultimately in a sphere, forming a harmonious unity of multidirectional movements. And the main goal of these movements was to create that external harmony, which should create internal harmony (similar to the impact on the human soul of a ritual).

The general movement of the body was understood as a symbolic movement, appearing as "non-movement" (a symbol of harmony and peace). From this followed such an important principle of martial art schools as the superiority of softness over hardness and rest over activity. The main form was the rotation of the body, arms or legs around its axis, so that even a direct blow required twisting of the arm. And the movements were seen as the application not of physical strength, but of "inner" or "spiritual" strength (ching), which, according to Chinese teachers, "is born from emptiness."

In the tradition of the schools of martial arts, this gymnastics was only the first stage of improvement, preparation for a purely internal, symbolic practice.

In military-scientific knowledge, the system of evidence has its own characteristics. This is one of the key methodological problems. And how many were unverified, unreasoned conclusions, positions in the history of wars. In military science, the nature of evidence is largely based on the direct use of data from military practice. BUT military practice is systemic in nature, includes the combat experience of all armies in all wars, military exercises, games, maneuvers, military experiments, everyday practice of training and education of personnel of the armed forces in peacetime, etc.

In military science, one has to take into account the complexity of formulating theses and arguments; here military-theoretical competitions with the armies of alleged opponents are possible. The proof requires methodically correct discussions, not to replace the theses with arguments.

tami. The thesis is a fundamental statement that requires argumentation. It is unacceptable to build a proof with the help of other theses instead of arguments.

On the basis of proven hypotheses, as a result of experimental design checks, field tests, reliable objectively true knowledge is formulated, which may have the value of conceptual developments, the status of a theory in any field of knowledge, or particular theoretical generalizations.

These are the main forms of military scientific knowledge. All the same epistemological principles, categories, and norms operate here. The principles of epistemology are the same, but in military science there is both rational and irrational, here in the complex of knowledge of the commander there are enough emotional, psychological experiences, a sense of responsibility for the fate of decisions. There are also many evaluative factors, value orientations; values, understanding them is a very significant and important aspect in cognition.

Finally, let us briefly outline the levels of military-scientific knowledge: empirical(live, experienced) and theoretical(generalized) level of knowledge. The structure of these levels was discussed in detail in the previous section. Here we only note that each of these levels of knowledge has their methods.

Special and fairly common methods of empirical knowledge in military science are observation, analogy and experiment. These methods provide the original necessary material for the processing of knowledge, theoretical generalizations, they also make it possible to provide a direct link between military scientific knowledge and practice. Today, in connection with the rearmament of the army and navy, military science has a rather limited empirical base. There is a major problem collection of facts - the accumulation of empirical material, as they say, textures, studying the experience of local wars.

But for all the enormous significance of the empirical (experimental) material and, accordingly, the given level of knowledge, nevertheless it does not reveal the most important, deep, essential connections and relationships, does not explain the true nature occurring events.

The practice of waging wars and armed conflicts in the modern era, the need to foresee the further complication of the methods and forms of armed struggle require from military science deep, theoretical knowledge.

At the theoretical level, the experience of military activity is subjected to generalization and logical processing. The result of theoretical knowledge are concepts, laws. Theory is a generalized systematized and reliable knowledge; it can explain things

ik

(perform an explanatory function), predict new, previously unknown phenomena.

Theoretical knowledge in military science has its own methods: induction, deduction, analysis and synthesis, and the method of abstraction. Generalization is more than a method. It is also a learning operation. including various methods of penetration into the deep states of the essence, this is a process that covers the entire "highway" of knowledge, etc.

As a conclusion, we emphasize: the movement of knowledge from the empirical to the theoretical is the transition from description to explanation. And it exists in different types - causal, explanation with the position of all other categories: possibility and reality, necessity and chance, etc. But all this is in the name of practice, in the interests of practical activity.

2.2 SPECIFICITY OF THE OBJECT AND SUBJECT OF MILITARY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

1. The concept of the object and subject of military scientific knowledge

First of all, we note that in the structure of military science it is customary to single out its internal branches, individual private disciplines. Interpretations about the structure of military science are different, and there is a differentiation of military scientific knowledge. Hence it is customary to speak of military sciences. The main ones can be considered: general foundations of military science, the theory of construction of the Armed Forces, the theory of military art, the theory of military administration, the theory of military training and education, the theory of weapons. This should also include military economics and logistics theory, military history and other disciplines. In addition, there are more fractional division of the components of military science. But this will be discussed later. Now we need to focus on the relationship between the object and the subject of military scientific knowledge.

The need to define the object and subject of military science is explained by many factors: the nature of the current state of military science and its development is changing. A relatively fast increase in volume military-scientific knowledge of different order and level, increasing their differentiation and integration, the structure of military science becomes more complex and character interrelations of its subject components, its interaction with other sciences is expanding.

The current state of military science is not entirely meets the requirements of the wars of the XXI century.

At the January military scientific conference (2004), the Minister of Defense noted: “... In military science, unfortunately, there is both a general departmental isolation and the presence of rigid internal boundaries.

between different areas of military science, individual military scientific institutions, including by belonging to different types and branches of the troops "*^. And further: “... The current stage in the development of science is generally characterized by the integration of the efforts of scientists working in different fields. The most productive research today is carried out in related fields, it is at the boundaries of different scientific interests and disciplines that the most effective results are being made in our time. And this is especially felt in the development of military science, which must incorporate the achievements of various branches of knowledge.

The improvement of weapons and equipment, the complication of the methods and forms of armed struggle greatly increase the requirements for such indicators of military scientific knowledge as accuracy, reliability, objective truth. In addition, the multifactorial nature, complexity, inconsistency, unpredictability of the course and outcome of the war(taking into account the Jesuit forms of international terrorism) puts military science in special conditions of predictive and hypothetical nature. The case is conditioned by the insufficiency of the experimental base and the need to carry out developments in a short time on a variety of fundamental theoretical and especially applied problems.

Definition of the subject of military science associated with establishing the main directions and boundaries of the study of problems. All this is important for any science, and especially for the military. In her to determine the limits of its competence proved to be much more difficult than elsewhere.

In many discussions in the press, the limits of the cognitive sphere of military science are presented in a rather blurred form. Can't see where it goes "demarcation" line separating the subject of military science from other branches of knowledge. Controversial issues often arise when determining object and subject of military science. And also in the interpretation of the concepts of "military science" and "military theory". Military theory is the core of military science. But it contains not only theoretical provisions, its basis. It contains the texture of military science and empirical data. Military theory is also the fundamental provisions of military doctrine.

It's common knowledge what "Object" is a broader concept than the subject. For example, nature and society are objects of study for many sciences, but each of them deals only with certain aspects of these objects, that is, each of the sciences of nature and society has its own subject. War is a complex multifaceted phenomenon, the knowledge of which is carried out by various sciences that form a common system of knowledge. In, Ftoy system stands out:

"Military Thought. 2004. No. 5, p. 53." * Ibid.

the socio-historical essence of war, its place and role among other social phenomena, which is the subject for the study of philosophy, political science, sociology, etc.;

armed struggle, which is the subject of military science and related military problems of other sciences;

non-military means and forms of confrontation accompanying the armed struggle - economic, ideological, informational, diplomatic and others with the subordination of this activity to the successful conduct of the war.

As you can see, the volume of knowledge of the war as a whole in all the diversity of its aspects, fans, is the lot of many sciences, and not just military science. Otherwise, the breadth of its coverage of diverse and dissimilar complex problems would be achieved at the expense of the loss of depth of knowledge. And this, in principle, contradicts the current process of differentiation of sciences. This requires the unification of the efforts of many sciences. It is quite natural: the more complex and wider the object of knowledge becomes (which is typical for such an object as war as a whole in our time), the more sciences study it. Scientific knowledge is the more fruitful the more ramified its disciplinary organization. But at the same time there is an integration of scientific knowledge. There is an interdisciplinary organization of the research process, a kind of association of research programs. Such is the real dialectic of knowledge, expressed in the contradictory unity of differentiation and integration of military scientific knowledge.

Meanwhile, quite a few military experts considered (and probably still consider) war as a whole to be the subject of military science. We have already tried to explain why this is not so.

It is important and legitimate to speak about the subject area of ​​military scientific knowledge, that is, to define the range of research within the competence of military science. And this means that armed struggle, as the main subject of military science, cannot be separated from other facets of the object of knowledge. One way or another, military science is compelled to investigate, so to speak, areas of military practice "frontier" to armed struggle. This is where the complex “crosshair” of different opinions arises. In passing, we note that the subject of any science is one of those problems that are constantly discussed and debated. Sciences, developing, seek and renew the subject of their knowledge. The same is happening with military science. It is required to clarify the assertion that armed struggle is the main subject of military science. The question arises, what is non-basic or non-basic subject education? Indeed, military science does not isolate itself from the variety of connections and relationships with many aspects and facets of war as an object of knowledge.

There is an opinion that subject-problem developments taken from other sides and facets of such a complex object of knowledge as war are also characteristic of military science. It seems that such an interpretation of general military scientific knowledge can be qualified as non-core subject areas. But if you think about the phrase "subject-problem" research, then what is it? Reliance on the conclusions and provisions made by other sciences about war (and not only about war, but also beyond the scope of this object)? Or a military research search within other subject areas of the war? Both assumptions are acceptable. These problematic searches give grounds to consider them as something like non-basic subjects of military science.

There are sciences with relatively clear boundaries of their subject of knowledge (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.). Although here, too, there is a process of differentiation and integration of sciences. And there are sciences with a pronounced integration content, for example, oceanology, which, along with the basic provisions, includes the relevant issues of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

When analyzing the subject area of ​​military science, it is necessary to define it. “This is a system of knowledge about the laws, the military-strategic nature of war, ways to prevent it, building up and preparing the armed forces and the country for war, methods of conducting armed struggle. War as a complex socio-political phenomenon affects all spheres of society and is studied by many social, natural and technical sciences. The main subject of military science is armed struggle in war.

2. The laws of armed struggle as the main subject of military scientific knowledge

Like any other science, military science has common foundations, that is, it clarifies its subject areas. There are different opinions here. As has already been noted, some military experts consider war as a whole, with its laws of the emergence and course of the war process, to be the subject of military science. Others, including your obedient servant, do not agree with the stated opinion. War is object of study military science. Of course, armed struggle as the main subject of military science cannot be separated from other facets of the object of knowledge, to isolate it from other forms of struggle during the war: economic, information etc.

Since the subject of any science is laws, i.e., essential repetitive connections and relationships, the subject of military science also contains laws in exactly the same way - these are the laws of armed struggle. Knowledge of this kind of laws is used to build armed forces.

"Military Encyclopedia. T. 2.- M .: Military Publishing House, 1994, p. 130.

military forces, and in the field of military art - for the development of regulations, manuals, instructions, etc. Knowledge of the laws of armed struggle serves as the basis for the development of command and control systems for troops (forces). Mastery of these laws determines the search for forms and methods of military training and education, the rationale for optimal targeted programs for the development of weapons systems, etc.

The core of military science is the theory of military art, which is primarily based on the laws of armed struggle.

From a methodological point of view, we characterize the the nature of the laws of war and armed struggle. They are wearing not dynamic, but predominantly statistical in nature. Dynamic laws establish an unambiguous connection in time and space between the states of an object. This allows you to predict the occurrence of a certain event, if the reasons affecting it are known (for example, the prediction of solar and lunar eclipses). In war, everything would be immeasurably easier, if dynamic laws acted in it. It would be possible even before the start of a war (or campaign) to calculate and take into account with a certain accuracy its results. But since they operate here statistical laws, then this result is passed through random arrays. Of course, in addition to statistical laws, there are also dynamic laws, to which the movement of missiles, a warship, a tank, an aircraft, columns of combat vehicles, etc., is subordinated. This means that even before the start of a battle, operations can be calculated and predicted a lot.

The laws of war and armed struggle, one way or another, are connected with the balance of forces of opponents and are determined by it.

("54") The laws of war and armed struggle are formulated in the new edition of the military encyclopedia. The following groups of laws of armed struggle are proposed. The first group characterizes the patterns between the course and outcome of an armed struggle, on the one hand, and the main factors in the combat power of the opposing armed forces, on the other. The laws of this group include: the dependence of the course and outcome of an armed struggle on the ratio of the quantity and quality of the personnel of the armed forces of the opposing sides and, accordingly, on the ratio of the quantity and quality of military equipment available in the armed forces of the opposing sides.

The allocation of the second group of laws of armed struggle is due to the fact that the personnel of the armed forces are functionally divided into those directly conducting combat operations and those carrying out their combat, technical and technical support. In accordance with this, the laws of this group include: the dependence of the course and outcome of an armed struggle on the ratio of the number and quality of combat units (formations) of the opposing armed forces and on the ratio of the number

stva and quality of the units that ensure the combat operations of the opposing armed forces.

The selection of the third group of laws of armed struggle is connected with the actions of such combat factors as the effectiveness of methods of combat operations, the art of managing armed struggle, and the conformity of the organizational structure of the armed forces with the nature of armed struggle. This group includes: the dependence of the course and outcome of an armed struggle on the methods of combat operations used by the opposing armed forces, on the correspondence of the art of command and control of the troops of the opposing armed forces to the goals and means of armed struggle, on the correspondence of the organizational structure of the opposing armed forces to the nature of combat operations.

Due to the fact that each of the factors of war is a complex formation, the laws corresponding to them can be specified by presenting each of them in the form of several regular connections of a more particular order. Thus, the law of the dependence of the course and outcome of armed struggle on the methods of combat operations used by the armed forces of the opposing sides can be represented as a series of dependences of armed struggle on the concentration of forces and means in the main direction, and fire strikes - on priority targets and on the interaction of troops in time, space in solving common problems, etc. The more concretely the laws of armed struggle are defined, the higher the practical significance of the principles of military art derived from them, which act as a link between theory and practice, contain normative requirements and rules for the combat activities of troops, set out in the relevant military regulations and manuals^".

The listed groups and types of laws of armed struggle include laws covering various scales, types of military operations, structural features of the armed forces: laws of operation, battle, combat; the law of interrelation of military actions of strategic and operational-tactical scale; the laws of dependence of the nature of hostilities on the scale of the war and the weapons used; laws of types of combat operations: offensive and defense; the laws of combat operations of the branches of the armed forces and branches of the armed forces.

There are many regular connections. It is interesting to know that in addition to universal (dialectical), the most general, specific, private (within specific sciences) laws, there are laws that differ in the nature of their manifestation, action.

There are causal-genetic, structural-functional laws of development.

* "Military Encyclopedia. - M: Military Publishing House. 1995. Vol. 3, p. 220-221.

Causal-genetic laws reflect the process of origin, emergence, any phenomena, events. The laws of the origin of war can serve as a typical example of causal-genetic laws.

Structural-functional laws are characterized by their impact on something, they express the role assignment of any structural formations in real processes, in different spheres of armed struggle.

The laws of development express such a change in one or another area of ​​reality, which, to some extent, means a transition from one state to another, more perfect in terms of quality. In other words, the system moves to a new, qualitatively different level of functioning. And if you look at this process from the point of view of synergetics, we can talk about the development from order to chaos and vice versa.

Of course, far from all the natural connections and relations in the course of armed struggle are named here, only some of them, which are most clearly represented in military affairs, are shown. Within the framework of the lecture it is impossible to reveal the content of all the laws. This is not our task. This is rather the task of specialists in the field of military science, professionals in the types of armed forces and combat arms.

From a methodological point of view, it is important to emphasize that the laws of war and armed struggle act objectively, independently of the consciousness of people, commanders (commanders). And that the laws operate under certain conditions, they are changeable, which means that the laws of armed struggle are historical.

The initial, starting point in the complex process of using the laws of armed struggle is the realization of how the concepts, categories, principles, and finally, regulations, instructions, etc., of military science correlate with them.

The principles of military art are formulated on the basis of the laws of armed struggle. Principles are formulated not only as an expression or reflection of the laws of armed struggle. But they are also a concentrated scientific substantiation of combat experience. The ways of formulating the art of war are different. These methods can be created through scientific justification, but they can develop spontaneously, under the influence of combat experience.

There are general principles: the concentration of the main efforts in the most important areas for solving the main combat missions; activity, continuity and decisiveness of actions; surprise, capture and retention of the initiative; firmness and continuity of management; maneuver by forces, means and fire; comprehensive support for military operations, etc.

("55") The most important principles of domestic military art at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. are: maintaining constant combat readiness to perform tasks in any conditions of the beginning and conduct of a war; decide-

activity and activity of actions; constant striving to seize and hold the initiative; coordinated use of troops (forces) and means and their close interaction; resolute concentration of efforts at the decisive moment of the operation (battle) in the most important sector and for the accomplishment of the main tasks; simultaneous defeat of the enemy to the entire depth of his formation; suddenness; inflexibility and determination in the performance of tasks; timely build-up of efforts to build on the success achieved; bold maneuver of troops (forces), means, including psychological and informational warfare, as well as fire; full use of the capabilities of troops (forces) and means, as well as methods of struggle, and, above all, psychological and informational, to achieve victory; conducting hostilities at a high pace; consolidation of the achieved success; creation, restoration, and skillful use of reserves; timely restoration of combat capability of troops (forces); accounting and skillful use of moral, psychological and informational factors; comprehensive preparation and comprehensive support for combat operations; firm and continuous command and control of troops (forces) and assets**.

The statutory documents of the NATO countries enshrine the following principles of warfare: seizing the initiative and being active; offensiveness; concentration of forces and means of armaments, psychological and informational warfare in a decisive place and at the required time; massing of forces and means in a decisive area and the implementation of a bold maneuver, including by fire; interaction; suddenness; decisive action; perseverance and initiative; destruction (defeat) of the main forces and means of the enemy by long-range fire weapons, followed by the capture (fortification) of the terrain (water area) by land (sea) forces; strong-willed, constant and precise command and control of troops (forces); uninterrupted logistical support of combat operations.

So, having outlined the main provisions on the issues of delimitation of the object and subject of military scientific knowledge, it is necessary to conclude that the main attention of the cognitive process is focused on revealing the laws of armed struggle and the principles of military art.

2.3. SUBJECT OF MILITARY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

1. The concept of the subject of military scientific knowledge

B In the previous lecture, we considered the question of the relation of an object and subject of military scientific knowledge. Now we have to correlate the concepts

"Military Encyclopedia. T 6. - M .: Military Publishing House, 2002, p. 618.

ty "subject of knowledge" and "object of knowledge", to characterize the subject of knowledge.

In cognition, the object and the subject interact, and from this point of view, scientific knowledge includes four necessary components in their unity:

the subject of science is its key element: an individual researcher, a scientific team, a scientific community, etc.;

an object (subject, subject area) is what the given science and its carrier studies;

a system of methods, methods, techniques used in this science;

language characteristic of a given science.

When we pronounce the word "subject", we mean an active principle, an active action of the human mind and will. The object as a term, on the other hand, is a passive voice; this is what the action is directed at.

Subject(lat. ziyesdya) - lying below, literally under (zib) - sub-objects, the carrier of subject-practical activity and knowledge. The subject is the actual pledge. The subject acts within the framework of objective relations and conditions. And these conditions, in turn, are to a large extent a crystallized form of previous human activity or circumstances.

The problem of the relation of the subject to the object, as the relation of the knower to the known, has always been and remains one of the central problems of philosophy. This problem has been posed for a long time, since the time when philosophy arose. The question of the subject of military scientific knowledge has also been raised for a long time. But let us note that this question was raised by the very practice of waging wars, of armed struggle. Although theoretically, in philosophical terms, all these problems arose later, with the development of military scientific knowledge. Knowledge, including in the military field, is essentially aimed at an object, in this case on war as a process of armed struggle. Knowledge of the object has the goal of reflecting it, the object, its character. Moreover, this cognition does not depend on the perspective from which the object (object) appears for the cognizing subject. But this task can be accomplished only if knowledge about the object also includes an understanding of the “place” of the subject in the acquisition of knowledge as a necessary component. The place and role of the subject of knowledge from the military-scientific point of view are very weighty and important. The scale of knowledge, the degree of depth of disclosure of the problem, etc. depend on this.

("56") Let's note one more important point. In itself, the correct perception of form, configuration, the structure of the object (subject) of cognition, regardless of the angle of view it is given to the subject(the so-called constancy of perception), implies a constant the self-report of the subject, performed at first unconsciously, but post-

gradually delving into the essence of the object (subject), this self-report becomes more and more significant, responsible.

As Woke said, the highest form of acquiring (or producing) knowledge is science. And naturally, scientific knowledge is conditioned by the understanding of the role of language. Besides, it is important to take into account the role of one or another knowledge coding system. And that is not all. It is also necessary to take into account the ongoing the subject of the operation associated with the use of instruments, devices (and in military affairs, weapons, instruments and means of observation, etc.).

In military affairs, it is important to take into account the correlative nature of the object and subject of knowledge. The masses of soldiers within any military formations are the subject of knowledge of the process of armed struggle in the appropriate scale and levels of comparison. It has its own linguistic, conceptual forms. At the same time, the rank and file of military teams is also an object of knowledge (and control) on the part of the officers of higher authorities, etc. The result of knowledge here is the combat experience of military formations. Here, each instance is the bearer of the language, terms, concepts of military science.

Since a native speaker, military-scientific categories, subject-cognitive operations is subject, insofar as one can speak of the conscious reproduction of an object, i.e. about the self-consciousness of the cognizing subject. Without such self-consciousness, the comprehension of the object of knowledge is impossible.

Self-awareness in military affairs is especially important for the armed defenders of the Fatherland to comprehend reality. The situation requires servicemen of all ranks and specialties to realize their place and role in the armed defense of the country. The question of general tendencies in the development of military science, overcoming contradictions, disagreement in the interpretation of its problems, and the exclusion of departmental squabbling in the sphere of military scientific knowledge is now very acute.

All this is directly related to the question of the subject of military scientific knowledge. It is important to achieve a certain harmony in the general complex of subjects of knowledge. Strive to harmonize points of view and views in the main, the main thing, in the presence of the whole variety of very specific and dissimilar aspects of military scientific knowledge. In solving this difficult task, one of the priority roles belongs to linguistic forms that adequately reflect the general patterns and trends in the course and outcome of armed struggle.

Since, as already mentioned, the bearer of the language of military-scientific categories is the subject, it is extremely important to use skillfully and clearly the conceptual apparatus in the interests of the fruitful development of scientific knowledge. It is difficult to overestimate the role of self-consciousness

2. Individual and collective subject

military scientific knowledge<

Question about correlation of individual and collective subject knowledge is meaningful and relevant,

In the lectures of the first section of the thematic plan, it has already been said about the structure of cognitive organizations, a lot there were explanations on the issue of the scientific community, its role, and the nature of its activities. Now it is necessary to consider the features of the functioning of the individual subject of cognition in its relationship with the group, collective subject military-scientific cognitive activity.

("57") First of all, let us emphasize the peculiarities of the functioning of the individual and collective subject of cognition in the conditions of the armed forces. The specifics of their functioning lies in the hierarchical structure of the military organization itself. Of course, such a hierarchy, subordination of individuals and groups, collectives in army conditions leaves a significant imprint on all military cognitive and research activities.

When we talk about the individual subject of military scientific knowledge, we must emphasize it. intersubjective character. Achievements in science or problems in the course of knowledge in military science are not limited to the personally significant. These or those achievements, problems have definitely significant moments of the day of other people, other individual or collective researchers.

Intersubjectivity is something that goes beyond the individual, personally recognized in the course of military cognitive work. Most often, in army conditions, an individual, separately taken subject of cognition works according to an individually chosen plan, which is included in the general group (cathedral or academic) research plan.

We have to say that it is important for a novice scientist not to succumb to the temptation of self-delusion (narcissism) with the results of research activities. These results of developments must be brought to the attention of the scientific community in a timely manner. There's a lot here

complexities, difficulties when we talk about the relationship between the individual and the collective subject of military scientific knowledge.

As already mentioned in the lecture of the first section, the scientific community, collective on one scale or another, according to modern researchers, is not a single, integral, rigidly fastened structure, but a kind of "granular environment". Everything essential for the development of scientific knowledge occurs inside the "granule" - a close scientific group, collectively creating a new element of knowledge, and then in the struggle and compromises with other similar groups that approve it. The "granule" is also not homogeneous, it consists of individual subjects of cognition with their specific tasks.

Of course, the granular nature of the scientific community is a metaphor taken to better represent the structure of scientific workers in certain organizations. The essence of the matter matters. Insofar as an individual or collective subject of military scientific knowledge directs his attention to a strictly defined subject and leaves out of sight all others, then the connection is very relevant between different individuals, groups, communities of military scientists. The intra-departmental isolation of military science, which the Minister of Defense spoke about, just testifies to the inconsistency not only of individual or group (collective) subjects of military scientific knowledge, but also of communities of different branches of the Armed Forces and combat arms.

It can be considered quite acceptable to conduct military scientific research, research, based on their the specific needs of each branch of the Armed Forces, branches of service, combat support formations. Here, research teams direct their efforts to strictly defined subject areas of knowledge. All this is clear and understandable. When choosing the subject of their scientific and educational work, each researcher - an adjunct, an applicant for academic degrees or a departmental team (or a certain team on a general academic scale), as a rule, is limited to a relatively narrow, specific task or problem in the field of military science, which is dominant in a military university , a specialized research institute by definition. The application of the philosophical and methodological approach gives a broad vision of the chosen topic in a broad sense of the entire versatility of military scientific knowledge, a clearer definition of the place and role of the chosen subject of development in the general disciplinary system of military science.

Indeed, since the scientific community (individual teams) directs their attention to a strictly defined subject and leaves all others out of sight, connections and creative communication between different scientific teams turn out to be very difficult. Entrance to a specialized team (or community) renders

The field of study is so narrow and cluttered that it is very difficult for representatives of different service or tribal teams of the Armed Forces (or representatives of different disciplines of military science) to hear each other and find out what unites them in a single community of scientists. This is facilitated to a certain extent by the closeness of developments, the hierarchy of the constructions of scientific teams themselves.

Science functions in culture not as a homogeneous whole, but as separate systems of knowledge inherent in one or another subject of scientific knowledge. These knowledge systems have different degrees of maturity. Hence - the epistemological stratification of science, different, sometimes contradictory achievements and opinions of the subjects of knowledge. Criteria of scientific character are called upon to be in the foreground.