Knorr, Klaus Eugen. The War Potential of Nations. Greenwood Press Reprint, 1978.
“This book is meant
to contribute to a theory of war potential.
The term ‘war potential’ is used frequently in literature, press,
lectures, and classroom discussion, yet its meaning is usually hazy and the
literature to which the student might turn for consultation is inadequate”
(vii). The book is interested in
economic, industrial, and morale components of war potential.
“Military means is one of the instruments through which
nations attempt to settle international conflicts of interest. Since the instrument is used to influence the
behavior of other nations, military power is necessarily relative to that of other
nations…Military power is subject to change for two reasons. A nation’s power may rise or fall because
there are changes in the power constituents of other nations or because there
is a change in its own means of waging war” (19).
“Short of battle, there is no precise test or measurement of
mobilized military power” (28).
“In this sense, ‘war potential’ is simply a collective term
for all the relevant elements of military strength other than the armed forces
themselves” (40).
“For example, the following list of components have been
drawn up by five different authors:”
(40):
This is Nicholas Spykman in America’s Strategy in World Politics:
“(1) Size of territory; nature of frontiers; size of
population; absence or presence of raw materials; economic and technological development;
financial strength’ ethnic homogeneity’ effective social integration’ political
stability’ and national spirit.” (40)
This is Morgenthau in In
Defense of the National Interest:
“(2) Geography; natural resources; industrial capacity;
military preparedness; population; national character; national morale; quality
of diplomacy.” (41)
This is Gulick in Administrative
Reflections from World War II:
“(3) Manpower; raw materials; capital investments; science,
technology, and research; organizations and institutions (including government
and economic and social institutions).” (41)
This is Steinmetz:
“(4) Population (size and structure); size of territory;
wealth; political institutions; leadership; national unity and cohesion;
respect and friends abroad; moral qualities.” (41)
This is Fischer:
“ (5) Political factors:
geographical position; size of state and number and density of
population; organizational skill and cultural level; kinds of frontiers and
attitudes of neighboring countries.
Psychological factors: economic
flexibility and inventive skill; perseverance and adaptability of the
population. Economic factors: fertility of soil and mineral wealth;
industrial organization and stage of technology; development of commerce and
transportation; and financial strength” (41).
This list is debilitating.
So the author makes three broad categories: economic capacity, institutional acumen, and
war motivation.
“If it is hard to measure and compare the ready striking
power of nations, it is still harder to measure and compare their war potential
and hence their total military power, of which potential is a major, and at
most time the predominant, part…How can we measure administrative competence,
motivation for war, and economic capacity?
How can the various components of these aggregates be measured? Even if we could measure the three broad
constituents of potential, how can we measure and compare the total war
potential so long as our units of measurement are incommensurable?” (47).
