Orientador: Rodrigo Duarte Fernandes dos Passos / Resumo: Este trabalho busca analisar o terrorismo a partir das contribuições de um dos maiores estudiosos da guerra, Carl von Clausewitz. O aumento de conflitos entre atores não Estatais das últimas décadas fomentou a ideia do surgimento de “novas guerras”, indo além da guerra regular, entre Estados; com isso, o terrorismo passou a ser equalizado à guerra, principalmente, após os atentados de 11 de setembro. Discute-se, então, como o pensamento de Clausewitz pode contribuir nessa reflexão, de modo a compreender que guerra e terrorismo são ambos fenômenos políticos, mas que não podem ser equalizados, visto a incongruência entre as suas várias manifestações, sobretudo aquela inaugurada em 2001, bem como a sua própria conceituação e a teorização clausewitziana sobre a guerra. Para tal, o texto parte de uma abordagem histórica, recorrendo à discussão da teoria da guerra do autor, seguido de um estudo sobre o terrorismo desde a época do Terror Jacobino Francês até o momento pós-11 de setembro, para, enfim, avaliar o alcance do terrorismo como fenômeno de guerra e político. Sendo assim, diante da relevância do pensamento de Clausewitz e o fato de não haver uma produção literária densa dedicada especificamente a esse problema de pesquisa é que este trabalho apresenta sua relevância ao tema. / Abstract: This work aims to analyze terrorism from the contributions of one of the greatest scholars of war, Carl von Clausewitz. The rise of conflicts between non-State actors in recent decades has fostered the idea of the emergence of "new wars", going beyond the regular war between states; as a result, terrorism became equalized to war, especially after the 9/11 attacks. It is then discussed how Clausewitz's thought can contribute to this reflection in order to understand that war and terrorism are both political phenomena, but cannot be equalized, because of the incongruity between their various manifestations, especially that one inaugurated in 2001, as well as its own conceptualization and the Clausewitzian theorization about war. To fulfill this idea the text proceeds from a historical approach, using the discussion of the author's war theory, followed by a study on terrorism since the time of the French Jacobean Terror until the post-September 11 moment, to finally evaluate the scope of terrorism as a phenomenon of war and politics. Therefore, taking count the relevance of Clausewitz’s thought and the fact that there is no dense literary production dedicated specifically to this research problem, this work presents its relevance to the theme. / Mestre

Texte remanié de: Thèse de doctorat--Histoire, textes et documents--Paris--École pratique des Hautes Études, 2007. / Bibliogr. p. 785-841. Index.

It has been almost 200 years since Carl von Clausewitz wrote On War. Clausewitz’s discussion of war explores four distinct, but related aspects of war: reasons for war (politics), the theory of war (absolute war), war in reality, and the conduct of war. Using his experience as a soldier in the Napoleonic and other wars of the 1700s and 1800s, Clausewitz’s major academic work seeks to provide a comprehensive theory of war. While war has changed dramatically since Clausewitz’s time, war involving states is still a part of everyday life. In this context, this thesis examines the contemporary relevance of Clausewitz with regard to modern interstate warfare, specifically analyzing whether Clausewitz would recognize modern interstate warfare. This was achieved by analyzing whether there was symmetry between the reasons for war and conduct of war variables, as explained in On War, with modern interstate wars waged between 1990 and 2012. The data revealed that both the wars of Clausewitz’s time and the wars of the modern era were varied in the their reasons for war and conduct of war, but that wars from Clausewitz’s time and the modern era still share similar characteristics. Despite the vast differences between Clausewitz’s time and the modern era this study found that Clausewitz’s wars and modern interstate wars do share common variables, making On War still relevant for the study of modern interstate warfare.

It has been almost 200 years since Carl von Clausewitz wrote On War. Clausewitz’s discussion of war explores four distinct, but related aspects of war: reasons for war (politics), the theory of war (absolute war), war in reality, and the conduct of war. Using his experience as a soldier in the Napoleonic and other wars of the 1700s and 1800s, Clausewitz’s major academic work seeks to provide a comprehensive theory of war. While war has changed dramatically since Clausewitz’s time, war involving states is still a part of everyday life. In this context, this thesis examines the contemporary relevance of Clausewitz with regard to modern interstate warfare, specifically analyzing whether Clausewitz would recognize modern interstate warfare. This was achieved by analyzing whether there was symmetry between the reasons for war and conduct of war variables, as explained in On War, with modern interstate wars waged between 1990 and 2012. The data revealed that both the wars of Clausewitz’s time and the wars of the modern era were varied in the their reasons for war and conduct of war, but that wars from Clausewitz’s time and the modern era still share similar characteristics. Despite the vast differences between Clausewitz’s time and the modern era this study found that Clausewitz’s wars and modern interstate wars do share common variables, making On War still relevant for the study of modern interstate warfare.

Zugl.: Potsdam, Univ., Magisterarbeit, 2005

<p>Terrorism. A word that makes you think about different situations throughout the last decade that has passed. However, in this particular thesis the purpose is to examine both national and international terrorism from a Clausewitzian theory. The main point is to examine whether any of these types of terrorisms can fit in to this theory and as examples in this study are the terrorist organizations ETA and al-Qaida. The questions to be answered in this paper are if their aims can be explained as political and how far are they ready to go to have their way? Furthermore, the reason for this paper is to find an understanding for why the terrorist organizations act as they do.</p><p>The result of this comparative study is that both terrorist organizations fit in to the theory because their goals can be seen as political and therefore can their aims justify their actions. However, the lack of support makes you begin to doubt about whether this is the right way or even a good way to achieve political aims. Hopefully, this enlightenment can increase our understanding and give us a guideline to how to deal with this threat of the 21^th century.</p>

Uppsatsen syftar till att jämföra svenska och finska förmågor rörande ett tröskelförsvar. Tröskelförsvaret bygger på strategin om anti-access/area denial, översatt till tillträdesförsvar och kontrollbestridande försvar. Tillträdesförsvaret syftar till att hindra en överlägsen motståndare att få tillträde till ett operationsområde och kontrollbestridande försvar syftar till att förneka motståndaren kontroll över operationsområdet i händelse av en väpnad konflikt. Denna strategi diskuteras flitigt i den internationella debatten men då främst hur stormakter som USA med allierade bäst skall bemöta de förmågor som svagare nationer bygger upp, inte hur det kan byggas upp. Detta tröskelförsvar har i uppsatsen tillämpats på Östersjön i vilket svenska och finska förmågor analyserats mot de grundläggande förmågorna verkan, rörlighet och skydd. Jämförelsen visar att Sverige har en tyngdpunkt i tillträdesförsvaret baserat på förmågan att möta en motståndare tidigt med sin offensiva undervattensförmåga, smyganpassade korvetter och flygburen sjömålsrobot. De brister som finns i Sverige utgörs främst av avsaknad av långräckviddig markattackförmåga samt förmågor i det kontrollbestridande försvaret. Finland har å andra sidan sin tyngdpunkt i det kontrollbestri-dande försvaret då de alltjämt har förmåga till markbaserad långräckviddig sjömålsbekäm-pande förmåga samt ett defensivt undervattensvapen i form av sjöminförmåga. Detta är för-mågor som Sverige avvecklat sedan 2000-talets inledning. Finlands brister är i tillträdesför-svaret där den offensiva undervattensförmågan saknas helt samt det begränsade antal platt-formar som kan verka framskjutet mot sjömål. Uppsatsen visar också att indelningen av till-trädesförsvar och kontrollbestridande försvar är en bra modell för att analysera nationers försvarsförmågor.

Att förstå krigets väsen är ett tidlöst och viktigt problem, inte minst i den tid vi lever. Det är av stor vikt att kunna definiera krig och härigenom skilja det från andra typer av konflikter. Denna problematik kommer på ett tydligt sätt i fokus bland annat när det gäller tillämpligheten av krigets lagar. Carl Von Clausewitz är en teoretiker som i hög grad kommit att prägla vår förståelse av krigets karaktär och väsen och han ges fortfarande ett relativt stort utrymme i bland annat militära utbildningssammanhang. Det finns dock problem kopplade till Clausewitz, bland annat är hans teorier intimt förknippade med begreppet staten. Denna uppsats syftar till att bidra till en vidgad förståelse av moderna krig och konflikter. Författaren vill uppnå en mer nyanserad förståelse av fenomenet krig genom att problematisera Clausewitz teoribildning. Resultaten visar att vi måste vara öppna för en vidare tolkning utifrån perspektiven krigföringens karaktär, de krigförande parterna och krigföringens syfte.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster, 1983. / "Neuere Geschichte." Bibliography: p. 188-201.

The principles of war have been around for a long time. The principles have been discussed among military theorists and they have come to include just one to over twenty. Sun Tzus wrote in 490 b.c about the importance of using concentration of force when attacking an enemy. Officers are today trained in the principles of war even though the principles hasn´t been systematically tested. The problem that occur is that every theorist has its own principles and definition of the same. Marco Smedberg claims that the air force has its own principles and that they are apart from the army and the navy. The principles have been around a long time, and today theorists Clausewitz an Jomini have found their way into Armed Forces doctrines. But are their theories still valid today. To answer that question this essay will analyse known military theorists Clausewitz and Jomini and find variables in their theories about the principle concentration of force, and seek thus variables in a modern naval war such as the battle of the Falklands.