In Makers of Modern Strategy, historian R. However, historians use the term in another vein as well, and apply it to an era much older than the Cold War. Objectives and outcomes were limited, particularly in Vietnam, in part because the human toll of a total war were considered too high. The concept has become a valid manner in which to view wars with goals that are less than the total destruction of the enemy. The remainder of the 20th century saw a series of limited wars fought by the United States from Vietnam to Iraq. involvement to a level they considered acceptable. The Korean War is considered a limited war because Truman and later Eisenhower refused to allow the conflict to escalate with direct conventional or nuclear attacks on Chinese soil. The concepts of limited and total war took on new meaning with the advent of the nuclear age, because total war in the modern era meant an unacceptable level of destruction in all but the biggest conflicts. For example, the survival of the Roman Empire under Augustus did not rely on the conquering of Germania, but the legions fought and died there none-the-less.

Limited wars have always existed and states have often applied a portion of their full effort to achieve a goal that was less important than the state’s survival.

The concepts of limited and total war took on new meaning with the advent of the nuclear age.

It is often touted as the diametric opposite of total war, where a nation or society dedicates all of their resources to defeat an enemy. However, the world has changed, and so has limited war. In the modern era, combat systems from ships to planes have become so expensive that they are pushing states to a form of limited war that has not been the norm since before Napoleon. It is these financial costs, more so than the toll in lives, that will dictate future warfare. Limited war is a topic covered heavily in military discussions since World War II.

Napoleon total war usa