Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / New in the military / Articles
On the relationship of war, militarisation of science and the revolution in military Affairs: what the answer is philosophy, and how does it work in practice?
Material posted: Publication date: 15-11-2017
War is sustainable and the most acute phenomenon of resolving social conflicts, and thereby attracts the attention of philosophers of various historical periods. Philosophers approach the study of war from all sides: someone is talking about the moral side, morality, religion, psychology, and someone who considers the relationship between war, industrialization, use of achievements of science and technology. Technological development goes forward in this regard, the problem of war does not lose its relevance. The current state of development of military technology and adequate openness of States to innovation are new challenges to philosophy. Today the understanding of the war is impossible without understanding what causes the willingness of States to accept the concept of revolution in military Affairs (RMA) and that contribute to the successful implementation of the latter.

Philosophers say about the war

The attitude to the war in the scientific and public consciousness is extremely wide: from a complete denial and condemnation to a public recognition of its most important instrument of solving international problems. According to the Russian philosopher-educator of XVIII century V. F. Malinovskiy, the origins of the war lie in the construction of people in the absolute of their differences, the leadership behavior of ignorance and double standards. From his point of view as long as people will think that the distinction of Nations makes a difference people, the war will continue. In his understanding, the world is only a rest from war.

In his work "the recognition of the Slavophile" F. M. Dostoevsky speculates about the moral paradox of the war and its purpose and comes to the conclusion that it is the achievement of eternal world war in his understanding means a disaster, the result of which is spiritual rebirth of the people and welcome. Is it fair to say that the ultimate goal of the militarization of science is also the peaceful existence of States? Is it possible in the context of the militarization of science to talk about a moral paradox? Can militarization be considered as a necessary measure for the good of peaceful coexistence of Nations? If you follow the logic of the arguments of F. M. Dostoevsky, 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 the philosopher, the militarisation of science can't be evil.

Andrey E. Snesarev, the author of the work "Philosophy of war" examines the problem of the continuity wars. The study of the position of this military theorist seems to us interesting in connection with his views on the relationship of industrialization taking place thanks to the fruitful development of science, and foment wars. Considering the extremities of war, Snesarev refers to the economic justification. Even Adam Smith wrote that the decrease in the militancy of the peoples will occur as a result of economic development. A similar position is held also by O. Kont, H. Spencer, with his idea of "industrial societies" as societies are less aggressive. From the point of view of G. Bökle war begins because of the barbaric countries that are deprived of modern intellectual property. Snesarev, however, he refers to the idea of aggressiveness as a result of industrialization rather skeptical, believing that industrialization is capable of up to a certain limit to reduce the aggression of the States, but in the end the industrialized countries can be much more aggressive[1].

In his historical-philosophical views about the war, Nikolai Berdyaev, one of the most prominent representatives of a constellation of Russian thinkers of the XX century, regarded war as a spiritual phenomenon and treated the supporters of the war "to the bitter end." The basis for war, he put a purposeful formation of national consciousness as the preservation of national identity and saw it as an inevitable "struggle for dominance of different spirit in the world"[2], while noting both sides of the coin of nationalism. The inevitability of war, he was considered from the perspective of the religious philosophy of history: "War is immanent immanent punishment and redemption"[3]. From his point of view, the outbreak of war and the end of the world is judgment, but the court not as a punishment of God, but as an immanent consequence of the ways of evil, which creates the man himself. The war itself is not evil, but it exposes the evil emanating from a person. In this regard, Berdyaev sharpens the problem of social responsibility of actors of the historical process for the events positive and negative events in history to mention the fact that the war begins and continues in the people and brings forth a man "militarized", which is alien to represent the morality of the gospel. Berdyaev was looking for the meaning of war and its justification, however, came to the conclusion that war is senseless, "is the desecration of the meaning, there are irrational and fatal force[4]". The only purpose of the war Berdyaev calls the victory over the enemy. The question about the meaning of the war, he proposes to replace the question about its reasons and objectives. From the point of view of the philosopher the nature of war undergoes this transformation, which will imply increasing involvement of the people as a whole in the war. Berdyaev sure that the outcome of wars depends on the psychology of peoples. Developing this idea of F. A. Stepun, another religious thinker of the XX century, spoke of the phenomenon of "moralism" of the people, which he explained different attitudes, and acceptability of actions in relation to others and to the state, as impersonal beginning. Dismissive and suspicious attitude towards the state is the basis of the gap between society and the state, and the state's inability to establish a constructive dialogue with society will inevitably lead to a weakening of military and defence capabilities of the state. Much attention in his philosophy Berdyaev devotes transformation of war in the conditions of technogenic civilization. For example, he noted the change in the traditional ideas about war as a phenomenon, which has its own morality, and that "the combination of militarism and industrial capitalism" is waging a war to totality. The concept of the militarization of Berdyaev associated with the erosion of the demarcation line between the army and the rear, which would imply maximum involvement in the war all national resources, and the acquisition of war public and national character, when there is universal conscription and mobilization of all popular forces. Of great importance for a new kind of war had the industry, technology, science, General spirit. Assessment Stepun, the First world war highlighted the need for partial nationalisation and state regulation of the economy in the national interest, as mobilization ability of the fruit of capitalism has not justified itself: "the military failures on the fronts and the food crisis in the rear showed the unwillingness of the majority of Russian entrepreneurs, both farmers and Industrialists, to sacrifice their economic interests in the country's interest"[5]. An important place in the philosophy of Berdyaev is the analysis of the meanings and implications of broad military use of science equipment. Original thinker and a true eye for that threats do not lie in the scientific achievements in themselves but "in async pace with the logistical, moral and spiritual development"[6] and a man facing a crisis of mismatch of physical and mental organization of man with modern technology that entails the tightening of the methods of war, mass casualties, the spatial extension of hostilities. Modern warfare Berdyaev describes as a depersonalized, with vague notions of military ethics, heroics, valor, where there is no winner, because in the arms race, all refuse to be defeated, and destroyed, if not physical, from a spiritual point of view.

On the background of statements that the war is evil, Vladimir Soloviev wrote that the sense of the war not only identifies it as a disaster, and it certainly cannot be considered normal, but I must admit that it is, under certain conditions, a necessity[7]: "the War was a direct means for the external and indirect means for the inner unification of mankind. The mind forbids to throw this weapon until you need it, but conscience obliges to try, that it ceases to be necessary"[8]. The German philosopher Hegel believed that war improves the morality of a society that rots and decomposes by prolonged world. Z. Freud believed that war is destructive attraction to self-destruction and death, the attempt of psychological survival of the people.

Attempt of classification of wars on the basis of justice and moral categories did not succeed, as different people have their own understanding of just and unjust in war, the moral and the immoral in it. Also a big criticism of the ideological (Marxist) and the classification of civilizational wars. To date, the greatest development was the classification of the "generation wars", which draws on a mixture of social and technical parameters of the war, but which has no scientific criteria for this typology of wars.

Reflections on war lead philosophers to the question of the demilitarization of the world community. As paths to this discussion of various aspects of society: politics, international relations, culture, spiritual and moral foundations. V. Solovyov saw the achievement of militarization through the full integration of Asian and European cultures through the war between the historical West and historical East. Unlike him, Berdyaev saw the resolution of the problem of militarization by overcoming the slavery of man, as opposed to the national government necessary, and wrote about what the person above state power. The issue of demilitarization is faced with the education of people with militaristic thinking, which is based on the preparation of man for present and future wars. Similar education of man "militarized" pervade science and culture, education and media.

The problem of the militarization of science through the prism of philosophy

The viability of the revolution in military Affairs depends on society's tolerance of militarization, particularly to the militarization of science. To achieve greater public tolerance blurs the boundaries between negative and positive perceptions of the forms of interaction between government and science. Society's tolerance of the militarization of science provides the necessary and stable base for implementing the WFD in any state.

Science, like the military confrontation between States, and between communities is an integral part of life and development of mankind. Science almost throughout the history of mankind was intertwined with the war, in the sense that, on the one hand, scientific knowledge has not ignored the existence of the phenomenon of war, but rather seen it the object of research, sought to explain the nature, causes and characteristics of war. At the same time, on the other hand, achievements of scientific thought, primarily of application development and inventions of scientists, even created exclusively for peaceful purposes, ultimately directly or indirectly involved to ensure the conduct of war. Since the nineteenth century, this symbiosis has become even more evident as technological progress has become the most important factor of victory in war. The government is strongly motivated, and sometimes directly to set a goal for the scientific community to participate in the military preparations and defence. But, recognizing the objectivity and determinism of the relationship between science and war, can you talk about some special phenomenon of the militarization of science?

In accordance with the definition in the explanatory dictionary, the militarization (from lat. militaris - soldier, military, war) is the subordination of economic, political and social life to military purposes and the transfer of the methods of military organization in the area of public relations. Thus, this concept is not incorporated negation or negative assessment of the war as a phenomenon in society. Militarization is a dynamic process, the outcome of which is to establish war as a dominant development of the society, the maximum mobilization of material, human and intellectual resources of society to the needs of self-defense (the manifestation of the positive ethos of militarization) or aggression (respectively, the negative manifestation of his ethos). In terms of the impact directly on the militarization of science can manifest itself in the following phenomena:

  • Militarization and the militarization of scientific discourse: any accumulated knowledge are considered primarily in the context of use or damage to the combat capability of the state and the nation. Useful knowledge and methods actively taken into consideration, systematization, and the subsequent discussion, i.e., according to Lakatos, are included in the research program or, for Kuhn, a scientific paradigm, while the harmful are being denied, ignored and otherwise discriminated against in various ways.
  • The militarization of scientific activity: the process of learning is subject to the needs of the defense, is implemented in terms of mobilization
  • The militarization of scientific institutions: the academic community has a negative and positive stimuli relevant to current military needs of the state the types of scientific knowledge and activities. This can be implemented in the form of coercion (prison, research or even personal freedom), and in the form of incentive grants, orders, increased social status, etc. of Particular importance is the impact on the ethos of science, in particular, on the suggestion of the importance of the current historical moment, the propaganda of the priority of state interest over the personal, the removal of ethical barriers and the denial of the humanistic principles of scientific ethics. Indirectly, the processes of militarization of science is affected and the overall situation in the society, leading a war or facing a real or imaginary threat 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 touches a General problem lying in the heart of the ethics and philosophy of science – the problem of assessment, which is the basis of society's perception of the forms of interaction between government and science. In this context, the militarisation of science can be seen as acceptable and unacceptable component of the science, wrong or right direction of its development, to obtain the approval of the society or be condemned by him. From the point of view of Steven Toulmin, British philosopher and founder of postpositivistic of the concept of development of science, we can raise the question about the standards or the criteria value judgments about the impact of these criteria on real force and effect estimates in the moral and in the intellectual sphere. The philosopher suggests that consideration of moral values as a whole involves the study criteria in two dimensions – sociological and historical, and notes that the concept of moral is different for different historical periods[9]. In this regard, with the moral evaluation of the militarization of science need to take account of the historical development that led to the viability of the phenomenon and its long existence in the framework of science.

Speaking about the problem of the militarization of science, you need to take into account various interpretations of this concept. As wrote the French philosopher, the representative of philosophical hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur, there is a difference between what is made in the understanding of the term and how it interpretiruya different people. Regardless of what guided methods of understanding, understanding will continue to be intuitive. This is due to the fact that the one who interprets the phenomenon, experiencing it through my imagination, sympathy, professional affiliation, and intellectual horizons. The differences in explanation and understanding of the militarization of science lies primarily in the relationship between the two opposing positions with two different spheres of reality. From this arises a multiplicity of interpretations by people of the militarization of science. Differences in interpretation of concepts and the conflict of interpretations is not a disadvantage, but rather advantage comprehension of this phenomenon, as they allow more seamless to address the militarization of science, to study its various aspects and from all sides.

Is it possible to equate the concepts of militarization and war? You can meet the philosophical arguments about the nature and meaning of the war, but not about the militarization of science itself. It seems that this concept of a different order, which, however, are very interrelated. Clifford Geertz, an American anthropologist engaged in the study of various cultures and influence of the concept of culture on the concept of man talked about the fact that the value of any phenomenon is given by its perception by society. He also noted that the external interpretation of the phenomenon consists of internal interpretations of the act itself, and not the effect of design interpretation and the interpretation of the design effect. An important component of the understanding superstition characteristic of human existence, and according to the remark of the German philosopher and founder of philosophical hermeneutics of Hans Georg Gadamer, are an integral and necessary part of the process of understanding, does not impede him.

The consideration of the issue of the militarization of science from the point of view of hermeneutics due to the fact that our task is not in criticism of adherents or opponents of the militarization of science, and to understand the positions of all sides and to understand the effects of militarization on science. Friedrich Schleiermacher suggests that understanding the individual, in this case, the militarization of science, through the whole, a philosophy, and a whole separate forms using scientific knowledge. The most simple and understandable should be explained and provided to the person for thinking or rethinking. If the person has already dealt with such concepts and phenomena with which we speak to him, he will be easier to operate in a familiar and comprehensible "language of thinking". This process will definitely give the key to understanding challenges in communication or will expand the scope of attention and sets the target concentration. When we're already clear, we can devote more time to other aspects of the phenomenon.

Understanding of the phenomenon of the militarization of science should occur simultaneously on two axes: grammatical and psychological. Grammatical interpretation should be preceded by psychological and fixes temporary problems. In our case we are talking about terms associated with the phenomenon of the militarization of science. The psychological interpretation follows from the grammar and covers the area of meanings and of human attitudes, relations to the subject. From this stems the fact that the misunderstanding of terms distorts meaning. In theory, these two directions must be considered separately in order to move them so that a different direction was necessary for us.

Gender Feirabend, the author of the concept of epistemological anarchism, says that in science there is no universal methodological rules, and this means that there is reason to consider the militarization of science as a phenomenon by studying it in the context of different philosophical trends and concepts. From the point of view of the philosopher of science is intuitive to the extent that the intuitive choice of research methods a scientist. In his letter, "Against methodological compulsion", addressed to Imre Lakatos, P. Feyerabend raises questions about what, exactly, is the science - how it works and what are its results and what is the value of science? To answer these questions is important for us as talking about the militarization of science, we need to understand how science develops and what its purpose is, however, to go further and understand the militarization of what is happening and if in this process some kind of value?

Feyerabend writes that science is a set of rules with the established procedure of their application, which govern the activities of science. That is, in other words, science in this sense is the totality of methods of understanding the truth. The philosopher notes that the question of the value of science, few set, although it is necessary to understand the essence of the existence of science as such, her reactions and what is happening under the influence of external environment changes. Scientists did not raise the question about the value of science, since science is for them an undeniable reality and its absence in people's lives is inconceivable and absurd. Considering the question about the value of science Feyerabend resorted to the latter through the institution of the state. From our point of view, such a beginning is quite interesting and is the right train of thought, critically reflects the perception of the academic world of science as science. In this context we are talking about what is the meaning of science in the comprehension and the study. However, would develop the science in terms other than in the state? The correct angle is reflected in the positions of scientists or is there a different vision? Maybe the key moment that sets the goal of science is not what to study, and why, because the results of scientific thought should benefit, not to gather dust on library shelves?

In his arguments, Feyerabend comes to what science and the state are inextricably linked. As evidence he calls for the state financing of scientific researches, the state monopoly on the definition required to study scientific disciplines, provision of minimum literacy of citizens and teaching them scientific laws, building people's perception of science as a realm of facts that do not require the last questioned. In the end, the state gives science credibility and makes available for every further development in the direction of science. The scientific community is the authoritarian leader of public opinion and the human world. It sets the people's understanding about the ongoing processes and phenomena. Man thinks in a certain way not because of so decided a majority in the country and the world, and because this position is shared by the scientific community. The government is beneficial to educate their citizens and to introduce them to science at least on the most basic level, as the skill of the person in the future in various forms going to the state and can be applied in various fields. The state provide public education and builds his decision to do his duty as he realizes the need for a constant source of personnel for various industries, including providing defense and security of the state. According To John. Locke the state was the result of contract of people on joint protection, it is therefore legitimate to say that all industries developing in the state and the spheres of life of society are directed towards meeting originally delivered before the Institute the goal of ensuring the safety of citizens and the viability of the state. If the original purpose of the institution of the state was to ensure the safety of its citizens, can we in this context to criticize the militarization of science, if we consider this phenomenon as the scientific personnel and scientific results for the benefit of the state? And education of citizens with their involvement in science, and the militarization of science essentially have the same goal - to have results for the benefit of the state and discharging its functions. If you completely deny the militarization of science, the education of citizens actually becomes an education for the sake of education and has no purpose, use, purpose for the state, and therefore the duty of this Institute to educate its citizens is meaningless. Is it legitimate to use the scientific benefits and not give the government anything in return?

The current society lives by the categories of liberalism. However, as noted by Feyerabend, liberalism has had on the science ambiguous effect. Liberal intellectuals admire democracy and put the spotlight on rational thinking, which denies the ideas of religion, freedom of confession and so forth, that speaks of the intolerance of liberalism that few people notice. But is it possible in fact to speak about the equivalence of democratic ideas and liberalism in science? The intolerance of liberalism to religions and myths and the subsequent demiological does not fit in with democratic ideals. Science cannot be democratic as long as it expresses the rejection of the identity of the isolated cultures, denies the other path of development and seeks "to impose on" scientific thinking and rational vision of the world. Philosopher lunges in the direction of men of science, and asks that since the science on the one hand and religion, ideology, myths on the other are so very different and the latter have little in common with the real world, it may make sense to remove the religion and myths of the center of the spiritual life of man and in its place put science? Arguments about the nature of the influence of liberalism in science and the commitment of the majority of its members to democratic principles is important to us in the context of knowing who makes the decisions in the scientific environment and sets the tone for its development, determining its various trends.

Democracy has the ability to limit science by majority opinion. However, whether a simple man, not involved in the scientific community and has no idea about the value of specific scientific research in a certain area, sufficient knowledge for decision-making? It would be logical to give the fundamental issues the experts, but in a democratic society, such a scenario is impossible. So can a scientific society is to blame for the troubles of the state, which just got addicted to liberalism and the obligation to take into account the opinion of citizens, not the democratic way of life? Maybe cause of all the problems of science is the dissonance between scientific and non-scientific communities who feel that they share the same democratic principles and therefore searching for the culprit of all their troubles in the face of the state.

Feyerabend touches the problem of maturity of democracy and 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 events occurring in the life of the state and for all decisions, meeting the requirements of participation in democracy comes to the absurd and fraught with ridiculous, and sometimes irreversible consequences and mistakes. According to the philosopher, maturity is even more important than specialized scientific knowledge, as it solves the issue of the scope of applicability of this knowledge.

Liberalism has a significant impact on science that reflects the current stage of historical development, and as we can see, the scientific community exposed the fallacy that the democratic principles are good, and all because science identifies itself with the ideals of democracy, although in reality she just keeps up with the times and follows the fashion for democratic development. In this context, is a criticism of the militarization of science viable, or is it a new trend of blind pacifism, the desire to put the security of the state under civilian control, on the basis of the reflections above, a risk that in this sphere will be taken unweighted and crucial decisions without a clear understanding of the threats to the security of the state.

The interaction of science and the state for the protection of the country is traditional. It should be noted that in the scientific community there is no consensus about what is good and what direction you need to proceed in science. The democratic consciousness of the scientists in some way harmful and dangerous, as it constructs a different vision of the purpose of science, or a sense of responsibility for their decisions. Today we can observe a movement towards the realization of a supranational, global responsibility for the results of their activities. And of course, this position is true in a world where there are no wars or taken a course on their denial. But human nature is such that sooner or later will start a war for resources and influence.

Scientists is huge level of responsibility for people's lives, and of course, deliberate and in some cases subconscious choice of each representative of the scientific community depends on the personal qualities and interpretations of world events and the viewpoint on them. For example, that has nuclear weapons? It is able to kill a huge number of people to cause irreparable harm to the environment and maim the life of future generations, and can become a deterrent to warmongering. When a scientist discovers something new, he rarely knows what he is exactly doing in the research process. He still may not know what it is, and is not able to predict future events or how to use his invention or theory. P. Feyerabend writes that history is prone to accidents and surprises, that demonstrates "the complexity of social change and the unpredictable long-term consequences or decisions of the person"[10].

In respect of the use of scientific methods and scientific results there is no consolidated position in the scientific society. It is impossible to abandon the use of achievements of scientific work for military purposes or to put some restrictions on it, it is impossible to establish some common rules that would limit the work of the scientific community in military applications and have become as unconditional for humanity as the fundamental theories and laws of science. It is related to human psychology and existence of cultures that have no idea about scientific knowledge. In addition, any rule, any paradigm will sooner or later succumb to rethink that gives rise to something new in science. Feyerabend writes that no "naive" and shaky rules can never cover all "web of interactions". Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn believed that changes in science occur as a result of the contiguity of scientists to movement, with chances of success and recognition. For this reason, they regarded the scientific revolution as an irrational change and considered it necessary to consider it from the point of view of the psychology of crowds. Developing these thoughts kun pointed out that you need to learn thinking is not the individual scientist, and the thinking of the scientific community as the psychology of the individual is replaced by social psychology[11]. So, if the scientific community cannot come to agreement, then in such cases, decisions on such matters have passed into the hands of concerned citizens. People due to accessibility a certain level of knowledge and confidence that they understand the subject, do not stay in side if possible, to assess research trends and phenomena, including such as the militarization of science. When there is a dispute between different flanks of the scientific society, the parties begin to use a variety of methods to attract to its side the greatest possible number of supporters. In this regard, sometimes less than popular in the democratic environment unripe for decision-making of citizens the position of scientific flank remains without due attention, or facing a disturbing the criticism and public dissatisfaction that can be seen in the attitude of society to the militarization of science. At the same time, the victory in this confrontation win those who are drawn to the people protesting against the old ideas and related scientific canons. In addition, to idealize enlightenment the scientific community to be wrong. Of course, science needs to be control, and its authority should not be absolute, as this can lead to a falsification of science. But can civil society not only to control but to provide the impetus to the science development and to Fund the activities of the scientific community, as does the state?

Paul Feyerabend regards science as an anarchic enterprise and writes that anarchism in science provides a greater progress in it than adherence to the law and order. That means philosopher under the scientific anarchism: free use methods, laws, rules, hypotheses that contradict proven theories, create new methods and paradigms, and stimulating the development of new trends in science? From his point of view, the only principle that does not impede progress in science is the principle of permissibility only. If we talk about the militarization of science, it is in this sense scientific anarchism is the negation of the traditional aims and objectives of the science, relations of science with the state, which fall under the concept of law and order in science? The desire of the admissibility of all in science is a concern when we talk about the militarization of science. The absolute validity of all should not be, otherwise sooner or later will collapse the thin barrier between research in order to enhance the security of the country and its citizens, and the moral and ethical principles of application of the results of scientific work.

Feyerabend notes that for different parts of science characterized by uneven development. In this regard, it is natural that the traditional directions and goals of science the state has a more thorough and systematic approach than new, but not rational in this situation to criticize the militarization of science for its greater development in some areas and more nuanced approach to it. If we consider the militarization of science as a limiter of freedom of scientific creativity in the fields of research, and for this reason the philosopher says that scientific research does not require absolute freedom of speech, and even that certain kinds of unfreedom does not preclude the development of science.

Is it possible to say that the militarisation of science imposes constraints on methodological rules and dictates a rigid, unchanging and binding principles of scientific activity? For military efficiency is important scientific research, so, of course, have to some extent affected by the desire for low-risk research with a high degree of obtaining the study of the scientific product. However, the military is ready to get acquainted with new inventions and discoveries of scientists, but in fact, they will pay more attention to the effectiveness of the research results, the financial cost of its implementation and possible alternatives. Based on these points and the decision will be taken about taking the result of scientific work on weapons and funding for its implementation. In the case where the basis of scientific research fall of new scientific principles, the interest and willingness of the military to develop scientific innovation leads to "legalizing" a new methodological rules.

Restrictive militarization of science exists in the specified purposes of research and non-disclosure about the conduct and results of scientific studies inside scientific community and beyond that in all fairness, due to objective reasons of state security. As for the limitations of science, the methodological rules, then this phenomenon is typical for science in General, however, in the history and philosophy of science, there are many precedents conscious and involuntary extensions of these rules and their violations. Feyerabend writes that progress in science based on the law and order will occur only if at least occasional anarchist movements. Thomas Kuhn notes that the transition from one paradigm to another through the scientific revolution is the usual development model of a Mature science. In essence, science consists of scientific activities within the given paradigms and methodological rules violations with the subsequent construction of new paradigms.

Is the war of the impetus for the development of science and how it affects the development of new scientific paradigms? Of course, war is the factor that stimulates consolidation of the scientific community the decision of the acute problems that require comprehensive consideration. Individual research problems of normal science for the most part do not have the same fruitfulness that collective work on the problem[12]. The militarization of science is a synthesis of old and new paradigms. In terms of concentration of scientists in small area problems, research within the paradigm begin to be as deep and detailed as could be convened in other circumstances. The militarization of science is characterized not only wartime, but also has a place in non-military time and because of its relatively constant and regulated list of tasks allows in-depth study of concepts, laws, and to conduct fundamental and applied research in the framework of certain paradigms, thoroughly exploring its possibilities and their respective realities. Thus we see that the militarization of science is not something unnatural and alien to the peace-time and does not impede the conduct of research within the scientific paradigms, but rather provides a natural and healthy development of normal science.

That should make the scientific work of the scientist? Karl Popper talked about the fact that the study does not occur by itself as an end in itself, and begins with vision problems. From his point of view, we first obtain some idea or faced with the problem and only then begin to act. When choosing the direction of scientific research scientist at Feierabend is guided by the "voice of reason", which is actually a causal result of the received education.

Military practices represent the scientific community the range of tasks that require decisions, and, if normal science is not capable of solving puzzles within the existing paradigm, they are redefining and expanding the boundaries of the hypotheses. As normal science in Kuhn offers a mechanism to weaken dictated by the paradigm of limitations and start-UPS in the knowledge during the research of its ineffectiveness, changes tactics scientists and nature they studied problems[13]. Changing scientific paradigms, the emergence of scientists a new look at the decision of problems or tasks as a result of changes of perception by the scientific community of the environment leads to a change in military tactics and strategy that lies at the core of the revolution in military Affairs consists in the qualitative change in warfare due to technological innovations, but all innovations are not equivalent can be considered with the same value. The revolution in military Affairs depends, including from the achievements of scientists in science and paradigm change.

The impetus for the development of scientific research can have reasons for both applied and fundamental nature and is to be given from both military theorists and practitioners, depending on who is the first to see the potential of innovations. For example, the Italian General, military theorist and strategist in his "air Supremacy" led the military strategic pattern "to gain dominance in the air means defeat and defeat in the air means to be defeated"[14], based on the conviction that the development of science and technology dramatically change the shape of future wars. This gave impetus to the development of airplanes – new weapons with wide strategic and tactical possibilities and, of course, had a beneficial impact on the development of scientific theories and laws of fundamental science.

Today, science faces the problem of required orientation to the applied nature of the research. Both fundamental and applied results of scientific work have always been helpful and of interest to the state. But today the role of science has changed radically: its development and existence is becoming increasingly of an applied nature, and activity and results – practical sense. The emphasis on basic science has the risk of receiving a lesser return and actually order any in the end result. However, applied science cannot develop in isolation from the fundamental. In this regard, is it possible to criticize the militarization of science for the support and development of scientific research institutes, military orientation, if so, the conditions for the development of fundamental theories and research in this area, albeit of a specialized nature?

States realize that the development of the relevant results of scientific work and engineering in the military sector, is highly intelligent, expensive and risky process, but are aware of the need to ensure the defense of the country. In recent years one can observe the introduction of innovative approaches to the organization of scientific research of military orientation. Initially the basis for the solution of problems by reducing risks and costs in the military sector was taken on Board the idea of consolidating the military and civilian industry and rationalization of military spending. Consolidation of military and civilian industry was the possibility of transferring civil production capacity for military production in wartime. However, over time it became apparent that the traditional approach of consolidating military and civil industry is not enough, there is the problem of retaining the intellectual capital of the country and the lack of qualified personnel. There is a need of finding new ways of generating ideas, both militarily and in the civilian sector of the economy, i.e. promoting the development of science. As one of the ways it was suggested such a direction as "technology brokering" (technology brokering). Its essence lies in bringing together unrelated industries and markets that technology used in one industry could become a breakthrough to another, or to give impetus to innovate a new quality of a cheaper way and a more rapid rate[15]. Technology brokering as one of the management techniques in industry, involves not just the connection possibilities of various industries, but creating new communities within innovative combinations. It focuses on the creation of new networks, new social structures[16] around emerging ideas, that is, is an instrument of cooperation and consolidation of the scientific community.

The basis of technology brokering is a scientifically-informative activity: collection, analysis and synthesis of information on scientific and technical achievements worldwide, establishing contacts with foreign representatives of science, information exchange, provision of scientific and technical progress and the promotion of technical knowledge. If earlier all this was done the scientists themselves, with the increase gradually information activities became a separate sphere[17]. Functions of technology brokers as a mechanism of technology transfer[18] and data storage system be to assess the needs of potential market applications, maintaining the database, existing technologies and developments with market demand, commercialization of innovation. Technology brokering combines the interaction of government, business and academic institutions, which, of course, on the one hand complicates the control system and control over this process, and with another – increases speed of scientific discoveries and their implementation at the application level. Network approach to research, development and production of arms and military equipment reflects the changes in the economy that create a stable basis for the implementation of the concept of RVD. Intensively develops international scientific and technical cooperation both bilateral and on a multilateral basis. Enhanced international and domestic cooperation in the field of development of promising weapons and military equipment. All this allows to speak not just about the arms race and the "race of military innovation."

"Ogarkov doctrine" or how it all began

The first in the USSR in the late 1970's about the inevitability of radical changes in military construction, said the armed forces Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov. He believed that a massive army will lose its importance and emphasis in military science will be shifted from the quantitative superiority of the army to prepare for warfare. At that time the United States appeared the theory of "limited nuclear war" that involved the transfer zone of a nuclear conflict on the territory of Europe and not involving the use of strategic offensive forces of the United States. Before the Marshal's task was to develop a strategy of countering that would be to oppose us. On his initiative, was carried out extensive simulations of different scenarios of the collision of the Soviet Union with the armies of the countries-members of NATO in Europe. However, at the disposal of the Soviet army potential forced to use the power of conventional weapons and tactical nuclear weapons. For the USSR it was important to avoid the use of nuclear weapons in the European theater of war, which was possible at that time only through the use of conventional weapons. However, the forces and tactics in this case were equal, and modeling all of the scenarios ended in the end not in favor of the USSR. For N. In. Ogarkov was a clear need to gain an advantage over the enemy. The use of conventional weapons to rely on in such a situation was impossible. Thus, the question arose, how can a preemptive strike that would deprive the opponent of advantages to the defending side. The way out of the situation, the Marshal saw the development of high-precision conventional weapons, increased mobility of troops, the development of the organization and control of troops. In addition, it was necessary to tie all of this in one piece with the means of reconnaissance and destruction. Proposed N. In. Ogarkov changes contributed to increase the efficiency of his command.

The result was a team established command and control system (KAS). She combined the control of missile troops, the Navy and air force and allowed to communicate and to obtain intelligence. This system gave the opportunity to be proactive and strike first. On the basis of the Belarusian military district in the ' 80s, he worked the system "Maneuver". She was not fully embedded in the troops, however, it can be called the forerunner of modern automation systems of command and control.

To test the new governance principles and the effectiveness of weapons and military equipment was held exercises "West-81", featuring a large scale bringing in the troops and naval forces and exercise "Shield-82", known in the West as the "seven-hour nuclear war". The exercises demonstrated the ability of the Soviet Army to sweep away the resistance of NATO, without entering into a global nuclear conflict with the US, buried the doctrine of "limited nuclear war". Based on the results of the exercise N.In. Ogarkov organized processing fundamental statutory documents relating to the preparation and conduct of operations.

N. In. Ogarkov has paid great attention to the development of the theory of strategic nuclear forces, the preparation and conduct of strategic operations in theater of military operations and missile defense issues. Military leader supported the creation of the Centre for operational-strategic research, General staff and contributed to the development of military theory. His ideas are reflected in the 12-volume "history of the Second world war 1939-1945.", 8 volumes "Soviet Military Encyclopedia" and "Military encyclopedic dictionary"[19].

Despite the great success of the "Ogarkov Doctrine", the Soviet leadership considered the idea of Marshal too radical. In 1884 it was removed from the post of chief of the General staff. The state was not ready to such sudden and serious changes in the military. Marshall was "a new feeling", his ideas for reforming the armed forces had supporters, but all this could not match at the time, the level of openness of the state for innovation.

However, it is safe to say that the idea of Ogarkov had a serious impact on the perception of the concept of RVD Russian military science. While the United States believes that the WFD dominant element is military technology, Russia continues to devote a significant effect of the organizational part of the concept.

From innovation to revolution in military Affairs

The concept implementation of the WFD in different States raise the academic community of new problems of practical and theoretical character. RVD implies a radical change in the way of warfare, accompanied by the development of military technology, the improvement of the efficiency of armaments, changes in military doctrines and concepts. In other words, the concept includes two aspects: technological and organizational. Failure to comply with one of the items gives a reason not to consider any changes in the military field a new revolution in military Affairs. You need to understand that the adoption of new technologies on weapons does not mean a fundamental change in the nature of armed conflict. RVD reflects the holistic nature of the changes and in addition new military technology includes doctrinal changes and changes in the organizational structure of the armed forces. RVD, as such, does not focus on increasing destructive potential, rather it can become a consequence of unlimited use of military technology. To take technological superiority as a universal tool in the war would be a mistake.

Despite the fact that the concept of the WFD contains the term "revolution", you need to understand that not all changes are revolutionary. RVD can be considered from the standpoint of evolutionary and revolutionary concepts. According to the evolutionary concept of technological change is occurring for several decades, by their nature, can not be a revolution, because a revolution implies a sudden and dramatic process occurring in a short period of time. At the same time, a gradual transition from lower phases of technological development to a higher, reflected in the constant improvement of military technology and equipment, is called evolution. Proponents of the revolutionary approach to RVD I think that is important, not the duration of changes and their quality, importance and magnitude of the changes. Consideration of the WFD, in terms of various criteria of revolutionary entails various definitions of this concept.

The role of capital in the implementation of the WFD. High and rising prices for the development, manufacture, sale and repair of arms divide country on the basis of the principle of technological advantages. The development of a military innovation increases the gap between the two countries. The establishment of partnerships in the field of military-technical cooperation represent unions of States at the technological level. Equal in "Union" States seek joint production of weapons, while selling arms is carried out with the countries in respect of which a lower priority in the foreign policy. This is also evidenced by the fact that the state sell the weapons, which have not achieved sufficient success in their own armed forces, or is outdated compared with the latest developed weapons in the country-the exporter.

The last stage of the RVD call information. The current revolution in military Affairs based on information technology that enables continuous collection of information from the battlefield and transfer of appropriate military units. A characteristic feature of the information revolution of the WFD is to improve the accuracy of existing weapons and their modification. The ability to continuously gather information in real-time to dissipate the "fog of war" Carl von Clausewitz, who said that in war the enemy's actions are uncertain and that developments are difficult to predict.

Information plays a key role in both the civilian and military sectors. Well-established processes for the collection, processing and transmission of information allows to obtain an information advantage over the enemy. The use of information technology in the military makes their owners vulnerable to new threats emanating from cyberspace: the enemy not only develops the same technology, but also understand the art of hacking, theft, damage, substitution of information and the saturation information data stream. The information revolution in military Affairs has expanded the range of potential violators of security. If earlier the army used technology to his advantage produced by the military industry, to the military, information technology came from the civil sector. Information RVD from all the other stages of its development distinguishes such feature as the wide spread of technology in the civilian sector[20]. High saturation civil market of information technologies makes them difficult to control and blurs the line between the civilian and military sector, and thus blurs the opponent to the concept of combatants and noncombatants.

The use of information technologies in the military sphere as weapons in our usual sense, due to two reasons: the effect on the enemy and counter his attacks. Thus it is necessary to distinguish between "flame war" and cyber warfare. The first concept includes actions aimed at shaping public consciousness and attitude to power that is exercised at the social level. "War online" are a propaganda tool. The use of media and electronic technologies allows you to have a stronger influence on human feelings, such as fear, anxiety, panic. Cyber warfare consists of actions aimed at the seizure, distortion, destruction of information and implemented only within the framework of information space.

The combination of the achievements of the fields of Informatics, robotics, automation, and nanotechnology has allowed to develop weapons of high precision. In General, there are ten characteristics of weapons as part of a modern RMA: range, precision, durability, miniaturization, automation, speed, action cover, the element of surprise, the impact of the factor of social and action simulation.

The information revolution in military Affairs imposes higher standards for weapons, as for effectiveness it is important to ensure their interaction and merging of two different components of the armed forces. Thus she blurs the boundaries between branches of the military. Today more and more countries invest in the establishment of high-precision weapons. This is because the increased accuracy of weapons allows you to use fewer pieces of military equipment, and this is extremely important from the point of view of reducing defense expenditures not only on the development and production of weapons, but also for its maintenance in operational condition. Modern systems are developed taking into account the need for a clear definition of goals and precise lesions, as well as having the opportunity to assess the obstacles of the terrain on the route of movement and correct it. In other words, work is underway to ensure the flexibility of the weapon, important for responding to the dynamics of fighting and emergencies, and to reduce civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. Achievement of strategic goals while avoiding direct confrontation of the armed forces with the armed forces of the enemy helps to avoid dissatisfaction and discontent with the government by the public opinion. The miniaturisation of weapons due to the need to reduce the risk of becoming an easy target for the enemy. The creation of Autonomous and semi-Autonomous weapons allows you to reduce the cost of military training. Communication, maneuvering, and access to information are made by ground control systems. Of course, they also require additional costs, but the possibility of simultaneous control over the various operations with the reduction of personnel provides greater system performance.

Today, modern weapons are not yet able to completely replace soldiers in military operations, however, represent a good alternative when performing tasks under such hazardous situations such as mine clearance, detection and neutralization of biological or chemical contamination. The use of precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles are changing the way of war and will talk about this phenomenon as "war at a distance". A feature of such wars is a remote control military actions and less loss of life. Information technology facilitates greater security of the troops than before. Soldiers have the option of using existing technologies to determine their position in space and to keep the connection with the command.

Munchpunch: add speed

Every new revolution in military Affairs more and more accelerated the conduct of hostilities. Have increased mobility of the army. Effective actions are possible, provided rapid retrieval, analysis of information and decision based on it solutions.

With the collapse of the bipolar system there was a threat of asymmetric warfare. In response to this, the change of mass armies came the mobile and specially trained units, have the ability to operate with high accuracy of detecting the enemy and eliminate it. Change of this nature has set new tasks before the system of logistics and supply, she now had to become as flexible as new military doctrines and concepts. The purpose of which was the result of "focused logistics" was the ability to provide the United forces of appropriate personnel, equipment and resources in the right place, time and amount necessary to complete the planned operations at any level and to be ready to deliver the necessary resources in remote regions and to react quickly to changes. Achieving flexibility and orientation of the logistics system is made possible through a combination of traditional logistics with the latest developments in the field of information technology.

The concept of logistics includes not only the question of supply, but the choice of transport for the delivery and the correct route of this transport resources to the place of destination. The use of different weapons and types of troops in the ongoing operation requires the integration of logistics systems for different armed forces, and staging logistics under a unified command. The merger of information and logistics formed a special structure - an intranet that provides access for all authorized persons to data needed for decision-making. For example, the most effective means of units to provide resources and assistance are considered aircraft. However, not every state through which the route lies nearest, give permission to cross the air border, not in all countries, where military actions are a necessary coverage for planting. If we talk about using ships to supply military units to the war zone, it should be understood that, for example, large ships are unable to come close to the shore that discharge is likely to need more than a small ship. In addition, you need to understand how much time is available for unloading and will not catch up if the enemy this time the enemy. If you use armored trucks or other ground vehicles, it is necessary to understand how a route is vulnerable, how to build it, whether the relevant safety information EN route, arrived 20 minutes ago, not knocked Lee out of the way, paved roads, located at a distance from the main roads and trails not marked on maps, etc. Information integration of military resources allows you to quickly obtain the necessary information about all ongoing changes, to obtain the confirmation or refutation of the information available and, based on current situation, quickly make decisions.

The increasing speed of war creates one of the paradoxes of the modern revolution in military Affairs. It is that quick victory at the tactical and operational level does not mean a potential victory at the strategic level. The development of military technology increases the asymmetry. However, under conditions of asymmetric military conflicts, the concept of the strategic level is eroded: after the announcement of one of the parties about the end of hostilities, the other side can continue their. In confirmation of this would be the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Effect CNN"

The information revolution in RVD called "CNN effect". Media representatives working in hot spots, inform the society about the course of military operations. Of course, a major role in shaping the views of society and has the personal position of a reporter or a journalist. The development of information technology makes it difficult for States to control the broadcast information. Institute of military censorship transformered, and this side of life as the war becomes more open to citizens, they can shape their position based on more information, on the basis not of facts printed in Newspapers, and on the basis of frames that have on a person's larger psychological effect, as they allow him to see what is happening on the ground.

"The CNN effect" has a strong social impact. Spectators watching the military action, on our screens, subconsciously feel at the scene, at least what is happening for them is more real than ever before. They want to feel more secure and want the soldiers also were in greater safety. With such a public opinion to face the power of the States taking part in the hostilities. This leads to the following consequences:

  • Bet on the development of precision weapons and automated military technology, that is, such armaments and technology, the use of which will ensure greater safety of the soldier or exclude its presence in the theater of military operations;
  • Development of weapons is not aimed at the destruction of the enemy, but only to the deprivation of his ability to function at full capacity (for example, chemical substances causing corrosion of vehicles, which are not widely used due to the limited efficiency in comparison with traditional methods of warfare)
  • The development of military strategies, implying a departure from the mass armies at the rate at the mobile unit;
  • The absolutization of the air force (in the spirit of the doctrine of Douai);
  • The voices of civil society and the growing influence of civilians in the decision-making process in the military sphere;
  • The allocation of military operations, police operations and peacekeeping operations;
  • Bet on winning the war with minimum human casualties among combatants and noncombatants;
  • Humanizing war (smaller losses not only among the population of the country, but the country of the enemy).

The level of tolerance of civil society to military operations in modern conditions varies with the following:

  • Expected as a result of the benefits;
  • The probability of winning;
  • Costs of operations;
  • Support for other countries.
  • The attitude and expectations of the international community in relation to ongoing military action.

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

Features Western understanding of RVD

USA in response to ideas N.In. Ogarkov also began to develop new ways of military strategy. In the United States the creation of the concept of RVD attributed to Andrew Marshall. Today the USA is the advanced country in the NATO in the area of RVD. Operation "desert Storm" in 1990-1991 has enabled US to become a leader in RVD. The United States has developed a C4ISR system that combines command (command), control (control), communication (communications), computers (computers), intelligence (intelligence), supervision (surveillance) and intelligence (reconnaissance). The country's course towards the transformation of the armed forces on the basis of improvement of modern advanced military technologies has enabled the government to achieve undeniable advantages in this area. Certainly in regard to NATO, there is a gap between the United States and other members of the Alliance. In the interests of both parties in the framework of NATO carried out actions designed to neutralize the existing differences.

American achievements in the field RMA formed the basis of the transformation of NATO in the 90s, because of its leadership in this area, the U.S. began to determine the direction and dynamics of change in NATO. Surgery 1999 against Yugoslavia, the crisis has shown the technology gap in the capacity of States-members of the Alliance. Up to 70% in this operation was used the potential of the United States, while European air forces were able to carry out precision attacks on the scale of 10%. In addition, only American weapons were equipped with technologies for the rapid projection of forces and technology to reduce the visibility of military vehicles stealth. As for surveillance, intelligence, reconnaissance, the European allies of NATO relied on US.

Despite the announcement of the successful operation, the United States has incurred significant costs, after which NATO began a discussion about the contribution of other States to the budget of the organization and responsibility for it. The issue of savings and optimize spending relevant to NATO's present day, as only a few member States apart from the United States contribute to the budget required 2% of GDP. Operation Allied Force revealed the profound differences between the United States and NATO already existed at that time and raised the question about the success of cooperation in the military sphere within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the future. Alarming forecasts have appeared as a result of operation Unified Protector in Libya in 2011. She showed that disparity in military-technological development among NATO members continues to increase, despite a number of already undertaken in the framework of the Alliance measures. For US it was also the signal that European countries did not invest enough funds in development of its own armed forces and continue to rely on NATO's capabilities. In spite of the economic side of the implementation of the WFD, today you can see that some NATO countries, such as Britain and France 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 the militarism that seeks to limit the risk (risk-transfer militarism). This is manifested in the minimization of risks for military personnel in Western countries. Examples of reducing the risks to soldiers are air attack point of the character, attracting allies for joint military action, the use of private military companies, the use of point long-range weapons, the robotization of the armed forces. the Western concept of RVD is associated with high efficiency of warfare.

If you consider RVD with a Western point of view, the evolution of conceptions of warfare lies in technological leadership, while the organizational structure goes by the wayside. The adoption of new types of weapons entails changes in organizational structure and doctrinal changes. In this context, Michael Howard singled in RVD, such a thing as a "war technicians", that is, the existence of conflicts, the outcome of which depended primarily on "duel" the relatively small group of experts of military equipment. Against RVD, you can also talk about the technological fundamentalism, which is based on the belief in the possibility of waging war without losses of troops and civilians.

The Western way of warfare is an expression of civic militarism and involves the participation of civil society in the process of military decision making. The Western understanding of the WFD which, in its nature a generalization and even a bit of a simplification of perception of the concept of individual countries. Nevertheless, each country's perception of the concept of HPH is in accordance with inherent in each country's national characteristics. Most theorists in the field RVD come from United States, the dissemination of ideas is precisely from this "epicenter", so today dominated Western understanding of the RMA. RVD takes postgonococcal the mentality in the States that are adopting the Western model of development of the armed forces.

"Trojan horse" in action

Poland is one of the States-members of NATO, consistently expressing a desire for the implementation of the WFD. Warsaw to strive to become the country-recipient of the Western understanding of the concept of RVD focused primarily on the development of military technology. After the end of the Cold war and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, Poland found itself in a difficult situation. Polish defence industry has lost financial support from the Soviet Union, facing strong economic difficulties. The blow fell on the defense doctrine of the state. Warsaw was confronted with the necessity of building a new system of decision-making in the military sphere. The strengthening of cooperation with Washington and NATO was the best option in the current situation from the point of view of the interests of Poland to modernize its military complex[21].

In terms of the need for major changes in military construction, NATO has offered Warsaw an unprecedented leap forward. Warsaw was interested in the maximum possible integration of the national army to standards of NATO. Membership in NATO has been and remains for Poland the possibility of implementing the revolution in military Affairs in the Western sense.

After the collapse of the USSR and the emergence on the international arena Russia Poland expressed concerns about the spread of political influence of Moscow to Warsaw. NATO was interested in such a position that accelerated the integration of Poland in the ranks of the Alliance and joining its initiatives within the block. However, gradually Warsaw was to artificially create the image of the enemy represented by Russia. After the Crimean referendum and inclusion of the Peninsula in structure of Russia on the basis of the will of the people of Poland said about "Russian aggression" and took the decision to increase the size of the army. It should be noted that since 2008, Poland is not a valid characteristic for post-Soviet States conscription, Warsaw abandoned it in favor of creating a professional army. While 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 joining the military with patriotism, reliability job and decent earnings.

Improving the image of military service reduces the sensitivity of Polish companies to participate in the hostilities, and make war in his eyes and more an effect than before. Rate of Warsaw in preparation of professional military personnel, getting real combat experience by participating in NATO missions, the pursuit and development of advanced weapons the Polish gives the soldier confidence in greater security and superiority over the enemy, and this in turn increases the level of aggressiveness in the international arena.

Increasing the aggressiveness of the Polish you can see in the foreign policy rhetoric of the representatives of the state, for example, defense Minister Antony Matsarevicha and internal changes in military construction. So, Warsaw adopted a new law which foresees the establishment of territorial defense Forces. It entered into force on will become effective in Poland on 1 January 2017. By 2019 it is planned to increase the number of troops of this type to 53 thousand, which represented one third of the total population of the Polish army.

In October of 2017 Anthony Lazarevic announced the creation in Poland cyberarmies. However, he directly accused Russia of projected threats, cybersecurity, without citing any evidence. Warsaw also joined founded in Finland in September this year, the European centre for the countering hybrid threats, working closely with the European Union and NATO.


In pursuit of unraveling the essence of the phenomenon of RVD, we cease to think about the main thing: what war is, what its origins are and if it can be avoided? The emphasis for the study of war shifted, although the answers to the eternal questions somewhere nearby and escape from our sight, as we are passionate about monitoring technological "competition." Speaking of RVD needs to understand that the driving forces for the implementation of the concept can be different goals: the protection of the state, the desire to spread the influence of strategic stability, an attempt to take "historical revenge" and others. But can RVD contribute to the establishment and maintenance of peace? Or is it "Trojan horse", which deceived the international community?

The focus of the state on realization of the concept of revolution in military Affairs stimulates the militarization of science. In essence, this phenomenon is not negative in nature, but the possibility of using scientific achievements for military purposes is increasing at a high aggression state.

You need to remember that the driving force of the militarization and warmongers is always the man himself. The danger of possessing new military technologies due to the dissonance of mental and physical organization of man with modern technology that entails an increase in the aggressiveness of society.

Adopted to technology dehumanize war. Depersonalization amplifies the pulses to the incitement of war and tightens methods of warfare. In the war of precision-guided weapons and automated drones there is no place for compassion and other human emotions, since science provided technological solutions for ensuring greater safety of the soldiers create the illusion of superiority over the enemy and permissiveness.

The Western understanding of the concept is different from the Russian rate of technological fundamentalism. The spread of such perceptions RVD among other States is a danger, as in the pursuit of technological advantage over the enemy, you can lose all the humanity, to substitute for its technological determinism, and to plunge the world into a new war.

Nikolai Vasilyevich Ogarkov, there is a book called "History teaches vigilance". These words force us to break away from the technological "competition" and see what Trojan horse is already powered.

The list of sources

[1] Korotun S. N., The system of views on the war in the philosophy of A. Snesarev//Military-scientific journal "Humanitarian challenges in military Affairs",

[2] L. A. Gaman, N. A. Berdyaev about the war//Scientific library Cyberleninka,

[3] L. A. Gaman, N. A. Berdyaev about the war//Scientific library Cyberleninka,

[4] L. A. Gaman, N. A. Berdyaev about the war//Scientific library Cyberleninka,

[5] L. A. Gaman, N. A. Berdyaev about the war//Scientific library Cyberleninka,

[6] L. A. Gaman, N. A. Berdyaev about the war//Scientific library Cyberleninka,

[7] Muskhadzhiev S. H., Historical and philosophical understanding of the problem of war//Scientific library Cyberleninka,

[8] dranishnikova S. V., Russian social thought of the XIX century on the social impact of war//Electronic scientific journal "Modern problems of science and education",

[9] Toulmin St., The conceptual revolution in science,

[10] Feyerabend P. Selected works on science methodology, Against methodological compulsion!e-book/tpft/data/WOLG%20%23%201/634.%20%D4%E5%E9%E5%F0%E0%E1%E5%ED%E4%20%CF.%20%C8%E7%E1%F0%E0%ED%ED%FB%E5%20%F2%F0%F3%E4%FB%20%EF%EE%20%EC%E5%F2%EE%E4%EE%EB%EE%E3%E8%E8%20%ED%E0%F3%EA%E8/4.%20%CF%F0%EE%F2%E8%E2%20%EC%E5%F2%EE%E4%EE%EB%EE%E3%E8%F7%E5%F1%EA%EE%E3%EE%20%EF%F0%E8%ED%F3%E6%E4%E5%ED%E8%FF.pdf

[11] Lakatos I. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes// the Electronic library,

[12] Kuhn T., the Structure of scientific revolutions,

[13] Kuhn T., the Structure of scientific revolutions,

[14] J. Douai. Supremacy in the air. A collection of writings on issues of the air war, the site "Military literature",

[15] Hargadon A. Retooling R&D: Technology brokering and the pursuit of innovation//Ivey bisiness journal. 2003. P. 1-7

[16] I. I. Tamashasky, Konashkova A. M., I. V. Krasavin, A. A. PYRANOVA Scientific communication: the scientist in modern society//journal of Siberian Federal University. 2016. P. 30-41

[17] V. O. corewood of Scientific and technological advance, technological broker and the potential conversion // pathways to peace and security. 2016. No. 2(51) . C. 128-140

[18] Korosov O. V. Foreign experience of formation of technological broker in the defence sector // pathways to peace and security. 2015. No. 1(48) . C. 105-118

[19] the results of the military reform. Part 2: Marshal Ogarkov as the father of the Russian army of the XXI century,

[20] Maciej Lekowski, Współczesna rewolucja w dziedzinie wojskowości. Analiza wybranych cech charakterystycznych i aspektów,

[21] K. F. Sliwinski, "Polish national security dilemmas: The US missile defense complex and its role in Polish foreign policy." Democracy and Security 8.2 (2012): 191-212,

Skvortsova Ekaterina

RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security