[introduction.]

p The military power of the state (coalition) is a relative notion. To obtain an idea of the military power of a definite state (coalition) it must be compared with the might of other states (coalitions). The opposing side also 276 has a certain military power, which it applies to achieve its aims. Therefore victory and defeat of the warring states (coalitions), the course and the outcome of wars, depends on the whole directly on the correlation of their military power.

Dependence of the Course and Outcome of Wars on the Military Power of the Warring Sides

p The dependence of the course and outcome of war on the correlation between the military power of the warring sides, analysed in its dynamic state and taking into account the character of the political aims of the sides, is a general law of war. Its operation is linked with the more general laws of social development, but at the same time has a vividly expressed independence of them. Stable and necessary connections and relations mark the correlation between the forces of the warring sides in the course of the attainment by them of their military-political aims and the decisive processes of the war, i.e., the methods by which it is conducted, the main trends in the development of the armed struggle, its results, the ability of the troops to wage offensive and defensive actions, etc. The efforts of the economy, science, moral possibilities and so on also exert a telling effect on the belligerents’ strength.

p The decisive importance of the correlation between the military power (forces) of the warring countries to thet fate of the war is inherent in the very nature of social relations, since all social development takes the form of an interaction between individuals, collectives, social groups, parties and classes. Since there are different forms of ownership in individual countries and in the world at large, for example, the capitalist and socialist—this interaction is ultimately reduced to an interaction of diametrically opposed socio-political forces. This is clearly proved by the main content of our epoch: the revolutionary .transition from capitalism to socialism, which is proceeding on the basis of a fundamental change in the alignment of the social forces in the world, which to an ever higher degree coincides with the main trend of historical progress, with the interests of the working masses.

p Obviously, war is the sharpest form assumed by the clash of the socio-political forces. Each fighting side attempts to defend its economic and military-political interests with 277 the help of violent means. Therefore, all of the social life of the belligerents is influenced by violence during a war, and the consequences depend on the amount and the quality of the means applied. This relation of the armed forces is in its turn a result of the relation of the socioeconomic and political forces of the warring sides, and is determined by the aims for the sake of which military power is applied.

p However, supremacy in military power only makes victory possible. Even a great supremacy in the military power of a definite-state (coalition) over its opponent does by no means guarantee victory. It only provides the state (the coalition) with favourable possibilities for the achievement of victory. The transformation of that possibility into reality is a highly creative process. The decisive role in it is played by the conscious activity of the many millions of people, of classes, parties, special organisations (the armed forces) and, naturally, individuals. The nature of the leadership of the masses and the social forces, who translate the possibility of victory into reality, is ultimately decided by the country’s social system and political organisation, by their correspondence to the progressive tendencies of. historical development.

p While success in war between states depends on the correlation of their military power, on the ability of the military and political leadership of each side to create and realise this relation in its favour, every concrete act of war—battle, operation or action—are determined by ’ their concrete relation of forces. For example, the specific features of the Stalingrad battle were determined by the relation of forces both on the entire Soviet-German front, and also by that on the sector between the Volga and the Don.

p The transition from military actions on a minor scale to hostilities on a major scale, is at the same time a transition from one level in the relation of forces to another. There is a certain dependence between these levels. It is expressed by the fact that the alignment of the forces on a tactical scale is part of the more general relation of forces —that marking military actions on an operational scale, which in their turn are a definite aspect of the relation between the strategical forces. As regards the relation of 278 the military forces of the warring states (coalitions), it acts as part of a more general relation of the forces of states, namely, as a relation of their economic and socio-political forces.

p Although inseparably bound together, these different levels in the relation of forces lose none of their relative independence. In the course of military actions a situation may shape in which there can be a favourable relation of forces on a particular sector while the relation as a whole is unfavourable, and vice versa.

p While remaining relatively independent and at the same time linked in a definite way, the various levels of the relation of forces, each in its own way and all together, determine the course and outcome of the war, and the trend of the state’s military policy in peacetime. In pursuing definite political and military aims, each state is concerned with its military power, strives to improve it by taking into account the military power of its probable opponent, who also does not mark time.

p The military power of the state as a correlative magnitude expresses the degree of its ability to wage a war against other states by straining all the material and spiritual forces of society. It is expressed in the material and spiritual possibilities the given state (coalition) has at its disposal and which are embodied directly in the armed forces, in their ability to wage military operations. These possibilities are conditioned by the socio-economic and political system in the country, by the level of development of the productive forces, the state’s political line and other factors.

p Military power can be pictured as a system of a definite structure, each of the elements of which holds a definite place, and all of which are interlinked and mutually determined. It includes the economic, scientific, moral- political and particularly the military potentials, which have quantitative and qualitative aspects. The economic potential is the basis of a country’s military power. The moral potential permeates all the elements of the military power and decisively determines the degree to which they are utilised. The military potential expresses directly the defensive power of the country; the scientific potential, on the other hand, being relatively independent, is realised 279 through all other potentials and serves as one of the motive forces for their development and interrelation.

p The potentials and their elements, being actuated in connection with a possible attack by an opponent or in the course of war, become factors, that is, motive forces, conditions of victory or defeat. Therefore, the factors determining the course and outcome of war are the economy, science, the morale of the people and the army, weapons, nowadays mainly nuclear ones, etc. Their quality and quantity, the role of each, are historically conditioned.

p Such is our viewpoint on the military power of the state (coalition). It corresponds to the materialist conception of history and the recognition of dialectical social development, and in this lies its advantage over the views of the military theoreticians of imperialism.

p This naturally does not mean that the imperialist theoreticians ignore the key components of the military power of the state (coalition). They give their due to the economic, scientific and moral potentials, and naturally to the armed forces. For example, the Field Service Regulations of the US Army read: “Elements of National Power. All the means (political, economic, military, and psychological) which are available for employment in the pursuit of national objectives."  [279•1 

p The similarity in the definition of the military power and its components is only superficial. American and other writers on military matters give a different evaluation notably to the socio-political, moral components. Relying on unscientific methodological foundations, they exaggerate some and underestimate other elements of the military power of the state (coalition). For example, the US military theoretician K. Knorr reduced military power to the productive possibilities of the state and belittled all other components. Many military theoreticians overestimate the military potential as such, especially that of the nuclear missiles. They maintain that the nuclear power of the USA and the NATO bloc is much higher than that of the USSR and believe that a single nuclear strike will suffice to destroy the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.

These and similar considerations completely ignore the historical approach to the evaluation of the military power of states.

Causes of Changes in the Military Power of States

p Historically, the military power of every state does not remain constant but changes under the influence of a number of socio-political and military- technical factors. For example, the military power of the Soviet Union on the eve of the Second World War and its military power at present differ considerably in quantitative as well as in qualitative respects. The military power of the imperialist states has changed too.

p The most important circumstances that have conditioned the change in the military power of states, have fundamentally altered their components and thus influenced the new relation of military forces in the world today, are the following:

p First, the radical change in the alignment of forces in the contemporary world. Marx, Engels and Lenin showed that the scientific criterion of a genuinely historical approach to phenomena consists in an objectively scientific analysis of the relations of classes at every given historical moment. Lenin wrote: “Marxism requires of us a strictly exact and objectively verifiable analysis of the relations of classes and of the concrete features peculiar to each historical situation. We Bolsheviks have always tried to meet this requirement, which is absolutely essential for giving a scientific foundation of policy."  [280•1  Hence, a genuinely historical approach and consideration of the relation of classes and the relation of military power are two aspects of the same question. The relation of social forces in the world and the relation of the military power of states are interconnected and mutually conditioned. What is initial, basic, is the relation of the social forces in the world.

p At the back of the change in the relation of forces between the individual countries is the general regrouping in the relation of the social, class forces in the world. This arises out of the main process of modern times—the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism—and is linked with the concurrent disintegration of the colonial 281 system and the growth of the national liberation movement, and also of the working-class and communist movement in the capitalist countries. In this connection the relation of forces in the world continues to change in favour of socialism, the working-class and the national liberation movement. Imperialism has been unable to change that in spite of all its attempts to do so.

p However, one should not oversimplify the approach to that matter. We speak here of the main tendency of social development, of its trend, and do not aver that the capitalist system has become so weak that we need no longer reckon with its possibilities. The economic potentialities of the capitalist system are still rather high. They are contained in its production possibilities, in the internal interrelations and in the influence which imperialist economy, politics and ideology still exert on the developing countries.

p The question of the changes of the social forces in the field of political relations is also complicated. In the general stream of the national liberation struggle in the various Asian, African and Latin American countries the influence of the capitalist countries is still great, and the internal counter-revolutionary forces rely on it. They fight the national liberation struggle jointly, induce some countries to turn to the Right and to be caught in the snares spread for them by the reactionary imperialist circles.

p While the upsurge of the class, revolutionary struggle of the working class and the working people in the capitalist countries is the basic trend, account must be taken of the fact that at certain periods we observe definite recession in that trend.

p These and other social processes affect primarily the economic and moral potentials of states (coalitions), influence their military power and the relation of forces between them.

p Secondly, an all-embracing influence on social life is exerted by the development of the productive forces and the scientific and technological progress linked with it, and, in modern conditions, by the scientific and technological revolution. This revolution has wrought an upheaval in the technological development of many countries, has changed industry and agriculture, made the latter resemble industry, and considerably raised labour productivity. 282 Favourable conditions have been created for intensive technological development and the introduction of scientific research in all spheres of social life, including military affairs.

p The scientific and technological revolution, mediated by the socio-political system of states, exerts an impact on their military power. It has affected the character of their economic and moral potential, advanced the scientific potential to the foreground, has become one of the sources of the revolution in the military field, and wrought qualitative changes in the military potential.

p Thirdly, the military power of states (coalitions) forms under the influence of the radical changes in the means of the armed struggle and, in our days, under the decisive influence of nuclear weapons and new means for their delivery. It is commonly known that the creation of these weapons, and the equipment with them of the Soviet Armed Forces, affected the world strategic situation enormously. The nuclear potential of the imperialists is confronted by the nuclear missile power of the USSR, a reliable bulwark of peace, democracy and socialism. It is precisely for this reason that stockpiles of nuclear weapons of different designation have been created and that all the services of the Soviet Armed Forces have been increasingly equipped with means for their employment. The strategic rocket troops and atomic submarines, which are the main means of deterring the aggressor and of routing him in war, rapidly increased in strength.

p As in the past, the character and the outcome of the future war will be determined by the general relation of forces. In case of a nuclear war, decisive importance will be acquired by the relation of nuclear forces and means, as well as by the individual elements of the nuclear power of the sides, that is, the nuclear stockpiles, the quality and quantity of the means for their delivery to target, the efficiency ..and accuracy of hit. Thus, the struggle for military-technical supremacy has now become decisive.

p Fourthly, the change in the military power is conditioned by the socio-political and military-technical character of a possible war. The decisive political aims pursued by states with opposing socio-political systems in the war, will also require considerable material and spiritual efforts on the 283 part of the belligerents; the military-political aims, enormous as regards their importance and scale, require that there be a big and effective war machine. In turn, nuclear missile weapons and means for their rapid delivery make it possible today to resolve tasks which could not even be set in the past. Mass nuclear missile strikes at the armed forces of the opponent and at his key economic and political objectives can determine the victory of one side and the defeat of the other at the very beginning of the war. Therefore, a correct estimate of the elements of the supremacy over the opponent and the ability to use them before the opponent does, are the key to victory in such a war.

p The above circumstances make it possible to draw the conclusion that at present the concept “military power" has become more inclusive and much deeper. It has become more inclusive because it now embraces not only individual states but also their alliances and coalitions. In evaluating the military power of a state it is essential to consider also its relations with the main groupings of states in the world, i.e., its contribution to the aggregate military power. Particular attention must be focussed on the characteristic of the military power of the two world systems—the socialist and the imperialist. The role played in these systems by the two superpowers—the USSR and the USA—must also be taken into account.

The concept “military power" of a state (coalition) has become deeper. The emergence of socialism as a social system has convincingly refuted the views of people, who proceeded only from the military aspect while appraising the relation of the forces of states. The growth of the forces and possibilities of the socialist system has made it necessary to supplement the purely military evaluation of the relation of forces of states with the evaluation of the possibilities of their socio-political systems and the morale of their peoples. At the Second Congress of Soviets in 1917, Lenin noted that our conception of force differ% from that of the bourgeoisie. “Our idea,” he said, “is that a state is strong when the people are politically conscious. It is strong when the people know everything, can form an opinion of everything and do everything consciously."  [283•1  Therefore, 284 the power of the state is composed of the possibilities of its social, class structure, its economic, scientific, moral- political and military potentials.