Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:21:44.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Power Inventory and National Strategy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Stephen B. Jones
Stephen B. Jones
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access

Extract

A FAMILIAR sight in the newspapers and weekly magazines is a world map (often, I regret to say, on the Mercator projection) on which population, oil production, or similar information is shown by rows of small men, barrels, or other appropriate symbols. These maps are often interpreted in caption or accompanying text as indices of national power. No one denies that such information is relevant to power, but no reader of this journal needs to be cautioned that such information is only a first step toward an evaluation. The present paper spells out that caution and tries to take another step or two. Its thesis is: An estimate of national power has two aspects which are related, in a figurative way, like the two rays of a triangulation. Either ray gives direction, but it takes the two to give distance. A better analogy, perhaps, is that of two searchlight beams groping through the dark until they intersect on the target. One ray or beam is the conventional inventory of the elements or factors of power. It gives the power resources of a nation, using “resource” in a broad sense. The other ray is here called “national strategy.”

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , July 1954 , pp. 421 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Carlyle, Thomas, History of the French Revolution, IIGoogle Scholar, Book 5, ch. 5.

2 Clausewitz, Karl von, On War, tr. by Jolles, O. J. M., Infantry Journal Press edition, Washington, 1950, pp. 137–41.Google Scholar

3 Harold, and Sprout, Margaret, Foundations of National Power, 2nd ed., New York, 1951, p. 40.Google Scholar

4 Lasswell, Harold D. and Kaplan, Abraham, Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry, New Haven, 1950, p. 75.Google Scholar

5 “Strategy” is also used in the sense of “a strategy” or, as the dictionary puts it, “a kind or instance of it.” The phrases “strategic plan” or “strategic program” would be more precise, but also more cumbersome, and the specific usage is well established.

6 If any reader has not heard it, the story has the ants tell the improvident grasshopper that they will feed him if he will change himself into an ant. When he asks how he is to do this, the ants reply, “We're only laying down policy.”

7 The following definition of national strategy is used by the armed forces: “The art and science of developing and using the political, economic, and psychological powers of a nation, together with its armed forces, during peace and during war, to secure national objectives” (Dictionary of United States Military Terms for Joint Usage, 2nd revision, April 1953).

8 “Geostrategy”—a word of uncertain meaning—has also been avoided.

9 Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations, New York, 1951, pp. 80–108.Google Scholar

10 Kent, Sherman, Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy, Princeton, 1949, p. 51 and II.Google Scholar

11 American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Facts, October 1952.Google Scholar

12 Lead-time has a range of meanings. An artilleryman might think of it as the interval between placing an order and receiving the ammunition. An airman is more likely to think of the longer interval between conceiving a new airplane and the mass production of the final model. There is a different lead-time for each of the availability states discussed in this article, infra.

13 It has been remarked that conscription was adopted during the Civil War, upon entry into World War I, before entry into World War II, and now appears to be a permanent institution. In another sphere, the New York Times, March 8, 1953, mentioned the opening of a watch factory so designed that it could shift without pause to the making of fuses.

14 Loc.cit.

15 Wilmot, Chester, The Struggle for Europe, London, 1952, pp. 51–53.Google Scholar

16 Brodie, Bernard, Sea Power in the Machine Age, Princeton, 1943, pp. 203, 334, 442–45.Google Scholar

17 The Rommel Papers, ed. by Hart, B. H. Liddell, New York, 1953, p. 245Google Scholar and elsewhere.

18 Ibid., pp. 252–54.

19 “Operation” has the narrow military meaning of “a military action” and the broader one of any strategic, tactical, service, training, or administrative action. “Administration” was considered as a substitute for “operation” in the present paper, but was rejected because of its bureaucratic connotation and because, in military usage, it does not apply to strategic or tactical activities.

20 Whittlesey, Derwent, “The Horizon of Geography,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, xxxv (March 1945), pp. 23–24.Google Scholar

21 To be somewhat facetious, one might list a sixth availability state, “available after bombardment.”

22 Ullman, Edward L., “The Railroad Pattern of the United States,” Geographical Review, XXXIX (April 1949), pp. 254–55.Google Scholar

23 The writer wishes to thank Professor Knorr for permission to read his manuscript.

24 Hilsman, Roger Jr, “Intelligence and Policy-making in Foreign Affairs,” World Politics, v (October 1952), p. 44.Google Scholar

25 Lippmann, Walter, U. S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic, Boston, 1943, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar He adds, “with a comfortable surplus of power in reserve.”

26 This analogy, while sound in principle, is difficult to apply. The choice of strategies may be more like the choice among medicines of uncertain therapeutic value for a disease not definitely diagnosed.

27 Cf. an article in the New York Times, November 11, 1953, p. 17, headed “Wilson Hints End of Arms Balance.”

28 Cf. Jones, Stephen B., “Possibilism and Strategic Thought,” abstract to be published in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers in June 1954.Google Scholar

29 E.g., Seversky, Alexander de, Air Power: Key to Survival, New York, 1950Google Scholar; and Andrews, Marshall, Disaster Through Air Power, New York, 1950.Google Scholar There were divergent opinions in the Survey, Strategic Bombing (Summary Report, Pacific War, Washington, 1946Google Scholar, and Air Campaigns of the Pacific War, Washington, 1947).

30 This may be mere jargon. The reader may judge after considering Whittlesey, , “The Horizon of Geography,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, op.cit., pp. 1–36Google Scholar, and Jones, Stephen B., “A Unified Field Theory of Political Geography,” to be published in the same journal in June 1954.Google Scholar

31 Harold, and Sprout, Margaret, Toward a New Order of Sea Power, Princeton, 1940, pp. 14–15 and 19–23.Google Scholar

32 “The Horizon of Geography,” op.cit., pp. 23–24.

33 Thomas, Thomas H., “Armies and the Railway Revolution,” in War as a Social Institution, New York, 1941, pp. 88–94.Google Scholar

34 Carlyle, , History of the French Revolution, IGoogle Scholar, Book 7, ch. 8.

35 Op.cit.