Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review

'The sooner this excellent book is read by Western policy-makers, the better.' DAILY TELEGRAPH '[Colin Gray's] excellent book should be required reading for anyone interested in promoting our safetly and prosperity in the years ahead. It offers many wise words and thoughtful speculations about what the threats to the next few generations might be.' -- Max Hastings THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 'Gray should be read, not least because of his own personal importance... This is the sort of advice he gives to the people that shape our world. His analyses become theirs. Read on and tremble.' SCOTTISH LEGION NEWS 'an important work that should be in every library of military affairs and international relations.' -- Michael Howard TLS

Review

“For anyone serious about the dynamics of strategy, the risks of future conflict, and the variables impacting American defense policy, this book is simply indispensable.”  —Armed Services Journal

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 440 pages
• Publisher: WN (April 1, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0297846272
• ISBN-13: 978-0297846277
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 1.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #518,569 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Explores the idea that while war is ever changing, its basics remain the same, June 22, 2006

By	Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA) - See all my reviews

ANOTHER BLOODY CENTURY: FUTURE WARFARE explores the idea that while war is ever changing, its basics remain the same: it'll always be with us, it has an unchanging nature and character, it's driven by politics, and it embraces strategic surprises. That said, ANOTHER BLOODY CENTURY narrows the focus to strategic prediction's problems, the fallacies inherent in the idea of a foreseeable future when warfare is involved, and futuristic types of warfare mechanisms which argues that in practice war is a controlled process. Any who would understand warfare's evolution and future must consider the basic tenants observed in ANOTHER BLOODY CENTURY: FUTURE WARFARE, which looks under the hype for the realities.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A must read - provocatively stimulating, compellingly argued..., November 15, 2008

By	Urey W. Patrick (Maine, USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare (Phoenix Press) (Paperback)

This is a theoretical/philosophical/logical/historical/pragmatic look at war and warfare to come, and is one of the most engaging books I have read in quite some time. The author has a superb, and often wickedly delightful sense of humor that emerges unexpectedly throughout his text - he is particularly unkind to the multi-national, soft and fuzzy make peace not war can't we all be friends crowd. The book is worth buying just for the final two chapters - The Control of War and A Warlike Future - but I strongly recommend you read all the preceding chapters, nevertheless. Gray lays out, and eviscerates, the various grand theories of war - also those for controlling and eliminating war - and covers factors that do in fact limit war, if unevenly and unreliably. Throughout I found myself thinking how much I wish I had written THAT, or how intellectually satisfying it is to learn THAT.

There is much to be learned here. Very satisfying, very stimulating, very provocative of serious thought...

10 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Fine study of warfare, May 23, 2006

By	William Podmore (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

In this fascinating book, Colin Gray, Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies at Reading University, continues the argument of his classic `Modern Strategy' - Clausewitz still rules. "Technology is important, but in war and strategy people matter most." There is no golden key to military success.

His argument is that war and warfare will always be with us. War has an unchanging nature but a variable character, so history is our best guide to the future. Irregular warfare between states and non-state foes may be the dominant form of warfare for some years, but interstate war, including great power conflict, is not over. The political context is the main driver of war's incidence and character. Above all, warfare is political, though also social and cultural. Surprise in future warfare is certain. Efforts to regulate war by international political, legal and moral measures and attitudes are worth pursuing; however, perceived belligerent necessity can always trump them.

His particular conclusions are unconventional but well argued: "the less active we are in attempting to speed reform in the Islamic world, the better. Such reform is the only comprehensively effective answer to Al Qaeda, but it cannot be imposed from outside." "Terrorism will neither vanish nor be comprehensively defeated (technically an impossibility, since it is a mode of warfare), but it may resume its more usual position as a permanent background danger, typically of much lesser gravity than interstate war." "nuclear weapons are useful. If they are not useful, why do the declared nuclear weapon states continue to hold them and why do others aspire to join their ranks? It so happens that biological, chemical, and radiological weapons also can be useful. The phenomenon that impedes comprehension and strategic empathy amounts to nothing less than demonization."

However, in contrast to these realistic judgements, he espouses the idealist notion that the US state is the prime defender of `world order', a notion that whitewashes all those illegal US aggressions to enforce selfish US interests. So he joins Bush and Blair in opposing `efforts to regulate war' - "we need to be careful lest an ill-advised and undue respect for UN rules and procedures is permitted fatally to obstruct the forces of order, which is to say principally the United States."

Bush and Blair see themselves as the sheriff and deputy of `world order', but why share their delusion?