Editorial

Ready for War, Defense-Capable - and Peaceable?

Dear readers, the German term “kriegstüchtig” (war-capable or ready for war) received the third-highest number of votes in this year’s poll for Germany’s “Words of the Year”. The German Language Society offers the following commentary: “Concerns were raised in the ensuing public debate about the potential for scaremongering and the risk of militarization. Nevertheless, it was also argued that a realistic assessment of potential threats and appropriate preparations are necessary to ensure peace.”

In other words, it depends on the nuanced interpretation of such buzzwords. Otherwise, the debate quickly degenerates into familiar stimulus-response patterns and mutual indignation about “warmongering” or “parasitic pacifism”. This issue of “Ethics and Armed Forces” therefore considers the implications of the term and appropriate responses to the evolving threat situation in Europe. All the articles in this issue concur at least on the reality of the latter.

In his introductory reflections, Dr. Franz-Josef Overbeck, Catholic Military Bishop for the German Armed Forces, emphasizes that Christian peace ethics cannot offer straightforward, universal solutions, given the complexity of modern challenges and limited understanding of the circumstances and consequences of actions. Despite their basic pacifist orientation, such ethics do not categorically preclude the possibility of justified counter-violence; he is, however, critical of the concept of “readiness for war”.

Dr. Paul Silas Peterson from the German Armed Forces Centre of Military History and Social Science (ZMSBw), provides a detailed analysis of the concept of “war-fighting capability” during the formative years of the Bundeswehr. He demonstrates that, from its inception, the concept was predicated on a logic of deterrence and peacekeeping, with explicit ethical and legal underpinnings. The current discussions of the term are often based on an implicit consensus that the Germans are a post-heroic and pacifist society. Dr. Timo Graf uses illustrative data from the ZMSBw population survey to show that such assumptions need to be revised.

One of the most discussed issues in the context of a “war-capable” Bundeswehr and a “defense-capable” society is that of military service and civilian service to society. Dr. Andrea Ellner from King’s College London outlines the advantages of a broad, inclusive service to society over a model focused on military aspects. Finland, on the other hand, which has never abolished its military service, is seen by many as a model of “Nordic resilience”. Minna Ålander from the Finnish Institute for International Affairs explains the specific underpinnings of the Finnish approach to comprehensive defense and how European countries could benefit from its focus on civilian defense.

Strategy expert Prof. Dr. Beatrice Heuser addresses a current military controversy. She provides an overview of the history of nuclear deterrence and the associated ethical debates and, in view of this, makes a case for the planned stationing of U.S. intermediate-range weapons in Germany from 2026.

The Special section examines how Germany is preparing for potential tension or collective defense scenarios. Lieutenant General André Bodemann, Commander of the Homeland Defence Command, describes the function and purpose of the “Operational Plan for Germany”, which defines procedures and shall be developed further after a “stress test”. Finally, Captain (Navy) Michael Giss explains the tasks assigned to the Regional Territorial Commands in this context. In the interview, the Commander of the Regional Territorial Command of Baden-Württemberg emphasizes that a soldier without ethics is only half a soldier. Consequently, even in the present circumstances, it is impossible to reduce the armed forces to their perceived “core business”.

The editors would like to extend their thanks to everyone who contributed to this issue. We hope it will help penetrate the “fog of war-fighting capability” and provide new insights.