Conclusion
State and non-state actors use asymmetric tactics, sometimes exclusively and sometimes in concert with conventional ones. Humanitarian wars are proposed but seldom fought unless they coincide with the national interests of a power capable of projecting power to the targeted country.
Despite their popularity, economic sanctions have proved effective only under special circumstances. Guerrilla warfare takes many forms, including resistance to invaders, revolt against colonial masters, and ancillary support for traditional campaigns. Ironically, the Israelis, now one of the main targets of international terrorism, originated its modern form. Terror alone seldom achieves political goals but remains a threat requiring a wide array of counter-tactics that require a constant balancing between security and individual civil rights. Piracy, once effectively eliminated, has again emerged largely if not exclusively concentrated near Indonesia, Nigeria, and Somalia. Easily countered if the will exists to do so, it also provides a traditional legal framework potentially valuable for dealing with some aspects of terrorism. Lawfare, initiated by progressive lawyers to turn law into a political tool, has potential against terrorism.Asymmetric tactics illustrate one of the most basic principles of war: make your main effort against a decisive enemy weakness. If nations now focus entirely on asymmetric tactics, that weak spot may become their conventional force. China and India both are developing theirs, particularly in the form of naval and missile forces. Geostrategists already are thinking ahead to the possibility of a clash between the two in the Indian Ocean and an effort by the Chinese to force US naval forces back from the chain of barrier islands running from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines to Indonesia with the goal of turning the South China Sea into Chinese territorial waters.