It will no longer be war that is the continuation of politics by
It will no longer be war that is the continuation of politics by other means, it will be what I have dubbed 'the integral accident' that is the continuation of politics by other means.
When Paul Virilio declared, “It will no longer be war that is the continuation of politics by other means, it will be what I have dubbed ‘the integral accident’ that is the continuation of politics by other means,” he was reshaping the ancient wisdom of Clausewitz for a new age. Where once the clash of armies defined the fate of nations, Virilio foresaw a time when catastrophe—technological, environmental, or industrial—would become the new battlefield. The integral accident is born not from swords or guns, but from the very systems humanity has built, accidents woven into the fabric of progress itself.
The meaning is profound: every invention carries within it the seed of disaster. The ship carries with it the shipwreck, the airplane the crash, the nuclear reactor the meltdown. And in an age of global interdependence, these accidents no longer remain private tragedies but swell into political crises, reshaping alliances, stirring fear, and altering the destinies of nations. Thus, politics itself becomes a struggle not only over territory or ideology, but over the management of inevitable disasters.
History bears witness already. When Chernobyl’s reactor exploded in 1986, it was not merely an accident—it was a political event that shook the Soviet Union, exposed its weaknesses, and hastened its collapse. In our own century, the attacks of September 11th and the financial collapse of 2008 revealed how tightly bound the fates of nations had become to technological and systemic accidents. Each disaster created ripples that reached far beyond the immediate tragedy, redefining global politics for years to come.
Virilio’s insight echoes the lessons of the ancients, who warned that hubris brings downfall. Just as the builders of the Tower of Babel found ruin in their ambition, so too does modern humanity court disaster in its pursuit of speed, scale, and power. The integral accident is not an exception to progress, but its dark twin—an inevitable companion born the moment we dare to create.
Thus, let this wisdom endure: the wars of the future will not always be fought with weapons, but with crises that arise from within the very engines of our civilization. Leaders must learn to govern not only armies, but accidents; not only borders, but the fragile systems that bind the world together. For in this age, as Virilio teaches, it is no longer war but the integral accident that becomes the hidden continuation of politics by other means.
KOkha ozil
Virilio’s take on the future of politics—where ‘integral accidents’ take the place of war—is both chilling and thought-provoking. What does it mean for the global political landscape if we move from direct conflict to managing complex, unforeseen disasters? Will political leaders be more reactive than proactive in responding to these accidents? This concept raises so many questions about how prepared our systems are for managing accidents that have far-reaching political consequences.
PTLe Thi Phuong Thuy
I’m struck by Virilio’s thought that the ‘integral accident’ is the new form of political power. It seems like it’s a nod to the increasing vulnerability of the world in our age of hyper-connectivity and technological dependence. Rather than traditional wars, will we start to see global crises—like cyber attacks or climate-induced disasters—become the new battlegrounds of political power? Can the political system even prepare for the kinds of random, catastrophic events that are becoming more common?
LQthang le quang
Virilio’s assertion about the ‘integral accident’ feels eerily prophetic. Could the rise of global interconnectedness, through technology and communication, mean that political events and crises are more often the result of unforeseen accidents? In a world where information travels at lightning speed and systems are more fragile than ever, could these ‘accidents’ create the same level of disruption and power shifts as traditional wars? How do we prepare for political challenges that stem from these unpredictable events?
HHung
Paul Virilio’s idea that the ‘integral accident’ will replace war as the continuation of politics is a fascinating concept. It makes me think about how unpredictable events or crises—things like technological failures, environmental disasters, or even economic crashes—are now becoming central to political life. Are we moving away from traditional warfare because of technological advances, or is the world simply evolving in a way where accidents and unintended consequences now drive political agendas?