I dislike Fisher's quote because it advocates that the laws adopted to regulate warfare are wrong and to reverse this would result in all wars turning into total wars, where rules do not apply.
You've completely missed the point of Fisher's saying. Obviously, as Clausewitz explained, 'absolute war' is both a physical impossibility and something far from desirable by societies and governments. Fisher, in the context of the tremendous technological and scientific changes occurring in the early part of the 20th century, noticed that when preparing for war, one should always prepare in the extreme- ie, for the 'absolute war'. His quotation about moderation is really a very advanced description of deterrence (in this case, naval deterrence). The HMS
Dreadnought came right out of this philosophy. Be prepared to demolish your opponents with superior technology, and it is that much more likely that your opponents will not be able to face you in war, and even if they attempt as much, will be unable to escalate violence towards an absolute point.
The development of true deterrence and the creation of the thermonuclear weapon has only made Fisher's saying that much more relevant today.
Potemkin wrote:A total war would therefore not be governed by any kind of international law or rules of war. A limited war can and should be so governed.
An
absolute war. Of course, absolute wars can be total, but no total war can be an absolute war.