There are many reasons why a state might choose to engage in limited warfare rather than total warfare. For example, a state might be concerned about the risk of escalation to a larger conflict, or it might want to avoid civilian casualties. In some cases, limited warfare may be used as a way to achieve specific political or military goals without resorting to a full-scale war.
The concept of limited warfare has been around for centuries, but it came to prominence in the 20th century, when several major conflicts were fought between states that were unwilling or unable to commit to total warfare. The Cold War, for example, was characterized by a series of limited wars, such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
In recent years, limited warfare has continued to be used as a way to manage conflicts between states. For example, the United States has engaged in limited wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to achieve specific political and military goals.
Whether or not limited warfare is an effective way to achieve political or military goals is a matter of debate. Some argue that limited warfare can be a useful tool for managing conflicts without resorting to total warfare, while others argue that it can be ineffective and counterproductive.
Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to engage in limited warfare is a complex one that must be made on a case-by-case basis.