Changing the face of Modern Warfare

[Bob Hubbard]

There is a show on called Future Weapons. In it, the host covers a wide range of new weapons. Programmable bullets that fragment a pre-determined distance down range, light weight body armor, intelligent uniforms that monitor a soldiers vitals and can perform battle field triage, projectiles that seem to turn corners, robots, and sniper rifles that shoot with pin-point accuracy for miles.

What does it all mean for the future of warfare?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

That the richest nation will win in a "stand up fight". However victory in arms is vastly different from political victory as we all can see.

 

[CoryKS]

The trend is to try to wage a more 'humanitarian' war. Lighter body armor and medical equipment reduce your casualties, while high range and around-the-corner projectiles lower your troops' outline.

Also, we have seen the coupling of high-precision guidance systems on low-tech payloads such as concrete bombs and small charge explosives. The idea is to minimize civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure since propaganda plays such a huge role in the age of satellite news.

The obvious benefit is the lower number of your own troops dying plus lower civilian casualties, but there is a potential downside. One theory suggests that a nation that does not face an existential threat will not psychologically accept defeat and will be more likely to pose a future threat, and that by trying to minimize the short-term cost of war one runs the risk of a greater long-term cost.

 

[Steel Tiger]

The problem I can see with all the new "smart" equipment is that a basic soldier will become so expensive to outfit no one will be willing to use them for anything, whether it be going to war, defending the nation, or doing rescue and emergency work.

 

[MBuzzy]

I believe that most of these will end up reducing casualties, although the enemy will always adapt to new tactics. Even with the advanced technology that we have now, the enemy is still adapting and finding ways to overcome our technology.

One big impact that I see will be the change to more equipment being classified as SECRET or a higher classification level. Some of these things will require a Top Secret clearance just to operate - and on top of that, will need to be destroyed if they fall into enemy hands.

Not to mention the costs....We can barely afford to wage war now. I think that the aim is to put more technology into the hands of the warfighter as a force multiplier, making one person as effective as an entire fire team.

 

[grydth]

That the richest nation will win in a "stand up fight". However victory in arms is vastly different from political victory as we all can see.

No, not necessarily.

Whatever the weapon, from a Greek Short Sword to the Tank of the future, both the individual soldier and the nation must be willing to kill remorselessly and relentlessly with it - and must be willing to accept our own soldiers being killed in action as well - without ever waivering from victory.

Without that determination, the nation is merely a boxer with a strong punch, but a glass jaw and a weak heart.

We will not save ourselves with these infernal machines alone.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

We seem to be doing pretty well with one hand tied behind our backs but with a lot of high tech gear in the other so far. Our troops are arguably the best trained and best equipped in the world. But in essence I agree with you. True military victory will never be possible without the guts to wage true war.

 

[Kacey]

We seem to be doing pretty well with one hand tied behind our backs but with a lot of high tech gear in the other so far. Our troops are arguably the best trained and best equipped in the world. But in essence I agree with you. True military victory will never be possible without the guts to wage true war.

The bolded part of your statement is something I've heard before, in somewhat different context - until firearms became widespread and reached a certain level of sophistication, warfare was a very personal experience: you were physically close to your opponent, and able to see him (occasionally her, but generally him) clearly as you attacked. As weapons have become more sophisticated (if one can truly consider equipment intended solely to kill efficiently "sophisticated"), attacking the enemy has become more and more abstract - while soldiers certainly understand cognitively that they are killing people when they drop bombs from airplanes, that is, IMHO, a different experience - especially for the highest commanders, who are far from the front lines with today's communication systems - than in the past, when going to war meant being physically present in blood, gore, and dead, dying, and maimed soldiers. This depersonalization of war makes it more abstract, and thus easier, to wage war, in a way that I find truly concerning.

 

[Marginal]

No, not necessarily.

Whatever the weapon, from a Greek Short Sword to the Tank of the future, both the individual soldier and the nation must be willing to kill remorselessly and relentlessly with it - and must be willing to accept our own soldiers being killed in action as well - without ever waivering from victory.

Without that determination, the nation is merely a boxer with a strong punch, but a glass jaw and a weak heart.

We will not save ourselves with these infernal machines alone.

Even then, having an army, and being willing to toss them into conflict accomplishes nothing if you hobble those troops with an aggressive but ineffective strategist.

Lee's a good example.

 

[Sukerkin]

This depersonalization of war makes it more abstract, and thus easier, to wage war, in a way that I find truly concerning.

Now there's a statement I agree with wholeheartedly.

I think I've said before in other threads that, at the present time, the Western Powers are still attempting to apply nineteenth century ideas of the use of force to produce foreign policy results.

When we (the British) were busy taking Imperial democracy to the world (sound familiar?), we had such a decisive advantage in both the technology and the 'machinery/organisation' of warfare that it was actually possible to impose rule and keep it.

Yes, there were uprisings and what would now be called terrorist actions but because of the slowness of both communications and transport that never really grew beyond a 'local' level (even when the slaughter was enormous, such as in the Indian Mutiny).

Those circumstances no longer apply and when the policies being pursued involve the poking-with-sticks of nuclear (and somewhat fanatical) nations, the only outcome will be woe for both the common soldier and the citizenry.

Both my grandfathers were veterans of the World Wars (one serving in the First and the other in the Second) and both of them said that if the politicians want to use violence to get their way then they should all be put in a field together and left to sort it out.

 

[CoryKS]

This depersonalization of war makes it more abstract, and thus easier, to wage war, in a way that I find truly concerning.

And yet, oddly enough, anti-war sentiment is at a higher level than at any time in history. And to be clear, I'm not referring to opposition to the current war, but the growing feeling that ALL war is bad. That is a recent conceit that has developed concurrently with the new technology that supposedly depersonalizes war.

 

[Sukerkin]

I have to say that I do believe that all war is bad. That's not to say that all war is unnecessary.

But it still boils down to a couple of bunches of men/women, with no personal disagreements with each other, performing mass butchery for the fulfilment of someone elses desires.

I suppose that whether or not you are willing to kill someone else to obtain your own goals may have a bearing on the hypocrisy or otherwise of such a stance. For myself, I like to think that I would not kill another human being, whatever the provocation. That may be self delusion but the guilt I felt from the one time I've used my martial skills with intent makes me think that I'd have a chance of sticking to my guns (pun and irony in one package there ).

 

[MBuzzy]

Though I do not think that War is by any means a GOOD thing, I do agree that it is completely necessary. The statement that "Violence never solved anything" is possibly the worst expression ever conceived. Violence has been solving problems since the beginning of time!

Over thousands of years, though, we have taken warfare to a whole new level, using thousands, sometimes millions of people to achieve one governments ideals and goals. Most of the time, I think you're right, just put the two presidents or prime ministers or whatever in the ring together, let them duke it out...and whoever wins gets their way. Let's go back to Gladiators!