Future Warfare

[Neutron]

The academic community has engaged in a robust, opinionated debate concerning the future of war. Although most author agree that warfare is clearly moving into next era or generation, they strongly disagree about reasons for the transition and form it will take.

Two schools of thoughts have emerged concerning the future of warfare.

1. Cyber war is coming. Cyberwar envisions a high technology , short duration war where technology is vital and essentially machines fight machines.
2. Complex, long term type of conflict that has grown out of Mao's People's war. 4th Generation warfare actually going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and worldwide against terrorism.

• Why warfare changes?
• What will future war look like?
• How do we recognise it as it develops?
• How do we respond to it?

 

[Neutron]

@Tipu7 Now you can participate

 

[VCheng]

• Why warfare changes?

• What will future war look like?

• How do we recognise it as it develops?

• How do we respond to it?

Warfare will always remain policy conducted by "other means" as was said a long time ago, but it will change from mere physical destruction and control to other domains albeit with the same goals.

 

[jhungary]

The academic community has engaged in a robust, opinionated debate concerning the future of war. Although most author agree that warfare is clearly moving into next era or generation, they strongly disagree about reasons for the transition and form it will take.

Two schools of thoughts have emerged concerning the future of warfare.

1. Cyber war is coming. Cyberwar envisions a high technology , short duration war where technology is vital and essentially machines fight machines.
2. Complex, long term type of conflict that has grown out of Mao's People's war. 4th Generation warfare actually going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and worldwide against terrorism.

• Why warfare changes?
• What will future war look like?
• How do we recognise it as it develops?
• How do we respond to it?

Warfare will always remain policy conducted by "other means" as was said a long time ago, but it will change from mere physical destruction and control to other domains albeit with the same goals.

I wrote this article a few months ago.

Modern Warfare 1GW to 4GW+

The way how warfare is going to conduct will be the same as now. As I said in my article, unless we can breakthrough the current battle space limit (Air, Sea, Land and Information) the face of warfare would remain the same.

 

[Moonlight]

Are not we just in warfare already? Or in technology war?

 

[Sine Nomine]

@jhungary warfare is always about blood spilling of human's,and certainly it will not change untill MQ-9 like ground robot is not introduced.

 

[Neutron]

I wrote this article a few months ago.

Modern Warfare 1GW to 4GW+

The way how warfare is going to conduct will be the same as now. As I said in my article, unless we can breakthrough the current battle space limit (Air, Sea, Land and Information) the face of warfare would remain the same.

Without any break through in the current battle space why warfare can't evolve?
@jhungary I read your article. Nice work.
I want to investigate these questions differently....anti mainstream.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

The academic community has engaged in a robust, opinionated debate concerning the future of war. Although most author agree that warfare is clearly moving into next era or generation, they strongly disagree about reasons for the transition and form it will take.

Two schools of thoughts have emerged concerning the future of warfare.

1. Cyber war is coming. Cyberwar envisions a high technology , short duration war where technology is vital and essentially machines fight machines.
2. Complex, long term type of conflict that has grown out of Mao's People's war. 4th Generation warfare actually going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and worldwide against terrorism.

• Why warfare changes?
• What will future war look like?
• How do we recognise it as it develops?
• How do we respond to it?

Lets just say, Infantry will be less used as time progresses.

 

[Tipu7]

Salam.

Firstly thanks for tag and opening this thread.

Why warfare changes?

ANS: The clash of civilizations and progress of this clash with time.

You see The style and nature of warfare have changed ever since the major conflicts in World particularly in modern history. War shapes the next upcoming times and also develop new tactics of offense and defense, hence changing the complete nature of warfare.
Lets take example of Europe. Ottoman Umpire was at its evening and Europe powers were emerging. England, France, Spain, Germany to name few. These emerging powers developed industry based mechanical work of progress instead of agricultural human power based system. Invention of gunpowder, turbine engine revolutionized their armed forces and techniques so instead of fighting against each other they virtually engaged each other by conquering more World and establishing colonies. For a long period of time, England kept its throne high but soon was challenged by Germany. WW1, fought with newly developed weapons and tactics and idea behind this war to give dominance to respective civilization and overcome the power of enemy culture and system. WW2 was too fought with same reasons and it saw way more surprising inventions and strategies compared to WW1. Tanks, Aircrafts, Subs, Destroyers, Atomic Bomb, Radar, Jet Engine, cruise missiles, Ballistic missiles etc to name a few. Both sides were pushed to last limits so their thinkers also pushed them to last limits to surpass opponent in scientific technology. Of course all this tech was meant for Military purpose, but it saw its civilian applications after war was over.

Now comes the most bright example, i.e of Cold war.
It was less a Soviet vs USA war more a Capitalism vs Communism war. It was democracy vs socialism. And both countries and nations were eager to protect theirs and beat the rival ones. The presence of huge piles of Nuclear bombs prevented a full flagged war between both countries but it do forced them to surpass each other in scientific progress+ military tech+ advance strategies+ new mods of policies to beat opponent in non violent battle fields like in economy, human progress, education, health etc etc. I consider the ''Space progress'' as fruit of Cold war. Soviet took the lead by sending first man in Space, USA won the race by reaching moon. After even the war ended, the space programs of western countries was up high and it is making fast progress till date. All this happened due to friction of two power full civilizations.

Now Soviets are gone, but Chinese are in. Almost same system but different enemy holding its flag. Chinese introduced a new mod of warfare using its army of Hackers. i.e cyber war. Hacking the sensitive info of enemy helped them to create new ideas by merging them with their own ideas. These hybrid ideas forced their enemies (NATO) to develop further advance ideas including mind warfare i.e media war, intelligence war also called 4thG and 5thG warfare.

So simple to saw is when ever two opposite systems collide each other they create new dimensions of work. If they end up in war then their tactics and weapons transform into civilian technologies and they get absorbed in society. After winning this collision, The winner keep its work high in order to beat any future opponent.

What will future war look like?

That depends in how far future you are talking about.
Tactics of warfare changes according to nature of weapons, so
Lets just talk about weapons only for a while.
In entire human history and far future, the weapons used, still in used or will be used (in my opinion) can be divided into three very Distinct classes or generations.

1: First Generation: Weapons like Sword, Shield, Arrow, Spare etc. Warfare during this era was simple, also the terminologies and tactics. Arrange a army. Face your enemy, may use gorilla tactics, no attacks at night etc etc. Only land based warfare.

2: Second Generation: Its generation of projectiles. From Bullet to Tanks shell, from heavy bomb to ballistic warhead, every thing is projectile filled with dirty explosive nature. This generation warfare is diversified to water, air and land.

3: Third Generation: Its next and upcoming generation. In near future the use of gun powder and explosive warheads rule out. Instead high energy weapons are used. Like lasers, microwaves, etc. It also includes Rail gun technology which still use projectiles but lack warheads and use electric power instead of explosive material for projection. Now imagine future weapons, extremely accurate and lethal, no recoil, no smoke, speed of light and yeah no visibility. It is in progress and its not easy to describe it in one article.

How do we recognise it as it develops?

We can recognize materialistic warfare only. Like we know that war is going on at various places in World involving military action from either side. But several form of war is going on which we don't even consider. It can be information warfare, physiological warfare, economic warfare etc etc. All these non materialistic forms of wars are fought inorder to downgrade the morals of your opponent and damage them in non visible but solid way. It results in mass hypnosis, mass propaganda, panic and distrust. Religion, Race, Social values, National values are operating grounds and usually general public who have too simple minds to comprehend complex issues are prime target.
For intellectuals and thinkers who develop sound understanding of human nature particularly mind nature recognize it very well. Just like today we knows many complex forms of warfare while general public still believes in concept that wars are fought at borders with arms.

How do we respond to it?

It also varies from person to person and society to society.
You can counter some thing only if you believes that it exists. If you don't believe on its existence then simple you cannot counter it. E.g media wars are very popular now a days. Media distort the truth and manipulate General public. This media is controlled by Power full personalities via money and they use media to achieve their goals. Now if a person have sense to understand that how media works and how they deliberately hide many things and boast other things then he sure know how to counter it. But if a person don't believes on such stuff and have firm faith on what ever is displayed on his TV set then surely he is very easy prey of media war and thus easily controllable.

In current times I see mass population of World under mass Hypnosis. They believe what ever media tells them and those who try to awake them are tagged as ''conspiracy theorists''. a very simple example I will give is of Democracy. People vote that person who run his campaign in most colorful way. He give money to media, media show positive stuff regarding him and it create a positive sense in minds of public and ultimately they vote him! Now actually the one with money is controlling the people opinion and people still have no realization and they still believe that they are making their own independent choice................!!
More examples of it are Iraqi WMD program etc etc..............

I guess I shared satisfactory answers with you................
@Neutron

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary warfare is always about blood spilling of human's,and certainly it will not change untill MQ-9 like ground robot is not introduced.

actually, even if we go unmanned. The principal of warfare would not change, what changes is the casualty number (it would be lower since drone are involved in fighting) and the command structure. The tactics we used to deal with drone is basically the same tactic we deal with human enemy.

The term "Battlefield" and "Battlespace" are quite different yet even to most serious military analyst can be confused over time. In short, (well, I can write a 3 pages article just to discuss the different between battlespace and battlefield)

Warfare basically dictate by the limit of battle space, ie how you Manoeuvre over different BS and how you control your BS. While Technology such as Laser Guided Bomb, Drone or advanced radar system can only affect the battlefield you are fighting on. Which either make the warfighting progress, more or less dangerous, quicker or slower, and more or less lethal.

I would have gone in a deeper discussion with you but I am quite busy these couple of weeks. So this is the best answer I can offer you at this moment.

Without any break through in the current battle space why warfare can't evolve?
@jhungary I read your article. Nice work.
I want to investigate these questions differently....anti mainstream.

That's because whatever technology we get now, and whatever tactics and grand strategy we are using at this moment for warfighting is basically focus on the limit of our battlespace. For example, how do we fight a ranged engagement in roman time(Ancient warfare)?

Now, look at it this way, the way I can fight a range engagement is I can use missile troop, which fire missile, stone or arrow to your enemy. However, I can also use cavalry to close the gap quick and punch thru the enemy line.

Now, look at modern warfare. Before Air Force were created, the way we fought a ranged engagement is basically the same as roman time. Instead we replace missile to musket. And also Cannonade which have greater range and deal greater damage, but to an extend, Cannonade is simply a much more dangerous and longer range musket. So the strategy and tactic employed, are the same.

Now, if we add Aerial Battlespace into the equation. Basically, you add another dimension onto your battlespace and now all your movement and control were not 2-dimensional anymore, you need to also look up the 3rd axis as we go, and a new type of warfare would be needed in order to command, control and adapt the battlespace into your warfighting. Now you don't just trow missile at each other, but the "reach" the aerial battlespace brought is a lot longer, air force can bomb you and your troop, they can bomb or strafe your resupply point, they can bring troop in to any particular corner of your battlefield with immense speed. And hence when air force started to appear in war, you will need to have another set of strategy to deal with it.

So, if we are going back to the original question. What would be the future warfare look?

Unless we can break open a new battlespace, the war will look exactly like today, the only different we can see is the level of intensity, speed and damage done may be different, otherwise the same old tactics and strategy we can actually see even dating back to first generation Warfare

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

actually, even if we go unmanned. The principal of warfare would not change, what changes is the casualty number (it would be lower since drone are involved in fighting) and the command structure. The tactics we used to deal with drone is basically the same tactic we deal with human enemy.

The term "Battlefield" and "Battlespace" are quite different yet even to most serious military analyst can be confused over time. In short, (well, I can write a 3 pages article just to discuss the different between battlespace and battlefield)

Warfare basically dictate by the limit of battle space, ie how you Manoeuvre over different BS and how you control your BS. While Technology such as Laser Guided Bomb, Drone or advanced radar system can only affect the battlefield you are fighting on. Which either make the warfighting progress, more or less dangerous, quicker or slower, and more or less lethal.

I would have gone in a deeper discussion with you but I am quite busy these couple of weeks. So this is the best answer I can offer you at this moment.



That's because whatever technology we get now, and whatever tactics and grand strategy we are using at this moment for warfighting is basically focus on the limit of our battlespace. For example, how do we fight a ranged engagement in roman time(Ancient warfare)?

Now, look at it this way, the way I can fight a range engagement is I can use missile troop, which fire missile, stone or arrow to your enemy. However, I can also use cavalry to close the gap quick and punch thru the enemy line.

Now, look at modern warfare. Before Air Force were created, the way we fought a ranged engagement is basically the same as roman time. Instead we replace missile to musket. And also Cannonade which have greater range and deal greater damage, but to an extend, Cannonade is simply a much more dangerous and longer range musket. So the strategy and tactic employed, are the same.

Now, if we add Aerial Battlespace into the equation. Basically, you add another dimension onto your battlespace and now all your movement and control were not 2-dimensional anymore, you need to also look up the 3rd axis as we go, and a new type of warfare would be needed in order to command, control and adapt the battlespace into your warfighting. Now you don't just trow missile at each other, but the "reach" the aerial battlespace brought is a lot longer, air force can bomb you and your troop, they can bomb or strafe your resupply point, they can bring troop in to any particular corner of your battlefield with immense speed. And hence when air force started to appear in war, you will need to have another set of strategy to deal with it.

So, if we are going back to the original question. What would be the future warfare look?

Unless we can break open a new battlespace, the war will look exactly like today, the only different we can see is the level of intensity, speed and damage done may be different, otherwise the same old tactics and strategy we can actually see even dating back to first generation Warfare

Well maybe the Geneva Convention and other rules may go out the window since robots have no rights.
Exploding bullets, fuel-air bombs. etc

 

[jhungary]

Well maybe the Geneva Convention and other rules may go out the window since robots have no rights.
Exploding bullets, fuel-air bombs. etc

well, you still need to consider the impact to the civilian........war don't just fought over with 2 opposing army, civilian are always part of the fraction too

 

[Sine Nomine]

. In short, (well, I can write a 3 pages article just to discuss the different between battlespace and battlefield)

That will be nice,if you put forward Article on that topic, when you are free enough. Don't forget to quote me.

 

[Arsalan]

Lets just say, Infantry will be less used as time progresses.

Not necessarily,,
It will all depend on the objective of the war, what is the thing people are fighting for and depending on that Infantry may still be THE key element of any future wars, even if armed with futuristic weapons.

 

[Neutron]

Not necessarily,,
It will all depend on the objective of the war, what is the thing people are fighting for and depending on that Infantry may still be THE key element of any future wars, even if armed with futuristic weapons.

Middle of the 17th century, industrialisation allowed a major increase in wealth while simultaneously providing the ability to mass produce the key weapon of war. Obviously , non industrial nations could not stand against the wealth and weapons an industrialised nation state could bring to bear.
Now we are at the beginning of information age.
The emerging information industries changed not only how wealth was created but even its nature.
I think information is the new battle space in future warfare. With emergence of new battle space I think warfare evolves accordingly.