Future Warfare

[Arsalan]

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.

You are right to an extents far as i am concerned. However, if you read my post and then yours again you will see that i am not agreeing with the point you are making,, all i say is that the role of infantry, or air force or navy will all depend on the objective of the war. Information and its use as a new battle weapons is also true for war/battles fought with certain objectives only, yes there role will increase but at the expense of ways we know today,, NOT ALWAYS at least.

Plus it is an evolving thing, the thing with evolution is that you can never be certain what the future will bring, one can make educated guess, try to predict by analyzing current trends but non if this is being certain. The same goes with the future of warfare. When atomic bombs were dropped on civilian population of Japan, who would have tough that 50 60 years from now a group of bandits army with RPG and AK-47 will be beating 5hit out of a super power (not to sound excited for Taliban as i am not,, not a least bit). With all the talks of robotics, drones and fifth generation fighter jets, the most blood shed is being caused in a gorilla warfare style insurgency in Arab world. It is not that these robotics drones or the fifth generation fighters are useless,, the thing is the objective of that war cannot be met by these modern machines so we are seeing suicide jacket wearing humans, youth armed with RPG and guns, killing and spilling the blood the same way they used to do in the past. AGAIN for me, it is all about the objectives, that my friend will determine the means and ways of war.

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

As if that have been the main concern in past wars. Lets be realistic here and not patriotic dear sir.

 

[Penguin]

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?

Autonomous warmachines engaging eachother and man, without human intervention. No mercy. No distinction.

 

[jhungary]

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

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.

Hi there

I have wrote an article about battlefield and battlespace per your request. In case you did not receive the tag from the article

Concept of Operation for Battlefield and Battlespace

 

[NP-complete]

In the most general sense the elements of war will remain the same forever. A battle has three elements.

1. Material It is all the physical stuff that's required to fight a war. It includes the men, their food, clothing, transportation, the weapons, ammunition, and all other material employed in a campaign. When other elements are equal for opposing sides, the side with more material will win.

2. Terrain Here it means the spatial configuration of the battlefield. The arrangement of material on the battlefield. A particular configuration can be advantageous to one side and disadvantageous to the other. For example. A side might be on a higher ground and the other on the lower ground. This configuration is advantageous to the side on the higher ground. Another highly advantageous arrangement for a side is to have the other side encircled. This configuration of material is highly disadvantageous to the encircled side as it is cut off from its supplies and constricted as well. When material is equal, the side enjoying the more advantageous configuration will win.

3. Way It is all the tactics, strategies, plans and decisions taken during war. The software of the war, which decides how to employ the material. The way is the maneuvering of material for the purpose of attaining a terrain advantageous to us and disadvantageous to the enemy. An example can be a General maneuvering his army to attain a higher ground over his enemy. Or in the case of Blitzkrieg, the way was to concentrate material where enemy's material is light, overwhelm him there and then drive deep into the flanks of concentrated enemy material. Then join up in the rear of enemy, encircling him. Material maneuvered in this way achieved a terrain in which the enemy's material would end up encircled inside german material.

That's the gist of war. To use a way that achieves an advantageous terrain. In this manner enemy can be defeated even with lesser material.