Warfare in the 21st and 22nd centuries

[The Last Spartan]

Not sure if this is the right forum, but considering that warfare and all things related are a science, I felt this forum would be appropriate.

I would like to discuss warfare in the 21st and 22nd century mainly in the scientific and strategic aspect and how technology and politics have shifted to the so-called "4th Generation Warfare". We see it every day, that governments in the developed world are downsizing standing armies that traditionally use the brute force of open fighting and are shifting more towards subterfuge, espionage and manipulation. Concepts such as mechs, lasers, and the like may be shelved before they even have the chance to be used (or perfected for that matter).

I would also like to discuss many science fiction military technologies such as the ones mentioned above. Would they have a practical use? What about stellar combat? Would it be like the inherent cluster (for lack of a better term) that we see so often in movies and video games? Where do you think military technology would be shifting more towards? These and many more questions I propose to you readers.

As I said, I didn't know which forum to place it in, so I decided this may be the best choice.

[hellheaven1987]

We see it every day, that governments in the developed world are downsizing standing armies that traditionally use the brute force of open fighting and are shifting more towards subterfuge, espionage and manipulation.

Already exist long ago; the whole 4th Generation concept is really just a revisit of how war should actually fight.

[The Last Spartan]

Yes, all warfare is based on deception - this is nothing new, the manipulation of money, technology, resources and exploitation of non-combatants, etc. But there is a time for force and a time for subtlety. Force will not always win over subtlety and the same goes for the opposite.

[hellheaven1987]

Force will not always win over subtlety and the same goes for the opposite.

Without force you would however never win; that is all war about.

[The Last Spartan]

Without force you would however never win; that is all war about.

I am well aware of this. It's about finding a balance between force and subtlety.

This

Really? Come on, now.

[visser300]

This

[Morbius Sire]

Not sure if this is the right forum, but considering that warfare and all things related are a science, I felt this forum would be appropriate.

I would like to discuss warfare in the 21st and 22nd century mainly in the scientific and strategic aspect and how technology and politics have shifted to the so-called "4th Generation Warfare". We see it every day, that governments in the developed world are downsizing standing armies that traditionally use the brute force of open fighting and are shifting more towards subterfuge, espionage and manipulation. Concepts such as mechs, lasers, and the like may be shelved before they even have the chance to be used (or perfected for that matter).

I would also like to discuss many science fiction military technologies such as the ones mentioned above. Would they have a practical use? What about stellar combat? Would it be like the inherent cluster (for lack of a better term) that we see so often in movies and video games? Where do you think military technology would be shifting more towards? These and many more questions I propose to you readers.

As I said, I didn't know which forum to place it in, so I decided this may be the best choice.

Hmm, I thought the downsizing was done because keeping a well-trained large standing army was a strain on the economy; especially if the economy isn't strong enough or big enough. As well, after the cold war, there is no direct threat of a massive war, so there is little sense in keeping a large army.

As for Subterfuge, espionage and manipulation, that was always done in the past. Perhaps due to insurgency warfare, more emphasis is put on political moves rather than military moves, and this is where the shift comes from.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Condottiere 40K]

It depends on the policies of whatever nation-states or other sovereign entities that exist then have.

If you can exert your will and influence without armed force, then the military is meant as a deterrence to others who prefer or come to a conclusion that a more direct method is better. If the world moves towards a sort of unified government, then it will be mostly police actions and counter insurgency; if it splinters, low level warfare between sovereign entities using mercenaries and other deniable assets.

Warfare by proxy using robots has always been one possibility, but would the loser submit in that case to the winner? The winner might actually have to send an occupation force to ensure that the conditions would be met. The world is likely to be so reliant on computers, that sabotaging server farms and infrastructure might be more likely, and SAS teams hunting down hackers, possibly protected by their own security details.

[6644kp]

Vast cheaply made robotic armies that clash against eachother. From robot tanks to a robotic infantry man like Star Wars's B1 Battle Driod.

[Morkonan]

...I would like to discuss warfare in the 21st and 22nd century mainly in the scientific and strategic aspect and how technology and politics have shifted to the so-called "4th Generation Warfare". We see it every day, that governments in the developed world are downsizing standing armies that traditionally use the brute force of open fighting and are shifting more towards subterfuge, espionage and manipulation. Concepts such as mechs, lasers, and the like may be shelved before they even have the chance to be used (or perfected for that matter).

Warfare is no longer a profitable enterprise, considering the tools mankind is now able to focus towards it. Keep that thought, we will return to it.

Conflict between standing, World-Class, National millitaries is no longer likely nor is it any longer the preferred means of ending disputes. There are international frameworks in place, uses of legal and trade tools that are just as effective and even the court of World Public Opinion has its own power. Competition between Nations rests in a different arena than that of land owned or the power over a collection of people that an individual King can wield. Today, a group of people is much less inclined to take responsibility for a new group of strangers - Conquest in the political arena is becoming passe'. As such, only a suitable defense is necessary against the possible manifestation of an aberrant event.

This means that more profitable means of engaging in competition and conflict are now available. It is much more advantageous to be able to benefit from the labors of someone while not having the responsibility of governing them than it is to actually own the land and the populace that lives on it. Wars of Conquest are largely a thing of the past, but wars that involve some other matters may not be. Standing Armies that are focused on Wars of Conquest or in defense of same are becoming extinct.

I would also like to discuss many science fiction military technologies such as the ones mentioned above. Would they have a practical use? What about stellar combat? Would it be like the inherent cluster (for lack of a better term) that we see so often in movies and video games? Where do you think military technology would be shifting more towards? These and many more questions I propose to you readers.

As I said, I didn't know which forum to place it in, so I decided this may be the best choice.

Consider the tools and the means of warfare they make available to the user.

If you are going to have a large fleet of combat ships, what are they going to shoot at? Other ships, I imagine. And, what else? Will they attack planets? If a weapon can not directly effect an enemy, it's not a "weapon", is it? So, such tools of warfare would have to be able to directly attack a planet.

But, what would the results be? Destruction of the planet, most likely. And, who does that benefit? It benefits none. If the objective is a War of Conquest, the means to such an end may extinguish the desire for a positive outcome. Being Lord of a Wasted Planet is not likely to be very desirable.

Ghegis Khan was able to claim the largest contiguous land-mass held under the power of one Nation in the History of the World. But, he didn't have to obliterate every enemy his forces fought, else he would have been Lord of Nothing. Also, the tools he had available were primitive and, because of this, limited in their destructive potential. In order to win a city, all he had to do was either threaten them with his massive force or kill the populace and win control of the region, bringing the desirable members of the populace, the craftsman and skilled elite, into his own lands to benefit his own people. Ghengis Khan's objectives were always to improve the lot of his own people, not conquer territory. But, even though he could act without restraint because of this, the tools available limited his destructive power.

Today, such conquest is too expensive in the terms of the consequences of using the destructive power we now have available to us. So, wars are fought over different matters and those who do hold irrepressible armies do not engage in wars of conquest - It isn't profitable to do so.

What about tomorrow?

I fear that Wars will be fought with new tools that so limit the physical destructive potential of the warfare that we know today that they will make new Wars of Conquest possible, in different arenas. For instance, what if someone invented a computer virus that enabled them to control every computer system in the World? What if they invented a genetically altered virus that made any who fell to it completely dependent upon their good will, thus enslaving them? What if someone invented a nano-tech that threatened to turn the World into Grey Goo unless their demands were met? What if they launched a satellite containing a projection device that could alter the minds of an entire population to be more favorable to their demands? None of these are far-fetched tools of war, given the right knowledge and means of construction.

Hitting your opponent over the head with a club is a restricted and limited form of destructive potential. Shooting them from a hundred yards is only a little more powerful. However, lobbing a grenade or dropping a bomb on them significantly widens the effect one act can have and dropping a nuclear weapon on their head is, today, the ultimate expression of Warfare. But, its all non-profitable today. Using physical destruction is too expensive, considering the results of such warfare. It is limited to certain arenas between opponents who are, themselves, either limited or governed by Rules of Engagement that specifically limit the means used to conduct the war.

The weapons in science-fiction are largely based on the old idea of hitting someone on the head with a rock. It makes no difference if it's a laser beam or a light-saber, they're all still just rocks. Only those that choose new methods to achieve a goal of warfare are truly likely to exist in the future. And, those that do find their way into the arsenals of the armies of tomorrow will be focused on limited the undesirable consequences of warfare, itself. Unfortunately, the result of such weapons will be to broaden and exacerbate the likelihood of conflict. Once you make war profitable again, you increase the likelihood it will occur.

[The Last Spartan]

Warfare is no longer a profitable enterprise, considering the tools mankind is now able to focus towards it. Keep that thought, we will return to it.

Conflict between standing, World-Class, National millitaries is no longer likely nor is it any longer the preferred means of ending disputes. There are international frameworks in place, uses of legal and trade tools that are just as effective and even the court of World Public Opinion has its own power. Competition between Nations rests in a different arena than that of land owned or the power over a collection of people that an individual King can wield. Today, a group of people is much less inclined to take responsibility for a new group of strangers - Conquest in the political arena is becoming passe'. As such, only a suitable defense is necessary against the possible manifestation of an aberrant event.

This means that more profitable means of engaging in competition and conflict are now available. It is much more advantageous to be able to benefit from the labors of someone while not having the responsibility of governing them than it is to actually own the land and the populace that lives on it. Wars of Conquest are largely a thing of the past, but wars that involve some other matters may not be. Standing Armies that are focused on Wars of Conquest or in defense of same are becoming extinct.



Consider the tools and the means of warfare they make available to the user.

If you are going to have a large fleet of combat ships, what are they going to shoot at? Other ships, I imagine. And, what else? Will they attack planets? If a weapon can not directly effect an enemy, it's not a "weapon", is it? So, such tools of warfare would have to be able to directly attack a planet.

But, what would the results be? Destruction of the planet, most likely. And, who does that benefit? It benefits none. If the objective is a War of Conquest, the means to such an end may extinguish the desire for a positive outcome. Being Lord of a Wasted Planet is not likely to be very desirable.

Ghegis Khan was able to claim the largest contiguous land-mass held under the power of one Nation in the History of the World. But, he didn't have to obliterate every enemy his forces fought, else he would have been Lord of Nothing. Also, the tools he had available were primitive and, because of this, limited in their destructive potential. In order to win a city, all he had to do was either threaten them with his massive force or kill the populace and win control of the region, bringing the desirable members of the populace, the craftsman and skilled elite, into his own lands to benefit his own people. Ghengis Khan's objectives were always to improve the lot of his own people, not conquer territory. But, even though he could act without restraint because of this, the tools available limited his destructive power.

Today, such conquest is too expensive in the terms of the consequences of using the destructive power we now have available to us. So, wars are fought over different matters and those who do hold irrepressible armies do not engage in wars of conquest - It isn't profitable to do so.

What about tomorrow?

I fear that Wars will be fought with new tools that so limit the physical destructive potential of the warfare that we know today that they will make new Wars of Conquest possible, in different arenas. For instance, what if someone invented a computer virus that enabled them to control every computer system in the World? What if they invented a genetically altered virus that made any who fell to it completely dependent upon their good will, thus enslaving them? What if someone invented a nano-tech that threatened to turn the World into Grey Goo unless their demands were met? What if they launched a satellite containing a projection device that could alter the minds of an entire population to be more favorable to their demands? None of these are far-fetched tools of war, given the right knowledge and means of construction.

Hitting your opponent over the head with a club is a restricted and limited form of destructive potential. Shooting them from a hundred yards is only a little more powerful. However, lobbing a grenade or dropping a bomb on them significantly widens the effect one act can have and dropping a nuclear weapon on their head is, today, the ultimate expression of Warfare. But, its all non-profitable today. Using physical destruction is too expensive, considering the results of such warfare. It is limited to certain arenas between opponents who are, themselves, either limited or governed by Rules of Engagement that specifically limit the means used to conduct the war.

The weapons in science-fiction are largely based on the old idea of hitting someone on the head with a rock. It makes no difference if it's a laser beam or a light-saber, they're all still just rocks. Only those that choose new methods to achieve a goal of warfare are truly likely to exist in the future. And, those that do find their way into the arsenals of the armies of tomorrow will be focused on limited the undesirable consequences of warfare, itself. Unfortunately, the result of such weapons will be to broaden and exacerbate the likelihood of conflict. Once you make war profitable again, you increase the likelihood it will occur.

You make it sound like Syndicate Wars will become a reality. As disappointing and shocking as your well-written post is, I have to agree with the reality of it. It's disappointing to me considering that I myself am a soldier. I love my job, and I love being a soldier, tut reality doesn't care who you are. What will happen to me? What will happen to other soldiers? Will they become mercenaries? Will the warrior culture simply fade away and become stories of fantasy? It seems as if soldiers will become a thing of the past and wars will be fought entirely with agents. Who will be in control then? Politicians? They'll just become a figurehead to take all the credit and all the blame for the people with the money. I see what you mean by acheiving their goals with less destructive methods. Take the mass media for instance. By controlling what people are exposed to you can shape not only public opinion, but you can even shape the psychology of people as well. It doesn't work on everyone, obviously. To me, however, that is a weapon that is constantly being used by different parties to attain their goals. What will wars be fought with? Are agents, computer hackers, pop culture propaganda and robots the future of warfare? What happens when too much dependence is placed on technology and it fails? Humanity will be snuffed out like a candle in the wind. Not like the boom we all anticipated at the height of the Cold War, but with a whimper.

Let's take the nanomachine scenario for instance. Let's say the government wants to start planting "chips" in everyone for social security, and nanomachines for pretty much free medical. Let's say these nanomachines are the gateway to the future, a world without disease. One thing people don't have to worry about right? What happens if this nanomachine invasion is successful? The people do not realize it, but they are under the control of a group of individuals that desire the profit from reaping the fruits of their labor. Everyone got injected with the nanomachines and the chip for reasons they were told were profitable to them. What happens when those nanomachines fail? What happens when someone makes it fail? Will people simply start dropping dead? It's a possibility. Will people go insane? That's a possibility as well. There are millions of variables for scenarios such as this. What about an EMP attack? Not everything can be shielded from EMP and even then a higher energy magnitued of an EM pulse would still fry electronics.

Doesn't anyone think this should be stopped while we still have a chance? ... Sorry, just thinking out loud there. I don't agree with the direction things are heading. Honestly, I would rather die than live like that. It upsets me greatly that that is what the world is going to turn into. Now, I'm not criticizing your post, or saying anything was wrong with it. Quite the opposite. it was genius and obviously you have put a lot of thought into it.

Amazing response Morkonan.

My personal thoughts.

I sometimes get criticized for demanding a massive scale down in the US Army and Air Force while demanding a larger US Navy of small and fast ships with appropriately versatile air cover and a forward deployed and active US Marine Corps.

This is all because I see future wars being fought in the realm of commerce and technology. The US Navy and Marine Corps has the ability to rapidly respond to crisis both natural or political and to do so with great effect, this is something the US Army and Air Force cannot do. They are by definition conventional forces designed for waging war, they have almost no purpose in the realm of commerce or humanitarian assistance. They take too long to deploy and are not expeditionary by nature.

I see the US military as a force for good, but we've been entrenched in a Cold War going hot mindset for decades when we should've transitioned into a smaller, lighter role. The Air Force has something going with the AEF, but it is entirely offensive and warfare aimed. The US Army has rapid response units, the airborne being the most notable, but these are tiny segments of the whole.

The US Army and Air Force only justify their budgets by building big budget and slow buy glitzy weapons to fight off some massive enemy like China in a war that will never come. I would rather see US Marines and Sailors handing out MREs and providing medical aid and shelter within 24 hours of any natural disaster on the planet. I would also like to see swift interdiction by these forces into hot spots. No excuse for Somalia to still be messed up, and allowing ethnic cleansing is deplorable. I also believe the US should conduct these operations without waiting for the rest of the world to say "okay". We can be a force for good, but we choose focus on new weapons of destruction. We should be floating a dozen hospital ships instead of the 2 antiquated ones we have. I don't want to get rid of the Air Force or Army, but they need to be forced into expeditionary roles and they need to work together more closely, perhaps even abolish the Air Force and return it to the Army. There are many places in this world the Navy and Marine Corps cannot get to, and that is where the Army and Air Force need to come in. More needs to be put into heavy lifting and the Army needs to lighten it's gear (it takes one C5 to lift one Abrams... not effective).

I honestly do not have a problem with the US being the police, but we have to be good police and I don't think we've actually been the police, plenty of criminals have gone unpunished and crimes against humanity have happened while the US was supposedly "on the watch" or busy occupying someone.

I agree with you on some notes, but I'm afraid I disagree with you on many as well.

As someone who has served in the Marines (in the infantry), I don't support the way the Marine Corps is fighting these days. They're trying to swat flies with bazookas, and the way that we are fighting these "shadow wars" with troops that were trained to fight in the open is ridiculous. And because of that, Marines and Soldiers lives are being thrown away on a daily basis.

For the political aspect, I don't agree with policing the world at all. I say everyone should be left alone and we should not be constantly trying to expand our interests overseas. The whole reason that we are fighting this so-called War on Terrorism is because we placed people over in the Middle East that weren't needed in the first place. If we weren't there 9/11 wouldn't have happened in the first place as well, I feel. Our interests would have been relatively unknown to groups on the other side of the globe because they'd be too busy finding ways to destroy Israel or advance Shia or Sunni Islam towards each other.

On the economic aspect, I would agree with you to a certain extent. I personally feel, however, that the Marines are not necessarily needed as a fighting force considering that the Army could do the ground work, plus the added bonuses of all three tiers of Special Forces i.e. Rangers are special operations capable, Green Berets are Tier 2 Special Forces and Delta is Tier 1. We don't have to have a physically known presence in countries across the world so that we can protect ourselves. Placing a higher emphasis on the CIA would be a better option in my opinion. If we can suspect an attack on US interests and act on it before it happens, then a war can be averted.

On the technological aspect, I would agree with you. A single C-5 to lift an Abrams and carry it half a world away? No, there has be a better way. And what about all the gear that keeps crapping out on us out in the desert? Come on now, we should've had caseless ammunition decades ago. But technological advancement on weapons of fighting are virtually limitless.

[Humble Warrior]

Personally, the future of warfare scares the hell out of me. It`s a damn shame that mankind cannot exist without weapons of war. Sure, it was useful to fight in the ancient days to survive aganst wild animals and attacks, but now it`s gone to the point of the destruction of mankind itself. It has taken mutal self-destruction to prevent another World War, but think about it, how long will that last? How long before someone invents a new war invention and thinks, "Hmm, I can get an early attack in with this?`

I hate to sound depressive, but I don`t think mankind can carry on like this past the next 100 years without returning itself to the Stone Age at best.

Either Nature knows best or Nature made a mistake when we popped up.

[I WUB PUGS]

Amazing response Morkonan.

My personal thoughts.

I sometimes get criticized for demanding a massive scale down in the US Army and Air Force while demanding a larger US Navy of small and fast ships with appropriately versatile air cover and a forward deployed and active US Marine Corps.

This is all because I see future wars being fought in the realm of commerce and technology. The US Navy and Marine Corps has the ability to rapidly respond to crisis both natural or political and to do so with great effect, this is something the US Army and Air Force cannot do. They are by definition conventional forces designed for waging war, they have almost no purpose in the realm of commerce or humanitarian assistance. They take too long to deploy and are not expeditionary by nature.

I see the US military as a force for good, but we've been entrenched in a Cold War going hot mindset for decades when we should've transitioned into a smaller, lighter role. The Air Force has something going with the AEF, but it is entirely offensive and warfare aimed. The US Army has rapid response units, the airborne being the most notable, but these are tiny segments of the whole.

The US Army and Air Force only justify their budgets by building big budget and slow buy glitzy weapons to fight off some massive enemy like China in a war that will never come. I would rather see US Marines and Sailors handing out MREs and providing medical aid and shelter within 24 hours of any natural disaster on the planet. I would also like to see swift interdiction by these forces into hot spots. No excuse for Somalia to still be messed up, and allowing ethnic cleansing is deplorable. I also believe the US should conduct these operations without waiting for the rest of the world to say "okay". We can be a force for good, but we choose focus on new weapons of destruction. We should be floating a dozen hospital ships instead of the 2 antiquated ones we have. I don't want to get rid of the Air Force or Army, but they need to be forced into expeditionary roles and they need to work together more closely, perhaps even abolish the Air Force and return it to the Army. There are many places in this world the Navy and Marine Corps cannot get to, and that is where the Army and Air Force need to come in. More needs to be put into heavy lifting and the Army needs to lighten it's gear (it takes one C5 to lift one Abrams... not effective).

I honestly do not have a problem with the US being the police, but we have to be good police and I don't think we've actually been the police, plenty of criminals have gone unpunished and crimes against humanity have happened while the US was supposedly "on the watch" or busy occupying someone.

[the_mango55]

I don't think the idea of nations "hitting each other head" is quite over yet.

Certainly it's less profitable to fight a conventional war that way, but the profitability of the venture is only important to the side that's going to win. If one side feels that they have a chance to win, or even stalemate, in a conventional war when an economic war would end in disaster, they might take that opportunity.

[The Last Spartan]

I don't think the idea of nations "hitting each other head" is quite over yet.

Certainly it's less profitable to fight a conventional war that way, but the profitability of the venture is only important to the side that's going to win. If one side feels that they have a chance to win, or even stalemate, in a conventional war when an economic war would end in disaster, they might take that opportunity.

I don't think it ever will be. Someone is going to die, either from an "accident" or otherwise. There's always someone that has to go in and do the dirty work while someone sits behind a desk.

[Condottiere 40K]

James Cameron did illustrate one possible variant in Avatar, another one in Terminator, and arguable one in Aliens.

Cyber Punk RPGs do revolve around conflicts involving subcontractors specialized in fields that allow covert action, extraction, sabotage, security, assassination, reconnaissance, espionage and even the occasional fire fight with company sized units.

[Humble Warrior]

It`s still profitable to hit other people over the head with a big stick. I don`t believe it`ll ever stop- It`s the ultimate finishing argument.

The trick is doing it quick enough so other people don`t start joining in. It`s when others start joining in, you lose control and then we`re in deep doodoo.

[Humble Warrior]

double post.

[Vizsla]

Someone is going to invent a deployable large scale EMP (without having to let a nuke off in the atmosphere). They may have done so already. It will take out all of the fancy electronics in modern weapon systems.
Then we’ll be back to WW1 with artillery and trenches.
That’s the future of warfare - the meat grinder.

[I WUB PUGS]

Someone is going to invent a deployable large scale EMP (without having to let a nuke off in the atmosphere). They may have done so already. It will take out all of the fancy electronics in modern weapon systems.
Then we’ll be back to WW1 with artillery and trenches.
That’s the future of warfare - the meat grinder.

This is a myth. EMP is only effective against large scale electrical installations like power stations and even they would be okay if they could provide massive shielding to where the power lines come into the plant. You would have to break the chain since power lines would act as antennas to direct the EMP.

Your small electronics would be fine because they are too small and all aircraft and telecommunications are more than amply shielded from EMP. The scare comes to the public power grid which is not protected, but could be repaired.

Rest assured that the US military and probably everyone else will be fully functional even in the event of a full nuclear exchange with EMP all over the place. We made a point of building that into defense as soon as we discovered the EMP effects of nukes.

I work in Satellite Communications at the manufacturing level and in the Marines I worked in Sat Comm at the tactical/operational level. ALL of the equipment I make now and all of the equipment I used in the Marines is/was guaranteed to function in an EMP environment.

As for Spartan, I don't think you fully understand what the Marines are supposed to be and what the Generals and Admirals are trying to get back to. As a force in readiness to be deployed from the sea. That is our history and that is where we will go back to. The quagmire and idiocy of the ground campaigns we have had to endure are a result of the Army being unable to handle those conflicts on their own (not ragging on the Army, just saying someone failed at logistical strategy). The USMC was never built for occupation, we were built for small wars, that is our charge from Congress, literally, that is what the Marine Corps was created by Congress to do.

I wish to return to the days when we had an Army to defend our borders and an Air Force to support the Army. A powerful Navy and highly trained and proficient Marine Corps who defended our interests by being a force in being but always at the ready to act decisively when needed. It worked for over 100 years, and then we decided to start looking out for everyone else's politics and getting involved in European wars.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/5063