War in the 21st century, 4/5
What if software matters more than hardware?
people need vehicles to get heavy weapons and supplies around the battlefield quickly, and if these vehicles are very easy to destroy with cheap shoulder-mounted infantry weapons (and cheap low-flying drones), it might simply no longer be possible to execute blitzkriegs against a reasonably well-equipped foe without suffering unacceptable losses. Armored vehicles may no longer be a cost-effective tool for fighting wars.
Since World War II, we have thought in terms of expensive capital assets. If you read Churchill’s history of the second World War, you will find occasional tables where he tallies losses in terms of numbers of aircraft or tonnage of ships. After the war, most of our military spending went for fancy airplanes, ships, and armored vehicles. But if they can be neutralized or destroyed relatively inexpensively, then they become liabilities, not assets.
In the 21st century, intangible assets have risen in significance, in the economy in general and in the military in particular. Increased capability at the margin comes from software, not hardware.
I speculate that war is evolving into a game of hide-and-seek. The weapons that survive are ones that can hide. The weapons that win are those that can locate their targets.
Perhaps the most important arena to watch will be the oceans. Since the second World War, the U.S. navy has dominated the seas. Aircraft carriers have given America the ability to project force anywhere in the world. But aircraft carriers are not adept at playing hide-and-seek in today’s world.
Even in World War II, hide-and-seek was a big deal in ocean warfare. Consider the Battle of the Atlantic (submarine warfare) and the Battle of Midway. Software also mattered, at least in terms of code-breaking.
What will the ocean battlefield look like if software matters more than hardware? What if smart weapons can do to ships what anti-tank weapons have been doing to Russian tanks? Do our ships become obsolete? Does control of the sea require an entirely new strategic concept?
I've been hearing that tanks are obsolete for a really long time. So that isn't a shocker.
The norm for land warfare has been that it tended to favor the defender unless there was some killer app (mounted knights, tanks) that allowed for a decisive advantage of force at a point of decision that could then be exploited. In the past whenever offense has been dominant you've tended to get more inequality, since offense is usually capital intensive relative to defense.
Still let's remember that Ukraine could not produce these weapons themselves, it still takes a lot of state capacity to make defensive weapons.
Many have talked a lot about the entire concept of manned combat aircraft being obsolete. Aircraft carriers have been in question for a awhile too. If armored column WW2 nostalgia has been an Achilles heal for Russia, perhaps WW2 aircraft carrier nostalgia will be for the USA.
If China ever goes for Taiwan, it may never land on the island. It might just shoot at any tanker carrying fuel and any warship attempting to protect convoys that get close to Taiwan. Without imports all of the island nations of East Asia would starve in short order.
I'm not entirely sure what control of the seas even means. Surely, China would love to trade with us. If it "controlled" the South China Sea, it's not as if it would want to cut off the flow of trade. If it re-integrated Taiwan by force, its goal would ultimately be to sign an armistice and re-open trade.
There was a important quote 40 years ago when I was at the Naval Academy: "There are two types of ships. Submarines. And targets."
I suspect relatively cheap drone self-guided sleeping torpedoes will be used to defend against expected amphibious assaults. Israel's Iron Dome (?) is showing increasing defensive ability to shoot down rockets - quite expensive tho.
It's so sad to look back and see how our liberal anti-nationalist globalists failed so miserably to help post-commie countries develop democracies with little or no corruption - but the OECD countries are all full of corrupt elites.
Winning battles, like the US did against the Taliban in virtually battles, is not sufficient to govern an occupied territory. Tho it looks like Russian (war-crime?) brutality in their conquered areas will show the world what is "needed" for an occupier to keep control.
I saw a picture of a possible new alternative to tanks ... infantry ... on motorcycles. Made me think of the Rat Patrol with a machine gun mounted on jeep/ pick-up trucks. Which could also be some surface to air or surface to surface missile.