How has modern warfare changed?

Post Reply New Topic

I wrote a response but the OP deleted it so here's my take on how modern warfare has changed.

I'm not familiar with the technology but broadly speaking
1. hydrogen bombs are more efficient in that they remove your enemy, leave infrastructure and don't spread dangerous radiation to oceans/borders
2. The delivery systems have improved so much so that warheads can be launched from submarines virtually on the Russian and Chinese borders
3. Drone technology means you can launch unmanned craft fitted with any type of missile via remote control. There are rumors that many UFOs witnessed by people are advanced forms of military drones funded via black money.
4. Defence systems have improved, there are rumours that there are military satellites orbiting the earth able to use laser technology that can destroy nuclear launch sites on the ground reducing (but not entirely removing) the risk of mutually assured destruction
5. Finally biological warfare. five supposed bio-weapons have been released in human history
i) Spanish flu is thought to have been the first tested but got completely out of control
ii) AIDS has been suspicious origins, likely European in origin.
iii) SARS is the first Chinese bioweapon tested that escaped into the public
iv) Ebola (unknown origin but perhaps European?) and MERS (China)
v) finally the latest bioweapon to escape (released?) is COVID-19 from a lab in Wuhan

The origional poster was not sure it was safe to put on incase something secret would be revealed.

Nuclear is now considered old technology and for this to be so, there must be good defense systems that would stop this being such an issue? Or as one high up general said "What is the point of using them to take over a country when no one will be able to use that country for years?"

Sometimes the simplest technologies are the most effective.

And also that due to their long range nature, they can only really be used in two opposing short seasons in a year, where as other weapons are pretty much all year round weapons.

Mountain Goat made an original post about post-modern high tech warfare. At first he sounded crazy by suggesting that nukes "are obsolete" but then he raised a rather interesting question about whether or not high tech might be its own worst enemy (in war, but in peace as well).

I composed a response, but then Mountain deleted the thread.

But if Cyber is gonna revive it then I guess I rewrite what I wrote.

My response was that it Reminded me of an idea I had once for a Tom Clancy type thriller. About 20 years ago I learned that the US Navy Academy stopped teaching its cadets how to navigate using sextants. Those triangular things with lenses to locate stars and do calculations to navigate at sea.

You and I drive our cars by using GPS, and so does the US Navy with its shps. So traditional navigation isnt considered a needed skill anymore. Just use GPS.

So in my scenario a poor lower tech nation like China sends its navy to attack the US. First it sends rockets into space with low-tech cargo, namely buckets of gravel. Unloads the gravel into low earth orbit-which destroys the worlds system of GPS satellites. This renders the US Navy so helpless that it cant even get its mighty carriers and sea wolf subs out of port. And the Chinese navy, with ships manned by guys who still know how to use sextants, send their fleet across the Pacific and kick the US's ass out of the sea!

One new disturbing development is in the field of underwater nuclear drones like the type Russia is developing, most western capitol cities are on, or close to the coast.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... o-updates/

but actual modern warfare semms to be asymmetric. not so much russia or china vs. the US, with high tech weaponry etc. - but civil wars, and "terrorist" uprisings, with all possible combinations of entities fighting each other, with civillian life inbetween.
I mean, there's goat herders in countries that never fit the description of "sovereign nation", attacking the world's most advanced army with improvised explosives, and North Korean or Russian hackers extorting ransom from pipelines in California ...
the one thing about modern warfare that seems to be universal is maybe the incredible chaos of information

Nuclear weapons are more relevant to geopolitics than they are to military strategy, mainly because virtually no one wants to use their nukes as anything but a deterrent.
Modern warfare is rarely between nuclear powers. It is largely asymmetrical warfare between states and paramilitary organizations; proxy wars between smaller states being supplied by competing great powers; and regional wars between non-nuclear states.
If I wanted to consider the trajectory of modern warfare, I would be less concerned about nukes. I'd give more weight to analysis of:
- the Syrian, Iraqi, and Libyan Civil Wars
- the recent Azeri-Armenian conflict
- the war in Yemen
- the Russo-Georgian War
- the conflict in Ukraine

The future of conventional warfare I think will rely heavily on drones and intelligence gathering. I think main battle tanks will be gradually replaced by smaller and more nimble vehicles with less crew members and have a plethora of sensors making up for it.

Nuclear weapons will always remain but will never be used.

The overall shift in warfare will be on the more insidious side like cyber attacks and biological weapons of "mystery" origins. The days of carpet bombing and rushing enemies with huge numbers are over.

With all of these technological wonders of modern warfare, nothing beats a single, well-planned assassination for changing the course of history.  Assassination is one of the oldest tools of power politics.  It dates back at least as far as recorded history, and is still in use today; from gangland drive-by shootings to the disappearances of highly-place North Korean officials.