The Future of War?

[Zkribbler]

A century ago, the introduction of the heavy machine gun made calvary obsolete along with the infantry frontal assault. While attacks were still made, they resulted in few advances and many casualties. Modern armies soon switched to tanks as the main offensive unit.

Then the Yon Kippur War introduced the TOW, which made tanks highly vunerable. Now, the U.S. has "steel rain," a single round of which can devestate an entire armor division. Tanks may now be obsolete.

So what will conventional war looks like in the future?

[Perfection]

nothing, the era of conventional war is over.

[Drake Tungsten]

The era of conventional war has been over for decades, in fact. It's all about asymmetric warfare now, so expect America to lose a whole bunch more wars in the future.

[TheStinger]

It will invlove nuclear tipped ants

[Provost Harrison]

I think it will involve 'lasers'...

[Dauphin]

Magnets! It will be with magnets!

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The era of conventional war has been over for decades, in fact. It's all about asymmetric warfare now, so expect America to lose a whole bunch more wars in the future.

There's always nukes.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think it will involve 'lasers'...

And sharks?

[Dauphin]

Mutated sea bass.

[Aeson]

ROV's piloted by teenagers (and others living with their parents) who have been tricked into thinking they are fighting futuristic warfare in a MMORPG. A l33t X-st1An h4xx0R will write a virus which hijacks the client to turn targetting control over from 'WWIII Online' to 'GTA: Vice City' to enact God's revenge on prostitutes.

Nanobots that harvest the iron from your red blood cells and use it to build a spike through your heart before moving to their next host... (in hindsight, this will be viewed as somewhat of a gaffe rather than the technological marvel it is received as.) Anemic patients will be the only survivors.

Giant Death Robots

That and psychological warfare fought with avatars like Tass'.

[Krill]

Austin Powers

[Nostromo]

nm

[Geronimo]

why would speculation about the future belong in the history forum? isn't off topic a more appropriate category for such discussion?

[Dauphin]

The future is the past, it's just a matter of perspective.

[/philosophical nonsense]

[-Jrabbit]

Mutated fruit bats in the air, weaponized Roombas on land and trained suicide dolphins by sea.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Mutated sea bass.

Are they ill tempered?

[Richelieu]

I could kill you. In town you're the law, out here it's me. Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe. Let it go. Let it go.

[Sirotnikov]

I think that war has changed on many fronts.

Current wars depend much more on media and televised propoganda achievements than on actual results, especially since current combat laws make it practically impossible to truly decimate an enemy's forces.

Wars have also become highly ideological, and much less out of 'interest' since war out of pure interest is frowned upon. This does not mean that people stopped warring over intersts - but means that they hide their true intentions. This leads to further investment in propoganda against the foreign power AND propoganda for one's own population, to "justify" the war in the public.

Eventually - this leads to longer, deadlier wars because the public is more ideologically thrilled. No one wants to concede defeat, and even a lost cause is considered justified and people continue to fight, instead of accepting a new fate.


Rocketry, terrorist attacks and bomber planes mean that there is no longer a difference between a war front and the supporting rear. Funny enough, this has only an effect for mutual deterrence.

Once broken (v2 missiles, scud missiles, katyusha missiles) the psychological effect on the will to fight is lost, and what makes the difference again is the actual damage inflicted.


Command and control becomes ever more important, as huge armies with advanced weaponry try to develop a "total awareness" system. The reliance on technology over good senses and tactics makes many armies decadent and when a good strike (or a simple malfunction) destroys their systems - they have no use for their upper-hand firepower.

Small groups who don't need that and are proficient in tactics, area awareness and movement, have an upper edge in a single battle.

Thus, if a weaker enemy manages to deflate the conflict into a series of small scale battles, having a tactical advantage in each - he wins. Or at least - can't lose.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Magnets! It will be with magnets!

I'm having hard time deciding, if that is a Stargåte quote...




Anyways, sticks and stones.

[Lorizael]

Thank you Albert Einstein.

[Solver]

Probably various unmanned and remote controlled vehicles will become big. Such as replacing bomber/fighter aircraft with unmanned versions. Why risk losing a pilot? An army that has moved to unmanned / remote-controlled vehicles could have the opportunity to do large portions of their campaign without even risking casualties.

[Patroklos]

as huge armies

The trend is definetly to go smaller, not larger. Just look at the shink in total men under arms for most countries in the last sixity years. Even in the US the buildup of a larger army only amounts to a couple divisions.

[Sirotnikov]

btw, to summarise my post: I think that it is changes in warfare environment rather than in weapons will affect future wars much more.

What good is a tank if it has nothing to shoot at?

[General Ludd]

Spears, bows, and salvaged gun ammunition untill the surplus is used up.

[Pekka]

Well, definitely the warfare has changed due to technology, but also because there are much more sensitive targets.. It used to be enough to surround the place and let them starve or poison the water, but these days you have much more targets you can strike, and it'll be effective.

I agree with Drake, it's asymmetric situation these days, however, I disagree to the extent, that if it was fight for survival, the ones with more power would still win with a great margin. Especially the western nations are more on their toes when it comes to just killing everyone. It's bad press. It's not what we stand for. In the olden days, you'd do just that, kill all people. You'd submit the other one pretty well with that. These days? it's a no go.

Also, western nations seems to be very bad at taking damage, combat deaths to be precise. It's bad press. Still the west dominates the battles with scores of kills and very few casualties in comparison.

I think the point is, you can't win a war by just killing people anymore, because you can't kill all your enemies, it's just impossible. So, you have to have other ways for victory, and today, it's difficult. People don't easily submit into other ideologies etc. when you can't just kill everyone who resists.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Spears, bows, and salvaged gun ammunition untill the surplus is used up.

[Lonestar]

BF2142


Except no walkers, walkers are potentially the most stupid "war machine" idea to ever come out of the woodwork, cept maybe the Tsar Tank.

Also, Power armor not unlike Starship Troopers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Spears, bows, and salvaged gun ammunition untill the surplus is used up.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Aeson
Giant Death Robots

Giant Death Robots!

(I'm a spider)

[Heresson]

I believe Americans recently unrevealed their microwave (or whatever) weapon. It causes a horrible feeling of having heat, while it hardly damages anything.
It will be very good for pacificating angry mobs.