The Future of War?

[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.