The Future of War

 

Our first surprise in the current Russo-Ukraine War was that Russia was a paper tiger. Its vaunted military could not make progress after the initial surprise attack was stalled.

Our second surprise is that everyone is a paper tiger. Now Ukraine too, with NATO doctrine and all its NATO weapons, is struggling to make progress.

It turns out it is not that the Russians were so incompetent. It is that the current state of weaponry gives an advantage to defense. We did not see this coming, because the offense has been dominant since the Second World War, and as recently as the Second Gulf War. 

This balance between offence and defense has swung back and forth many times over history; although in the days of set battles it mattered less. Mounted knights gave advantage to the offense; a charge could mow down a static line. Then the longbow gave advantage to the defense. Muskets gave advantage to the offense: their accurate range was short, and cavalry could break through infantry with a charge. The machine gun decisively killed the cavalry charge, and we had the static tranches of WWI. Then the tank broke things open again, unexpectedly, aided by air power, and we had the shock of blitzkrieg. 

Now the era of the tank is over.

What has changed since the Gulf Wars? 

Drones and portable missiles like HIMARS. 

These are cheap weapons. Cheap and simple enough to be mass produced by countries like Iran and Turkey, not famous for efficiency and high-tech.

Cheap drones and HIMARS can too easily take out a fantastically expensive modern tank or jet fighter.

I wouldn’t want to risk an aircraft carrier in a war situation these days, either.

This is good news for world peace. So long as defense has the advantage over offense, aggressors are much less likely to start a war. War becomes too costly in general.