Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of technology on the warfare
Technology in warfare essay
Technology advancements in warfare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of technology on the warfare
Has Technology Made Strategy Obsolete? It has been said that, "improvements in technology for waging war have made strategy increasingly irrelevant." This is not the case; strategy is actually becoming more important with the development of more sophisticated military technology. Firstly it must be clearly defined how strategy and technology relate to each other. There have been many different views on what, in effect, constitutes strategy.
If one were to compare Sun Tzu's concepts of strategy and compare them to that of Clausewitz, it would be clear that the two defined strategy much differently. Sun Tzu viewed strategy as a much larger issue than did the Clausewitz. He believed that an overall strategy that utilized political alliances, misinformation, intelligence and strategic planning was the key to what he believed the pinnacle of military victory was; to win the war without ever having to fight. Clausewitz had a much narrower view of strategy, one that would more correctly be determined as tactics.
Clausewitz believed in the supremacy of direct military conflict as the sole arena for states to resolve their differences and satisfy their ambitions. He focused then, on the best way to win the war, believing that war was inevitable. It is clear then, that wile both men wrote on the subject of war, their focus was on different levels of warfare, Sun Tzu's focus was on strategy, or grand strategy, while Clausewitz's focus was on the tactical level, or operational strategy. Technology is of a different ilk altogether than the closely related topics of tactics and strategy. Technology is the tools with which the war is waged. It can consist of not only mechanical instruments, but of nuclear, chemical and biological tools as well.
Technology is an ever changing, constantly improving, element of warfare that has throughout history continually improved the efficiency with which mankind can kill one and other. Technology Strategy Tactics The key to understanding the issue is to understand how the three elements, technology, tactics and strategy are connected to each other and more specifically, how changes in one area of will drive changes in the other. Technology is the core to the whole process. A requirement is identified and a weapon, or weapons system is created in order to fill that requirement. Once this has been done, the military leader...
... middle of paper ...
...s Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) or "Star Wars" plan that finally broke the economically weaker USSR. Currently, the US Army's is driving toward the development of a Strategic Anti-missile System; resent successful tests of this new technology raise the specter of a return to the winnable war scenario.
These new technologies has, as all technology is, been developed to finally and directly eliminate the threat generated by initial development of the nuclear strike capability. The question that now begs to be asked is weather this technology will once again change the strategic focus away from the economic arena and back to the military one? Technology has not rendered strategy obsolete. Certain military technological advances, which are continually reshaping the tactical realm, have managed, by the shear magnitude of their impact, reached beyond that area to change the Grande Strategy by which nations plan their success. As we see, strategy changed in order to counter the threat posed until a counter technology was developed. The interplay of tactics, technology and strategy is cyclical and symbiotic in nature with each element being driven by changes in the other.
World War Warfare was one of the greatest examples of technological advancement and strategic challenge, with the introduction of inventions such as the aircraft and the tank the battlefield transformed from attrition as scene in the early years of the war to decisive by the end of the war.
As we progressed through the course, Modern World, the students were able to see various incidences of how technology either enhanced or deteriorated a civilization or a nation. One of the primary reads in the course was Headrick’s book, Power over Peoples. It is important to look at Headrick’s work and see just what is meant by his title, Power Over People. From what students have gathered, this means the use of technology as a means to gain an edge over another civilization, hence, using your power or technology to dominate another group of people. Furthermore, it is important to note just what is meant by the term “technology.” According to Headrick, technology is “all the ways in which humans use materials and energy in the environment for their own ends, beyond what they can do with their bodies.” From this definition, we can gather that technology is the ability to manipulate other things in our environment. It is also important to note that usually with greater technological power; one can take control over others. For example, Headrick gives the example of Europeans in their colonial era. More recently; however, Headricks view point can be viewed in a somewhat different manner. While superior technology can give one group an advantage initially, there is also a “window of opportunity” with the technology. An example of this is air power. When air power first started, it was unstoppable in traditional battle, but as time advanced the mighty planes became less effective when they encountered new tactics and asymmetrical warfare such as what happened in Vietnam. As we advance to 1999, time brings about another dilemma where the superior power uses technology, only this time there was both positives and negatives based on dif...
Following the conclusion of the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union made it a priority to outdo each other in every possible facet from arsenals of missiles to international alliances and spheres of influences. Yet when the Soviets launched Sputnik on October 4th, 1957, the world changed forever. The first manmade object was fired into space, and it appeared that American technology and science had fallen behind. Yet, the public feared that not only were they now technologically inferior to the Soviets, but also deduced that if a satellite could be launched into space, a nuclear missile could just as likely reach the mainland United States. Less than a month later, the Soviets pushed the bounds of technology yet again by
...ccomplishments. As the years progress, just as they have in the past, so will military technology. Not more 80 years ago, the United States was just learning how to se machine guns. Not more than 60 years ago, the United States was just learning how to use tanks and artillery. Nowadays, the US military has become the leading war machine in all aspects of warfare including weapons, computer technology and biological as well as chemical warfare. God only knows what advancements are to come our way.
Advancements in technology and science contributed to one of the most gory and bloodiest wars in the annals of human existence. These new technological advancements revolutionized how people regarded war. War was no longer where the opposite forces fought in a coordinated battle. War evolved into a game of cunning strategy where the side with the bigger, more powerful, and smarter toys played better. This led to a fierce competition where each side tried to create the smarter machines and better weapons, leading to deadly mass killing weapons in the process.
Mendelsohn, Jack. 1999. “Missile Defense: and it Still Won’t Work.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. May/June 29-31.
For instance, tanks were developed which were a an extremely innovative weapon, but because they were so difficult to maneuver when they were first created it often led to the occupants being killed.(why?) As well, gas, such as mustard and chlorine gas,(what do they do?) began to be used, this was an issue as the defending side at times did not consider the environments they were in and the gas would blow back towards them, killing them rather than their opponents. This compares to Jurassic Park when they were unable to efficiently take down the tyrannous rex, as stated in Michael Crichton’s
The application of nuclear power systems to the strategic defense was predicted on assumptions and increasingly were subject to question:
It is interesting and even surprising that the two major strategies regarding war were developed by European contemporaries of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. Antoine Henri de Jomini (1779-1869) approached his philosophy of war in a structured, scientific manner. Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) took a more fluid, open-ended approach to his philosophy of war. The fact that they lived during the same time period in Europe is also fascinating in that they likely knew of each others’ writings as well as potentially influenced and were influenced by the philosophy of the other. Jomini’s scientific approach is more applicable to the tactical and operational levels of war while Clausewitz approaches war as more of an art or interaction between people that is more appropriate to the strategic and political levels of war. Although their two war strategies are presented as opposing strategies, by comparing concepts from each of the theorists to the other theorist’s work shows that they are actually more complementary than competing in that they are addressing different levels of war. The concepts to be evaluated are Clausewitz’s “Trinity of War”, “war as a continuation of politics”, and the “unpredictability of war” as well as Jomini’s definition of strategy and his “Fundamental Principle of War”.
Sun Tzu’s strategy on war is still a very respected and influential book. The book breaks down war in a very strategic and intelligent way that gives extremely useful advice to those reading it. The book emphasizes the importance of strategy and positioning
The Cold War was a political standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States that again created a new worldwide nuclear threat. The destructive potential of nuclear weapons has created a global sweep of fear as to what might happen if these terrible forces were unleashed again. The technology involved in building the first atomic bombs has grown into the creation of nuclear weapons that are potentially 40 times more powerful than the original bombs used. However, a military change in strategy has come to promote nuclear disarmament and prevent the usage of nuclear weapons. The technology of building the atomic bomb has spurred some useful innovations that can be applied through the use of nuclear power.
Two and a half millennia ago lived Sun Tzu, possibly the greatest military mind in the history of the world. Sun Tzu was a Chinese philosopher, but that in no way means that his method of thought is applicable only in the East. Twenty-five hundred years after writing, Sun Tzu’s book, The Art of War remains the most important treatise ever written on military strategy. Is it though? Can Sun Tzu’s tactics still be applied to modern military operations, when warfare has changed so much since? At time of writing, Chinese forces were still using weapons like the Qiang (spear) and Ji (halberd). These primarily close-ranged bladed weapons bear no semblance to modern firearms or high explosives whatsoever. In the last century especially, the technology of war has advanced so rapidly that on the surface, it would seem at first like there are practically no similarities between war in the fifth century B.C.E. and war in twenty-first century C.E. After all this time, can The Art of War still hold up, or has it gone the way of chariots and archers?
Sun Tzu believe the best way to win a war is without fighting. He calls this strategy the “supreme art of war”. He believed in “deception” and surprise has a way to turn the enemy down without putting into peril one’s fighting force. He believed a small well trained army following his
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
One finds both broad and narrow senses of the adjective strategic. Narrowly, term denotes operating directly against military or industrial. installations of an enemy during the conduct of war with the intent of destroying his military potential. Today, strategy is used more often. in its broader sense of purpose.