Modern warfare

Originally posted by Deioces This century, the war has been revolutionized till a point that you even cant say its a war anymore. Somebody should invent a new word for the thing we see today in most countries, because Its not even close to the war that Alexander the Great, Napoleon or Djingis Khan fought. Today, the enemy will exterminate the commander and whole divisions from miles away, and the worst thing is that you dont even see that coming. I mean its so much things, artillery that can be launched from kilometres away, UAV that can see everything that you are doing and all your plans, missiles that will take out any form of bunker and bomb planes that bombs you to death. So I have two questions: Does a country who dont have air superiority, or any radar system, and chance against a country who has it? For example, we can have Operation Iraqi Freedom as an exemple. America had a technical superiority against a Iraq that didnt, and we all saw the result. Will the war today and in the future be won by the country that are technically superior or can tactic and brain outsmart it?   an other example: Both Soviet and USA fought Afghanistan and Vietnam, who both were much more inferior, but the still managed to not loose. How did they managed? Was it the media and newspapers that made them loose or was it a military loss?

Well Iraq was never really won. They never won over the whole population and they are paying dearly for that now. Just like the Afghanistan and Vietnam examples, technology gives you an advantage but cant deliver you a complete victory. One can define victory in a limited sense like winning battles or in a complete sense like winning wars and occupying. Your examples are about occupying so ill take it in a complete sense

 For that you have control the territory, *read* soldiers on the ground, and a propaganda victory where everyone including the occupied thinks your doing the right thing and are the good guys.

 One thing that technology hasn't replaced yet, is the need to have soldiers on the ground. The US, France or any advanced military can destroy most others navy, heavy army and airforces but after that, has to occupy the territory in order to gain complete control. This depends on their objectives but lets say like in the above examples they want this complete victory and total control. Once they're on the ground, in the cities and patrolling the countryside the tech advantage is greatly reduced. Resistance can start just by shooting and ambushing occupying soldiers. All this needs is small arms, booby traps and to become really effective, good organization and co-ordination with decent leadership. Technology being somewhat less important.

The other thing that technology cant win is the propaganda war, if you cant win over the population resistance will always be a problem.  But this type of high ground is very hard next to impossible to gain. How can one occupy another country and  convincing them its for their good!







Edited by Leonidas - 14-Apr-2007 at 00:10

With regards to Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan the answer is simple.