Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#2One has to wonder how much of military "tech" is simply fake. Until its use is demonstrated in war (which i absolutely do not advocate, and is known to affected by propaganda as well), all the incentives from weapons' manufacturers and buyers are to exaggerate features and effectiveness. The main victim is the gullible public, who funds the military-industrial complex with taxes.
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#3One has to wonder how much of military "tech" is simply fake. Until its use is demonstrated in war (which i absolutely do not advocate, and is known to affected by propaganda as well), all the incentives from weapons' manufacturers and buyers are to exaggerate features and effectiveness. The main victim is the gullible public, who funds the military-industrial complex with taxes.
Arthur C. Clark's "Superiority" comes to mind ;)
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#4The analysis of Cavalry and Iron is fascinating. As is the correlation between MilTech and Phylogeny (cultural similarity between polities).
I was most surprised that the authors had no strong theories about the role of "agricultural productivity". In addition to building armies from agricultural surplus, the ability to feed horses, people, elephants, etc was key to large military campaign. A common defensive technique against large army campaigns included burning agriculture.. for instance Hannibal's invasion of Rome. ie, the agriculture supply-chain itself seems to be a necessary pre-requisite to military campaigns with thousands of troops.
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#5To me, it's very clear. Drone warfare will be the next big thing after a nuke, and ICBM.
Probably it's the only thing which can shift the power poles from the current nuclear states.
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#6The analysis of Cavalry and Iron is fascinating. As is the correlation between MilTech and Phylogeny (cultural similarity between polities). I was most surprised that the authors had no strong theories about the role of "agricultural productivity". In addition to building armies from agricultural surplus, the ability to feed horses, people, elephants, etc was key to large military campaign. A common defensive techniq…
Speaking of examples of food innovation aiding military campaigns, Napoleon's army was responsible for the development of canned food[1].
[1] https://unrealfacts.com/napoleon-bonaparte-role-canned-food-...
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#7To me, it's very clear. Drone warfare will be the next big thing after a nuke, and ICBM. Probably it's the only thing which can shift the power poles from the current nuclear states.
Drones warfare will really have a big affect on small conflicts, not great power conflicts. Look at the recent Azerbaijan/Armenia war. Drones give the power of having a full fledged air force to small countries.
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#8One has to wonder how much of military "tech" is simply fake. Until its use is demonstrated in war (which i absolutely do not advocate, and is known to affected by propaganda as well), all the incentives from weapons' manufacturers and buyers are to exaggerate features and effectiveness. The main victim is the gullible public, who funds the military-industrial complex with taxes.
Even if 90% of military tech is fake (and I think "fake" more usually means "we think it works, but turns out it doesn't"), the other 10% can completely tip the scales in a war, to disastrous effect (to the loser). History has a lot of examples of technology which seemed preposterous until it completely turned the tides of battles or wars (radar, tanks, mustard gas, atomic bombs...)
Drone warfare is pretty clearly in this camp. Not a lot of people followed the Armenia / Azerbaijan war last year, but Armenia was fighting a war from 10 years ago (trench + urban warfare), and they got slaughtered by armed drones. It was a wipeout.
Nobody wants to be the Armenians in the next war... and often that means wasting a lot of money figuring out what the next breakthrough is.
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#9To me, it's very clear. Drone warfare will be the next big thing after a nuke, and ICBM. Probably it's the only thing which can shift the power poles from the current nuclear states.
Drones warfare will really have a big affect on small conflicts, not great power conflicts. Look at the recent Azerbaijan/Armenia war. Drones give the power of having a full fledged air force to small countries.
The role of drones in a big conflict is a tactical warfare again regaining critical importance.
Mid-sized drones are an unkillable airforce, following the front-line, with very small logistic footprint.
This way, nuclear countries cannot simply nuke your few airfields, and deprive your force in the field of air cover, and then bomb you with impunity with cheap bombs.
It very much means, a big conventional army can now get a decent chance to reach your capital in case of continental conflict even if you nuke all their airfields, and supply caches.
In fact, a lighter force can now have much bigger chances to win than a heavier one, burdened by expensive toys, with huge demand on supplies, which will run out of fuel in a day if the supply chain is interrupted. A tank without fuel is just a bunker with 50 cal. on top.
Re: Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies
#10One has to wonder how much of military "tech" is simply fake. Until its use is demonstrated in war (which i absolutely do not advocate, and is known to affected by propaganda as well), all the incentives from weapons' manufacturers and buyers are to exaggerate features and effectiveness. The main victim is the gullible public, who funds the military-industrial complex with taxes.
Or just catastrophically malfunction. What % of ICBMs launched from silos in the Midwest will fail and land inside the US? What % of those actually trigger?