Changing Principles of War Technology

¶ … Changing Principles of War

Technology has changed all in our world. A letter that needed to traverse oceans by ship and perilous journey now makes its way from Sri Lanka to Sacramento in the blink of a few microchips and microseconds. Complicated life insurance amortizations that were calculated and stored in large, table-sized ledgers are now stored, calculated and even immortalized on CD-ROMs.

War, too, has not escaped the swift but sure tide of technological change. War during World War I and the long and torrid history of battles before that fateful all-engulfing event had the distinct feeling and aura of a 17th century gentlemen's dispute via duel.

For instance, the stories are veritably countless: American and German soldiers during World War I, entrenched but 200 yards from one another in a long column, fighting and gritting it out during the day in the far reaches of Europe. However, come nightfall, the fighting abruptly halted, with soldiers from the two sides meeting overnight and playing cards and swigging cheap liquor. War was a job, in some ways, an honorable profession which knew specific bounds and limits.

Take the mercenary profession, for instance. The Hessians made their reputation on being professional soldiers who would make their camp with whomever was willing to pay them. They fought with one side against another, and if the money switched sides and their adversary offered them more, they turned coat and fought their original employers without hesitation.

Men only killed men in war at close range, too. War was intensely personal, with hand-to-hand combat a viable option and necessary tactic even through some parts of World War II.

All of this has changed, however. The principles of war have entirely changed. People rarely fight over parcels of land now - the obvious exception being the first Iraq war. Even when a parcel of land is ostensibly the motivating factor behind war - for instance, the war for a Palestinian state - the real reason behind the fighting is religion, politics or economics.

War has become intensely impersonal. Now, laser guided bombs from planes flying tens of thousands of feet above an enemy combatant do the fighting: Gone are the days of hand-to-hand combat or even person-to-person trench warfare. Replacing both are such laser guided bombs, or even the threat of nuclear annihilation in North Korea from a missile silo in Kentucky.

Today's "soldiers" know nothing about their opponents except what the intelligence reports dictate. This creates the precipitous situation of dehumanizing war. In Nazi Germany, after Hitler's and Goebel's fall, Papa Doenitz took over the regime, but having sent the horrors of war first-hand as a sub-captain and admiral, Doenitz arrange for a cease-fire and surrender. He knew that war was taking a horrible toll and that his side was losing and was bound to be defeated inevitably.

He had the practical first-hand knowledge of combat to make the correct, wise decision that saved countless thousands of lives. Would the same be possible today? It is highly unlikely. War, today, is highly theoretical: blips on a computer screen rather than blood on a knife, or at least visible detonations from a low-flying bomber.

Today's "captains of war" are so disconnected from the destruction they cause, one cannot help but wonder if the entire nature and principles of war have not changed forever.

Of course, nuclear weaponry has done its part in the shift. Today, man has the power to destroy his own planet hundreds of times over; until a few decades ago, man had immense destructive power, but it was limited in geography. For instance, America felt safe for centuries with two oceans between it and the rest of the warring world. That explains America's isolationist policy for centuries.

Such a policy is no longer possible. With the advent of nuclear weapons, America is thrust into the global warring spectrum - whether a cold war or a real, hot war - with any possibility of avoidance. This ability to destroy so much on a first-strike basis is unprecedented. It has created a paradigm shift that defies the expectations and requirements of the Geneva Convention.