Abstract
The concept of warfare is
nearly as old as time itself. Historians can trace the history of warfare back
to biblical times. Although technology has changed the face of warfare and
increased the complexity with which it is waged, the fundamental objectives of
self-defense and defeating one’s enemies have not. Technological innovation
changes the way people live. From listening to music to communication to
financial management, technology affects our daily lives. It also affects the
way wage war. The future of warfare will involve cyber attacks, the increased
use of biometric data, surveillance by drones, precision strikes by Special
Forces, and advanced weapons, particularly biological. In the future, wars will
be fought in cyberspace, monitored in stealth from above, and utilize weapons
conceived in the Petri dish with the age-old objectives in mind – to win!
Key words: future, warfare, and
technology
“War created the United States.”
(Michael S. Sherry, In the
Shadow of War: The United States Since the
1930s, Yale University Press, 1995)
Introduction
The history of warfare is as old as
time and dates back to the Old Testament and the tribe of Israel. In
regard to Israel, Hanson (1984) notes, there were “frequent
wars between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.” And so from the dawn of time
to the modern era, warfare has continually existed in societies of the world.
As technology improved, the strategy of warfare became more complex and
intricate. However, the objective of defending one’s interest while bringing
defeat to one’s enemies has remained the same.
December 7, 1941 was, as President
Franklin Roosevelt stated, a day that would live in infamy. The Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor was a pivotal event that plunged the United States into World
War II. In retrospect, it spurred an innovation in warfare that would forever
alter the face of warfare. It was the “first ever carrier against carrier
engagement” (Henry, 2003) in which the battle groups did not see each other
during the fight. It set a precedent for modern warfare that is still viable
and effective today.
Technological innovation has improved the lives of
society while at the same time raising the bar of warfare. The 1980 movie The Final Countdown is a story of modern
technology in an antiquated world. A U.S. Navy super carrier with jet airplanes
equipped with modern weapons is transported back in time to the days leading up
to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Imagine the consequences for World War II
aircraft against state of the art fighter jets. It would hardly be a fair
fight.
Today, technology continues to enhance our lives. Its
ubiquitous presence surrounds us and affects virtually everything we do – from providing
directions via GPS to social media such at Facebook and Twitter to online
banking. At the same time, it continues to set new standards and requirements
as well as demand new strategies for successful modern warfare. Just as a World
War II fighter plane would stand little chance of success against an F-18, the
methods of modern warfare stand little chance of victory against the trends
that are shaping the future of warfare.
This article examines five trends in the area of
modern warfare that will shape the future of warfare over the next five to ten
years and their global impact:
·
Cyber Warfare
·
Biometrics
·
Drones
·
Special Operations
·
Weapons.
Cyber Warfare
Trend: The
proliferation of the Internet and wireless devices will continue to engulf our
lives and be an integral component of our nation’s security and monetary system
thereby making them a target of attack.
Movie
fans caught a glimpse of the future in the 1983 movie War Games when Matthew Broderick’s character, David, inadvertently
hacked into government computer system designed to run war scenarios, the WOPR
– war operation plan response. While the technology used in the movie pales in
comparison to that currently available, the concepts of hacking and the
vulnerability of computer systems do not. In fact, they are extremely current
and relevant in a world that has grown increasingly dependent on computer technology,
particularly the government and military.
This
dependency makes them targets of attack. Jensen (2010) notes, “A government's
military or intelligence-agency computers, routers, networks, cables, and other
cyber assets are
targetable because of their use facilitating military communications.” So vital
are military communications to the effectiveness of warfare that the United
States adopted cyber strategies for use in conjunction with traditional warfare
tactics.
Just
before the American-led strikes against Libya in March, the Obama
administration intensely debated whether to open the mission with a new kind of
warfare: a cyberoffensive to disrupt and even disable the Qaddafi government’s
air-defense system, which threatened allied warplanes (Schmitt & Shanker,
2011).
The Internet is the backbone of cyberwarfare without
which it would not exist. Canton (2006) predicts that by the year 2040 all nations
will have access to the Internet (p. 56), which only solidifies the importance
of cyber defense.
On
January 29, 2010, the United States Navy formally recognized the need for cyber
defense by “officially establish[ing] U.S. Fleet Cyber Command (FCC)”
(navy.mil) and reestablishing the 10th Fleet. 10th Fleet
commander McCullough stated, "Cyberspace is a unique domain with a totally
different set of challenges. To operate successfully in this newly defined
domain the Navy must first think differently about cyberspace operations"
(navy.mil).
The
proliferation of the Internet, smart phones, and tablets will only increase the
likelihood of a global cyber attack. “Cyberwar has gone from outlandish spy-movie plot to fixture
of global conflict. The hacking of Chinese dissidents' Gmail accounts, the
"Stuxnet" attacks, the alarming probes of critical Pentagon systems,
and many other online assaults have contributed to a feeling that everyone is
vulnerable” (Foreign Policy, 2010). In
addition to removing geographic boundaries, globalization has connected nations
and linked the world together in cyberspace. A tsunami in Japan can be captured
on a smart phone and be viewed on the other side of the planet in minutes.
With
the same ease and convenience, a computer virus can be transmitted around the
world. Ghosh (2004) notes, “In contrast to the past and current virus attacks against computer installations
and user machines, perpetrators in the future are likely to direct their
attacks against the networking elements.” Future attacks will focus on the
networking elements and switches because such an attack will cause more
widespread and severe damage (Ghosh, 2004). These types of attacks will be
global in scale and effect. Their damage will affect everyone on the planet,
and the global devastation will be the cyber equivalent to Hiroshima.
Impact: The
increase of globalization and the reliance of nations, governments, and
corporations on technology as the norm for controlling and disseminating
information means that everyone is vulnerable; everyone is a target. Disruption
to the system can literally impact the entire world.
Biometrics
Trend: Biometrics
software and corresponding databases are continuously being developed,
populated, and integrated into security systems in the name of national
security.
When scientists unlocked the secrets to man’s DNA, it
seemed one of the last frontiers had finally been conquered. While this
discovery advanced the coding of individual genetic material and provided
nearly irrefutable proof of identification, it by no means is the last chapter
in human identification and classification. Enter biometrics. “Biometrics is a rapidly advancing field
that is concerned with identifying a person based on his or her physiological
or behavioral characteristics. Examples of automated biometrics include fingerprint, face,
iris, and speech recognition” (Ratha, Connell, & Bolle, 2001).
Canton
(2006) notes, “Privacy will be traded for security in a future ruled by video
surveillance, database sniffers, satellites, and biometrics” (p. 210). Such a
future was portrayed in the BBC mini-series The
Last Enemy, in which “biometric ID cards are compulsory, public spaces are
monitored 24 hours a day by digital cameras” (pbs.org). The technology of
biometrics is not limited to simply governing and protecting society. It is integrally
linked to the war on terror. Databases are continually being populated with
data about everybody, i.e. drivers license, voter registration, blood type,
criminal history, etc. “The linking
of biometrics to integrated databases not only appears to make the identification
of a person beyond question, but also lends authenticity and credibility to all
of the data that is connected to that identity” (Bewley-Taylor, 2005). Such
guidance is found in the Patriot Act. “The Patriot Act…calls for routine record
keeping and reporting of informal money transfers, including verification of
customer identity” (Amoore, & De
Goede, 2005).
The
collection, dissemination and integration of information is perpetuating a
future in which privacy will be virtually nonexistent. “The war on terror
involves the classification, compilation and analysis of data on, for example,
passenger information and financial transactions on an unprecedented scale” (Amoore, & De Goede, 2005). In February 2012, CBS News reported the US No-Fly list more
than doubled based on information collected by intelligence organizations. “Both U.S. intelligence and law enforcement
communities and foreign services continue to identify people who want to cause
us harm, particularly in the U.S. and particularly as it relates to aviation"
(Associated Press, 2012).
Biometrics
is being used as part of the war on terror to identify terrorists and those on
watch lists. In the future, biometrics will be able to link a person with their
stored data instantly. Canton (2006) predicts, “Biometrics will be used to
capture facial, iris, fingerprint, voice, or breath scans before you can enter
or leave a room or building” (p. 239). Bewely-Taylor (2005) discovered the company
Visionics has already developed facial recognition software with the capability
of immediate identification and classification based on populated databases. The
future of the war on terrorism is one in which privacy will exist differently,
if at all. We will be surrounded by “an invisible fence” (Bewely-Taylor, 2005).
Impact: The
cataloging of billions of bits of data about everyone on the planet will create
a world in which privacy is a luxury and everyone’s every move, purchase, and
indiscretion is tracked by the government.
Drones
Trend: The successful use of
drones in combat has led to their implementation in urban areas.
Operation
Iraqi freedom involved fighting terrorists on two fronts. The first was in
Iraq; the second was in Afghanistan. In addition to the thousands of troops who
participated in that endeavor, unmanned drones played a significant role. “When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003,
its robot force consisted of a handful of drones”
(Brown, 2010). Since that time, the use of drones has increased dramatically.
The military credits drone attacks for enemy disruption in hard-to-reach areas
(Brown, 2010).
The use of drones is becoming increasingly popular. “Drone strikes, launched from bases within Pakistan but
directed from sites as far away as the American Southwest, are popular with
their proponents for several reasons. They are cheaper, less risky to U.S.
personnel and easy to run with minimal accountability” (Hudson, Owens, &
Flannes, 2011). The advent of drones in modern warfare has also had another
interesting side effect; it has created new jobs that are being filled by
unlikely candidates.
One of the Army's top
drone pilots [is]
a 19-yearold high school dropout. Like many of his colleagues, he joined the
service with few traditionally useful skills. He was, however, an experienced
video gamer, and parlayed those skills into an assignment (Brown, 2010).
Canton
(2006) predicted that robots and drones would be heavily involved in the wars
of the future (p. 267). What Canton noted in 2006 has not only become a reality
of warfare today, it also portends the future of warfare in the next five to ten
years and of civil unrest management in this country. “After more than 40 years
of development and extensive use by the military, the United States has set the
date when the nation’s airspace will be open for drones” (Klotz, 2012).
The
proven successful use of drones in a warfare application consisting of
gathering information and conducting remote missile strikes all but guarantees
the future use of drones in both combat and civil applications. Their price tag
is minimal in comparison to their manned equivalent, and the risk to human life
is negated by their use. “The
evolution of drone
technology has been quick, with new developments allowing for longer flight,
heavier payloads, vertical takeoff from ships, and deployment to more areas of the world” (Hudson,
Owens, & Flannes, 2011). Wars of the future, as well as the management of
the general population, will involve the use of drones that are controlled by a
generation of video game adept personnel.
Impact: The use of
drones in urban areas will expand and be conducted on a global scale further
eroding privacy.
Special Operations
Trend: The use of
Special Forces is proving to be the option of choice among military leaders in
the fight of the war on terror.
The
term ‘special operations,’ or SPECOPS in military vernacular, conjures up memories
of the warriors who ousted Bin Laden from his compound in Pakistan and permanently
from this world. Shortly thereafter the media was rife with stories about the
fabled men, who, until this particular incident, existed only in shrouded
mystery of the military’s shadows. Special forces have been used since the days
of the underwater demolition teams (UDT) in World War II. The Viet Nam era
ushered in a new type of warfare that required existing SPECOPS forces to adapt
in order to combat a different kind of enemy.
Over the next several decades, the SPECOPS community underwent
many changes as the requirement for these warriors evolved to meet the
expanding demand for precision strikes behind enemy lines with the utmost
stealth. In October 2006, “Naval Special
Warfare (NSW) Command commemorated the creation of the new Special Warfare
Operator (SO) and Special Warfare Boat Operator (SB) ratings” (navy.mil). The
use of Special Forces to combat America’s newest enemy, Al Qaeda, has increased
dramatically since the country’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
While the government remains fairly closed-mouthed
about the activities and capabilities, two recent news stories provided a peek
behind the scenes.
Navy Seal snipers rescued an
American cargo ship captain unharmed and killed three Somali pirates in a daring operation
in the Indian Ocean on Sunday, ending a five-day standoff between United States
naval forces and a small band of brigands in a covered orange lifeboat off the
Horn of Africa (McFadden & Shane, 2009).
In another story, “U.S. Navy SEALs parachuted into
Somalia under cover of darkness early Wednesday and crept up to an outdoor camp
where an American woman and Danish man were being held hostage” (Guled, Dozier,
& Houreld, 2012). As the war
on terror continues to wage, the use of and reliance upon Special Forces to
complete the mission will increase. Special Forces “have the resources to get
any weapon systems they think are necessary to do the job” (Murray, 2011) and
are equipped with the latest technology, which makes them the first choice for
impossible assignments. The advancement of technology and unstable platform of
diplomacy in a world facing many uncertainties will require increased use of
Special Force to fight the wars of the future.
Impact: The
implementation of Special Forces troops to fight clandestine wars behind enemy
lines is going to increase the demand for these troops as well as afford the
U.S. the opportunity to engage more enemies on their home turf.
Weapons
Trend: Weapons
have continued to evolve as technology has provided the means of improved
ammunition and armament. This applies to conventional weapons and weapons of
mass destruction.
Weapons have evolved tremendously since the days of
the Bible. The advent of gunpowder introduced a new era as muskets and modern
rifles and pistols emerged on the scene. These inventions paled in comparison to
what emerged out of the Manhattan Project.
More
than 60 years have passed since Col Paul Tibbets and his crew aboard the B-29
Enola Gay released the "Little Boy" atomic bomb from 31,000 feet above Hiroshima in August
1945, effectively ending Japan's options for further resistance in World War II
(Lasile, 2006).
Since the invention of the atomic bomb and its use in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the world has witnessed the escalation of the arms race and the
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Canton
(2006) predicted the “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” as a driver
that will shape globalization (p.188). This has certainly been true where Iran
is concerned. “On April 11, 2006, Iran's
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, proudly and triumphantly announced that the
Islamic Republic had joined ‘the club of nuclear countries’” (Amuzegar, 2006).
Neighboring countries, Israel in particular, have been uneasy ever since.
Although
the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ is often associated with nuclear
weapons, the anthrax attacks after September 11, 2001 are a reminder that mass
destruction comes in many varieties. “Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
bioterrorism preparedness was a priority in hospitals” (Murphy, 2004). Prior to
September 11, 2001, “completing the
crossover from fiction to reality, Preston's novel [The Cobra Event] inspired President Clinton to invest more heavily
in national preparedness against the
hazards of biological weapons” (Tomes, 2000).
The
history of bioterrorism is longer than most people care to know. “Dr. Ken Alibek, the former
deputy director of Biopreparat and chief scientist of the Soviet offensive
biological warfare program, defected to the United States in 1992, has alleged
that the Soviets employed biological warfare during World War II” (Davis &
Johnson-Winegar, 2000). Biological weapons are equally as deadly as the nuclear
counterparts; however, they have the advantage of stealth on their side and are
easily concealed in plain sight with the human body.
In
2002, the docu-drama Smallpox 2002 aired
on the BBC. “This docu-drama reports on a fictitious attack made by terrorists
using the smallpox virus. Starting in New York the virus is ruthlessly carried
out by one man travelling around the city” (BBC.com). As the drama unfolded, more
of the global population became infected. Airports closed, railways shut down, countries
closed their borders, and everyone lived in fear as the virus rapidly spread
around the world. The future of weaponry lies not in gunpowder, stun guns, or
lasers. Rather, it lies in the Petri dish, the test tube, and human body.
Impact: The use of
WMDs, whether nuclear or biological, will create a worldwide epidemic and
global panic. Their use would forever alter the earth’s future.
Conclusion
If we don't
end war, war will end us. -H.G. Wells
Perhaps
H.G. Wells summarized the business of warfare best. As the author of The Time Machine, he certainly
contemplated the future and imagined how it might appear. Modern warfare has
grown increasingly dependent on technology. Innovations continue to create new
methods of monitoring one’s enemy and inflicting maximum damage while
fortifying a strategic position. Remarkably, the premise of warfare, its
ideologies, and objectives has remained virtually unchanged over thousands of
years.
The
future of warfare is one in which battles will be waged deep in the cyber
jungle, monitored in stealth from unseen eyes in the sky, and fought with
precision by elite warriors. Intelligence will be gathered and collected in the
form of biometric data and cross-referenced with numerous databases – to keep
you safe! Guns and bombs will be exchanged for microscopic weapons created in the
Petri dish. The threat from unseen terrorists will overshadow the loss of civil
liberties and freedom itself.
Although
the tactics of warfare have evolved and grown increasingly dependent upon
technological innovation, man has yet to evolve beyond the need to wage war to
solve his problems. His reliance upon conflict engagement in the name of
diplomacy and the advancement of technology has raised the stakes for all
mankind and changed the future of warfare to one in which all persons are
affected. The future of warfare is unseen, unheard, and unbiased; it is not fully understood.
About the author:
William
Bishop is veteran of the U.S. Navy, where he attained the rank of Chief Petty
Officer. He is a graduate of the Harvard Business School Executive Education
Program and a current doctoral student at Regent University studying strategic
leadership.
References
100 top global thinkers. (2010). Foreign Policy, (183),
33-38,42,45,47-49,52,55-61,66-71,75-84,88-96. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/817778779?accountid=13479
Amoore, L., & De Goede, M. (2005). Governance,
risk and dataveillance in the war on terror.
Crime, Law and Social Change, 43(2-3), 149-173. doi:10.1007/s10611-005-1717-8
Amuzegar, J. (2006). Nuclear Iran: Perils and
prospects. Middle East Policy, 13(2),
90-112. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/203687103?accountid=13479
Associated Press. (2012). US no-fly list doubles in 1 year. Retrieved from:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57370298/ap-exclusive-us-no-fly-list-doubles-in-1-year/
Bewley-Taylor, D. (2005). US concept wars, civil
liberties and the technologies of fortification. Crime, Law and Social Change, 43(1), 81-111.
doi:10.1007/s10611-005-4054-z
Brown, A. S. (2010). The drone warriors. Mechanical Engineering, 132(1), 22-27.
Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/230185386?accountid=13479
Canton, J. (2006). The extreme future. New York, NY: Dutton.
Davis, J., & Johnson-Winegar, A. (2000). The
anthrax terror: DODs number-one biological threat. Air & Space Power Journal, 14(4), 15-29. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/217765188?accountid=13479
Ghosh, S. (2004). The nature of cyber-attacks in the
future: A position paper. Information
Security Journal, 13(1), 18-33. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/229518166?accountid=13479
Guled, A., Dozier, K., and Houreld, K. (2012). Raid in Somalia: U.S. Navy Seals free
hostages held since October. Retrieved from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/raid-in-somalia_n_1230062.html.
Hanson, P. D. (1984). War and peace in the Hebrew
Bible. Interpretation, 38(4), 341-362.
Henry,
C. (2003). The battle of coral sea. Retrieved
from googlebooks.com.
Hudson, L., Owens, C. S., & Flannes, M. (2011).
Drone warfare: Blowback from the new american way of war. Middle East Policy, 18(3), 122-132. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/900126963?accountid=13479
Klotz, I. (2012). U.S.
opening up airspace to use of drones. Retrieved from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46499162/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Laslie, B. (2006). Shockwave: Countdown to hiroshima. Air & Space Power Journal, 20(4),
119-120. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/217773727?accountid=13479
McFadden, R. and Shane, S. (2009). In rescue of captain, navy kills 3 pirates. Retrieved
from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/africa/13pirates.html?pagewanted=all.
Murphy, J. K. (2004). After 9/11: Priority focus
areas for bioterrorism preparedness in hospitals. Journal of Healthcare Management, 49(4), 227-35. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/206727167?accountid=13479
Murray, M. (2011). The Navy Seal team 6 weapons and gadgets that brought down Osama bin
Laden. Retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/navy-seal-team-weapons-gadgets-capture-osama-bin/story?id=13520401
Navy stands
up fleet cyber command, reestablished U.S. 10th fleet. (2010). Retrieved from:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50954.
NSW community
establishes new so and sb ratings. (2006).
Retrieved from: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=25916.
Ratha, N. K., Connell, J. H., & Bolle, R. M.
(2001). Enhancing security and privacy in biometrics-based authentication
systems. IBM Systems Journal, 40(3),
614-634. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/222418906?accountid=13479
Smallpox
2002. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/smallpox2002/.
