|
Battlefield of the Future: On 21st Century Warfare
by Lawrence E. Grinter & Barry R. Schneider
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Battlefield of the Future
Chapter 11
On Twenty-first Century Warfare
Lawrence E. Grinter<br>
Barry R. Schneider
One of the "revolutions in military affairs" began when the United
States successfully detonated its first atomic bomb in the early
1945 "Trinity" test. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations
followed in August 1945 to help end World War II in the Pacific.
In that same war, the Japanese experimented with germ warfare by
spreading bubonic plague agents on Chinese population centers via
bombing missions. Also in WWII, the Germans manufactured, but
did not use, Sarin and Tabun nerve gases. These nuclear,
biological, and chemical (NBC) armaments now form a new
"trinity" of weapons of mass destruction that now threaten to make
twenty-first century warfare potentially more costly than anything
seen before.
In 1995 the world has five acknowledged nuclear weapons states:
the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and
China-the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
In addition, there are at least three undeclared nuclear weapons
states: Israel, India, and Pakistan. Beyond this there are the near-
nuclear or just-nuclear states: such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq
after the international sanctions are lifted. If biological and
chemical weapons arsenals are added to the nuclear club, it is
estimated that between 20 and 30 states possess one or more of the
NBC and missile weapons of mass destruction. Some of these are
hostile radical regimes, rogue states that threaten their neighbors
with intervention and/or state-sponsored terrorism.
Another of the "revolutions in military affairs," at least from an
American perspective, has been the spread of WMD to such NBC-
arming sponsors of terrorism and intervention (NASTIs) and the
changes this will cause in how the United States and its allies will
have to fight, train, equip, and supply its forces opposing such
NASTIs in future major regional conflicts.
Will the United States and its allies be forced toward more
dispersed forces, greater mobility, outranging of the opponent in
disengaged combat, or improved active and passive defenses? Is this
the direction our militaries must take in such a conflict against such
a heavily armed opponent, or can we follow an enhanced version of
Desert Storm where, relying on escalation dominance to deter
enemy intrawar resort to WMD, we emphasize parallel warfare,
hyperwar, information warfare, dominating maneuver, precision
targeting, and/or space technologies to beat the enemy military in
the region and secure our objectives?
Which set of technologies will be used in twenty-first century
wars? Which set of strategies best fit those technologies? Will the
technologies of a past revolution in military affairs (RMA), in the
hands of our enemies, neutralize or preclude the utility of newer
technologies that constitute the more modern RMA? Translation:
Will the use of NBC and missile systems by the adversary dominate
the terms of battle so that our ability to prosecute information
warfare, space war, precision warfare, and dominating maneuver is
marginalized? Or will the fear of allied retaliation keep the
adversary from initiating WMD strikes against allied forces, ports,
air bases, and cities?
High altitude nuclear bursts and the resultant electro- magnetic
pulse (EMP) might render most allied space assets inert, and could
burn out the circuitry of most allied radio transmitters, radio
receivers, computers, transistors, and power grids in the region of
combat, rendering many of the high-tech assets of the allies
harmless, including many systems useful in information warfare
and precision air strikes.
Adversaries could also cause problems by mounting NBC weapons
on mobile missile launchers, camouflaged, constantly moved, and
hidden from sight and easy detection, creating a targeting nightmare
similar to that facing the allies in the Gulf War against Iraq's Scud
missile launchers.
Countermeasures taken to blind US and allied space assets may rob
war-fighting CINCs and their staffs of the information needed to
target enemy forces, especially their highest valued mobile military
assets like missile launchers. After all, missiles and smart bombs
still need correct coordinates to execute precision attacks before
they can be effective. Further, if the enemy is not blinded
effectively, the dominating maneuvers of future "left hooks" thrown
at the adversary may be rudely interrupted by catastrophic
encounters with enemy nuclear attacks, anthrax barrages, or a
battlefield engulfed in clouds of poison gases.
Would the NBC and missile "revolution in military affairs" now in
the hands of adversaries trump the Warden RMA of parallel
war/hyperwar or the "combined" RMA identified by the SAIC
analysts-changes in a combination of precision war, space war,
information war, and dominating maneuver technologies,
organizations, and strategies? Or will theater missile defenses
emerge that are so successful that an adversary, armed with 20 to 40
NBC warheads and ballistic and cruise missiles, can still be
neutralized?
Alternatively, even if very effective ballistic and cruise missile
defenses are not developed, will allied possession of an
overwhelming nuclear weapons preponderance be enough to deter
rogue states from using their more limited WMDs once war has
begun? In other words, will deterrence still suffice to keep warfare
below the NBC threshold even if effective missile and air defenses
are not available? These are some of the questions that the twenty-
first century will settle.
Clearly, successful strategy planning and warfighting for the United
States in the next 10 to 20 years will require highly sophisticated
and well integrated political-military-technical efforts. Strategy is
now being rethought in the midst of what some believe to be a
distinctive RMA. Throughout history there have been a number of
RMAs.
As the SAIC team has pointed out in their essay, the current RMA
is multifaceted and is demonstrating the simultaneous interplay and
reinforcement of technical, operational, organizational, and socio-
economic developments. This "integrated system" RMA is also
pushing the reinforcement of technical, organizational, and
operational factors simultaneously across all fighting mediums-
air, land, and sea. Within this integrated system RMA some "new"
or powerful areas of warfare are (or have been) emerging-like
long-range and stand-off precision strikes, information warfare,
dominating maneuver emphasizing the strategic positioning of
forces, and space warfare. The SAIC analysts argue that
combinations of these "new" warfare areas are accelerating the
present RMA.
Warden has written that offensive technical and military
advancements, combined with suppression of enemy defenses, now
give the United States the ability to wreak great havoc on some
potential adversary's entire target systems. Such a degree of
military shock might be applied to an adversary's system so quickly
that it could produce "paralysis". Adversaries, in time, however,
may develop countermeasures to these US capabilities for parallel
war and hyperwar, and may discover the means to reduce
vulnerabilities of their operational, communications, and logistics
centers of gravity.
These above-mentioned defensive measures by potential or actual
antagonists of the West are routine and they usually can be
countered. However, if an adversary also has a weapon of mass
destruction capability, the stakes and the effects on strategy could
substantially shift. WMD threats by radical, aggressive regimes
may well force the United States into very different kinds of
strategies. New modes of combat may have to emphasize mobile,
indirect, dispersed, standoff, and disengaged operations until such
time that forces in the combat area can be adequately defended
against air and missile attacks.
The United States and its allies simply cannot risk putting large
concentrations of our troops and equipment in the way of a WMD
attack. The magnitude of the casualties could exceed anything
experienced by the United States in a single battle. For example,
where the United States assembles a force like it fielded in the Gulf
War or like it maintains in the Korea-Japan region, more US troops
might be killed in a single one-day WMD attack than were lost in
all the years of the Vietnam War, Korean War, or even in World
War II.
In such mega-risk situations, time-honored principles of war, like
"mass," may have to be reinterpreted to mean an emphasis on the
concentration of firepower rather than the massing of troops. An
alternative is to rely more on constant movement, dispersion,
outranging the enemy, deceiving the adversary about one's own
centers of gravity, blinding of enemy reconnaissance, and
emphasizing disengaged "remote" combat until the enemy's WMD
and other "big guns" are silenced. Unless the enemy WMD can be
eliminated in initial counter-force strikes, the emphasis on
maintaining the offensive initiative in combat may have to be given
a lower priority at the onset of war than first erecting potent missile
and air defenses to counter possible enemy WMD strikes.
When confronting a "Saddam Hussein with WMD," it may become
essential to develop and deploy an airtight air defense system and
an effective multilayered missile defense in the regions threatened.
Theater missile defense (TMD) is the long pole in the tent, the most
important ingredient in any combination of changes needed to cope
with such radical and well-armed regimes.
No less than a two-tiered defensive system, where each layer has
around a 90 percent probability of kill against an incoming enemy
reentry vehicle, will be adequate for protecting US overseas
expeditionary forces, allied capitals, ports, air bases, naval convoys,
and population centers. Anything less and the problems of dealing
with NBC-armed adversaries begin to swamp the solutions.
Without such TMD protection, it could become suicidal to
introduce an army into a port or put into a region through local
airbases. Without effective missile and air defenses, enemy WMD
can scare off possible allies from joining a coalition against them
and raise the body count so high as to make US power projection
into the region politically untenable, and could even threaten the
outright defeat of US and allied forces in the field.
Without effective TMD, the costs of engaging such a NASTI may
far exceed the gains in defeating him. Without effective missile
defenses, it may even be advisable to revise US foreign policy
commitments so as not be compelled to undertake action in MRCs
against such lethal regional enemies.
On the other hand, the NASTI may be deterrable by allied
superiority in WMD, or the early deployment of effective active
defenses may help to persuade him not to escalate the conflict and
to abstain from using his nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
If such escalation dominance results in intrawar deterrence of the
enemy's use of his worst weapons, then the United States (and its
allies) may be free to exploit its technological edge via techniques
such as information warfare, precision strikes with advanced
conventional weapons, space assets, and other strategies such as the
dominating maneuver.
The development and employment of "information warfare,"
especially when targeted against an adversary leadership's
command and control systems or its ability to appear legitimate in
the eyes of its population, also looms as a potent new warfare
technique. In 1991, information technology already had changed
warfighting. The global positioning system (GPS) allowed US and
allied ground units participating in the "left hook" flanking attack
against the Iraqi army to maintain their positions accurately on the
Kuwaiti desert even during blinding sandstorms. Self-navigating
data drones can be employed to search autonomously across
numerous information networks. Propaganda via the Internet has
already been used by belligerents. Vulnerability to computer virus
warfare and other nonlethal disabling technologies now has the
attention of national security planners.
While the pursuit of nuclear weapons by rogue regimes is very
alarming, cheaper and quite lethal technologies of biological and
chemical warfare also are being developed. The Iraqi biological
warfare threat greatly concerned coalition military planners during
the Gulf War even though there is no proof biological weapons
were used. As Mayer and Kadlec have written, BW weapons are
easy to produce, and it is estimated that at least two dozen
countries have them. Some of the most dangerous among the BW
resources is Anthrax (bacillus anthracis) and the botulinum toxin.
Saddam Hussein had large chemical weapons programs under way,
and Iraq had begun to manufacture sizeable quantities of BW
agents prior to the Gulf War.
As Mayer's essay points out, a cult in Japan spread the Sarin agent
in Tokyo's subways, harming 5,500 people. This group also had
begun research on and the stockpiling of biological weapons when
Japanese police and security forces intervened. Biological warfare
programs are very hard to detect in the development and production
stages and could cause severe casualties if introduced into the
water, air, or food supplies of crowded populations or unprotected
armed forces.
Moreover, as Robert Kadlec writes, in contrast to chemical agents,
biological agents can be easily adapted for use with commercially
available sprayers, thus lending themselves to covert applications.
Finally, biological agents could be used to conduct economic
warfare and may easily be disguised as natural events that cause
agricultural disasters.
While the United States currently enjoys a significant conventional
force technical edge over likely rivals in the aftermath of the 1990-
91 Gulf War, this edge can be lost if a future adversary masters the
tools of the last RMA or the next one. Present US and allied
advantages may be lost if they generate countermeasures by future
enemies that neutalize or leapfrog them. There is little doubt that
the continuous game between rival powers of measure, counter
measure, counter- counter measure, etc., will continue into the
twenty-first century as new ideas and technologies are introduced
by strategists and scientists. National security is a continuous
process, not a final resting place. Those who rest on their present
military advantages, rather than seeking continuous improvements
to cope with future threats and the changing conditions of future
conflicts, may well be left behind, consigned to defeat in the next
era.
Already, the United States and its allies are encountering rogue
states newly armed with the weapons of mass destruction that were
formerly held only by the major powers. This will affect the ability
to project power into those regions and will require a thorough
reexamination of the ways future major regional conflicts are to be
fought. Soon, too, the United States and its allies may encounter
new modes of warfare-in the realms of land, sea, air, space, and
cyberspace-through the use of innovations in computer-enhanced
information technologies, digitalization of the battlefield, space-
based military systems, precision guided smart weapons, theater
missile defenses, nuclear arms, chemical arms, and biological
weapons.
United States and allied strategists, scientists, and operators must
continue peering hard into the future, and applying the lessons of
such thinking to ensure mastery of these trends and to stay ahead of
very diligent competitors in order to give our military forces the
highest probability of victory on the battlefields of the future.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those
of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic
environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official
position of the US Government, Department of Defense, the United
States Air Force or the Air University.
|
|