Essay Example on the Weakness of Technology in Warfare

"The overreliance in technology in warfare is a disadvantage. 20th & 21st Century conflicts demonstrate that technological use by powerful nations is a weakness exploited by enemies." This statement is true because there is evidence that dependence on technology has countermeasures on military strategy. The same technological edge that powerful nations boast of over their enemies is the vulnerable points that adversary always capitalize on (Cummings, 2017). Enemies today focus their efforts on countering the advanced capabilities that nations develop to defend their citizens and support themselves technologically. The aspects of security that these enemies target are facilities construct, personnel, leadership, material, training, organization, and doctrine.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Nations spend billions of dollars in measures aimed at denying their adversaries the chance to counter their technological strategies. Huge amounts go into the purchase firewall and encryption codes for warfare equipment and back up power sources. Even though some of these anti-countermeasure structures are highly elaborate, they are still prone to attack. Countries like the United States are alarmed by the awareness that even some of the most secure networks in the world can have an operational failure. Arnaud de Borchgrave upon observing the vulnerability of the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) which supports the majority of America's sensitive government information as well military control and command communications concluded that there is no such a thing as secure networks (Cummings, 2017). Since the National Security Agency came to this discovery, it has been a major cause of alarm to the US which coordinates and shares most of its classified information on the network. Moreover, the vulnerability of SIPRnet brings up the big question of how the US ought to secure its military systems.

But these networks, just like many other management information infrastructures, are capable of failing during normal operation even without the action of an enemy. This includes even important systems like that of the Department of Defense. For example, such operational failure has led to the closure of the National Security Agency headquarters for more than 72 hours in the past (Cummings, 2017). Given such susceptibility of these systems to failure without the help of the countries enemies, one wonders how much devastating it could be if such problems are caused by coordinated attacks. Since such information and details of such failures somehow find its way to the media, it becomes even easier for the enemy to figure out what the weakness is.

It does not require rocket science to tell that enemies of countries like the US and UK that intensively rely on modern age technologies have a weakness that can be asymmetrically targeted (Bousquet, 2009). Having highly advanced military technology overwhelmingly puts your enemies at a disadvantage. Therefore, they can take advantage of the dependence to come up with and execute corresponding measures that can help narrow this gap. Effective countermeasures never miss even in the areas where the rich countries have the greatest technical leverage (Van Creveld, 2007). This directly undermines the capabilities of rich nations. Alternatively, the enemy may choose to operate in a military-related political arena, remaining safely beyond the scope of the powerful nations' military capabilities and thus making technology irrelevant. Therefore, dominating the battlefield technology does not guarantee that the enemy will not successfully carry out attacks against a powerful or rich country indirectly or through technical countermeasures.

As the wealthy nations continue to advance their military technology capabilities, their adversaries are devising new related techniques to tackle their progress. Such alternative approaches include the use of lies and deception, psychological operation, and electronic warfare. In the future, attacker of the world superpowers is likely to adopt the use of more advanced military technologies such as electromagnetic pulse and directed energy weapons (Evans & Moreno, 2014).

One problem with an overreliance on technology for military prowess is that military technology systems are very costly and they take time to develop and establish. On the other hand, countermeasures of the same technology are easier to develop and execute and are never costly (Bousquet, 2009). These future tools aside, military adversaries are already launching coordinated attacks on networks of their challengers. Thus, simple, inexpensive tools have made it possible to overcome even the most advanced technology that these nations introduce into the battlefield.

Other examples of include countermeasures devices that can light up the darkness and undo all the privileges that come with using night vision equipment. Besides, the enemy can skip the high-tech navigational device of virtually any country without limiting obstacles. There are some of the direct effects of the dependence on technology on America. It is important for the armed forces of a technology dependent nation as the United States to know that the attackers do not only target state actors (Bellais, 2013). With the increasing funding opportunity for the violent extremist organizations and non-state actors, the enemy units are becoming less predictable and more effective in their countermeasures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, technology continually changes into a two-edged sword for military attackers because the advancement of national capabilities increases technological vulnerability of nations. The first edge is that both social and technological changes increase the cost of war for technology-dependent nations. Secondly, technology makes the extremist groups get an alternative means of destruction. Eventually, the dominance of the leading nations will decline as the enemies come up with new ways to make countermeasure.

References

Bellais, R. (2013). Technology and the defense industry: real threats, bad habits, or new (market) opportunities?. Journal of Innovation Economics Management, (2), 59-78.

Boot, M. (2006). War made new: technology, warfare, and the course of history, 1500 to today. Penguin.

Bousquet, A. (2009). The scientific way of warfare. Order and Chaos on the Battlefields of Modernity, New York.

Cummings, M. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare. Chatham House for the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Evans, N. G., & Moreno, J. D. (2014). Yesterday's war; tomorrow's technology: peer commentary on 'Ethical, legal, social and policy issues in the use of genomic technologies by the US military'. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(1), 79-84.

Van Creveld, M. (2007, October 24). War and Technology. Retrieved from HYPERLINK "https://www.fpri.org/article/2007/10/war-technology-2/" https://www.fpri.org/article/2007/10/war-technology-2/