War: What Can Technology Do For Us?

Political figures and military analysts are lining up on talk shows to caution Americans that this will be a different kind of war, protracted, costly, secretive. But recent military confrontations have taught Americans to expect conflicts primarily waged by machines -- wars without real sacrifice. This war began with dreadful, although geographically localized, civilian sacrifice. But those greenish nighttime pictures are already pouring out of Kabul and Kandahar, along with the precision-bomb photos, and satellite shots of training camps and military outposts. Most Americans are convinced that technology -- GPS targeting systems, thermal imaging, new intelligence retrieval systems, pilotless drone reconnaisance aircraft, high-altitude bombers, special forces equipped with goggles than can see into caves -- will carry the day for us. Will it? What can technology really do for us in this new war?

Both the first Bush and the Clinton administrations, from Desert Storm to Kosovo, advanced the idea of conflict with little civilian loss and few casualties of our own. But thousands of American civilians are already dead in this conflict, greater civilian losses than in any war in U.S. history. Still, the military analysts, network pundits and Pentagon officials are going to great lengths to point out that Taliban and fundamentalist fighters are skilled and determined, that this conflict will be long and difficult, that our expectations should be kept realistic. And bin Laden is a surprisingly agile enemy. He not only grasps America's most vulnerable points, he understands "spinning," using video-imagery and satellite transmission to get his side of the story out. This is something Saddam never began to grasp.

But are our expectations realistic? Are we once again overrating our own technology, and underestimating less sophisticated cultures and populations? Most Americans have been prepared for years to place enormous faith in a range of new technologies that are supposed to make us the most powerful military force in world history. Sophisticated technologies devastated the Iraqi military in Desert Storm. While their results were more controversial in the Kosovo action, there remained little American loss of life. The bloody action in Somolia showed us yet again that technology is not effective if it can't be used for political or military reasons. And Panama and Grenada resembled police actions more than military conflicts.

In this new war, though, it seems clear that American forces will be involved in some sort of ground fighting on Afghanistan's murderous terrain, and that would mean a battle more reminiscent of Vietnam than Kuwait.

What can technology do for us? Can GPS targeting systems really place bombs that accurately? Can intelligence analysts in the U.S. instantly track raw data without leaving their offices? Can civilian populations really be protected? Can thermal imaging and satellite surveillance see into caves or track small units in mountainous terrains? Can government computers follow money around the world? Will our soldiers' tech-equipped vehicles, equipment and weapons give them an edge over the the Russians, who were chewed to bits in their conflict with Afghanistan guerrillas, but whose equipment was comparatively primitive? Have we actually developed a new mix of tech-supported human and machine warfare that is deadly, flexible and effective?

From reading the papers and watching the generals on TV, we see confidence from the military that the answers to most of these questions is yes. But the people reading this have a much better than average grasp of these tech issues. Do you agree? What can tech do for us -- or not do -- in this supposedly new era?

For $600,000 a pop...

[ackthpt]

For $600,000 [navy.mil] a pop we can rearrange the rocks in Afghanistan. Probably a good read would be Starship Troopers (skip the really dumb movie) Technology vs. experience + fighting on their home turf + emotional value of fighting for their way of life (however you want to define it) and the result is move very, very carefully. Also, the country is littered with mines from 10+ years of war, which are redistributed with each rockslide along mountain trails. Something to think about.

Re:The Soviets learned the hard lesson first

[Hammer]

I may be picky but I think the Brits learned the same lesson before Soviet even existed...

Re:Technology and war

[JimPooley]

jet engine developed by the Germans
Ahem. Jet Engine. I think you'll find this was invented by Sir Frank Whittle [soton.ac.uk] in the early 30's. Just that the Air Ministry wouldn't back it. Had it been put into development sooner the Battle of Britain may have been a lot shorter, and the war...
We also invented RADAR [zetnet.co.uk], and used it to detect the incoming bombers so squadrons could be scrambled in time to get to the right height.

Who is Backing the Taliban?

[sterno]

One thing that seems to get glazed over an awful lot is that during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the rebel groups were being backed by the United States and others. In this war they are completely cut off from outside assistance. Nobody is dumb enough to do something like that right now and risk us making them an enemy.

Another thing to note is that the Soviets had very different goals when they went into Afghanistan. They wanted to take over the country. The US is interested in eliminating a threat, which means taking out terrorists and those who sponsored them. We want to get in and get out as fast as possible, and ideally want some other group to come to power in afghanistan who doesn't hate us quite so much. We are trying to play various internal afghanistan factions against eachother, and making a point of not being a common enemy for them to unite against.

To analyze this war against the backdrop of Soviet Afghanistan or Vietnam seems to belittle the truely different nature of this conflict. This doesn't mean it will be easy, and certainly with some policy mistakes we could turn it into such a conflict. But the goals here and the enviornment under which we are attempting to achieve them is very different from these historical precedents.

Are these facts Jon?

[trcooper]

But thousands of American civilians are already dead in this conflict, greater civilian losses than in any war in U.S. history.

First we'll assume you mean U.S. civilians, as millions were killed in WWII, which is certainly still in the recollection of most Americans. Going a bit further back, but again certainly within U.S. history, there was the civil war. Do you honestly believe that there were not more civilians killed in that war?

Now on to your question. There is no doubt that our technology will benifit us. Do our GPS targetting systems work, certainly. Are our satellites as good as we think they are for battlefield intelligence? You betcha. Have our soldiers been better prepared both mentally and physically? Absolutley. Can the Taliban win this war? No chance.

But it isn't technology that gives us the real advantage. We had technology on our side in Vietnam. We didn't win. Sure, it wasn't nearly at the level we have now, and we didn't have the experience using what we had in real situations, but we simply were more powerful. But we didn't win. Why didn't we win? During Vietnam we were a divided nation. We had defeated the Viet Cong in South Vietnam by 1968. But the north saw our division here in America, and counted on us to give in to internal pressures. To make a long story short, we did.

Today there's no such division. The overwhelming majority of people in this country believe this is something that needs to be done. Sure there are some people who disagree, but they certainly aren't the majority. Our nation is united. The other nations of the world are also standing behind us. If we continue to stand united, we will win this war, just as we've won all other wars that we've stood through united.

When all is said and done, some may say that technology won the war. But the real reasons will have had nothing to do with technology.

Link to above speech.

[Futurepower(tm)]

Here's a link that works:

Osama bin Laden: Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders [fas.org]

He is doing what he can to make violence seem reasonable. But it isn't.

Re:pointless arms race

[Wyatt Earp]

Not really accurate.

Many weapons systems in the hands of NATO, US, and Russia are systems that our enemies can't get or don't have.

An example - Soviet fighters.

All the aircraft the Soviets and now Russians export are Export models with toned down sensors and weapons systems.

Same goes for the export versions of American fighters, missiles and sensor equipment.

American M-1 tanks, while in service with Egypt and Kuwait, have not ended up in the hands of the Taliban. Same goes for the F-16s and F-15s, Tornados in the hands of Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman or Indonesia.

Even "client" states like Iraq we unable to get the latest versions of Soviet T-72 or BMPs, instead having to buy knock-off T-84s from Yugoslavia and Chinese APCs. Not because of the price, but because the Soviets would not sell them the best gear. The T-62s and 72s Iraq had were the second or third best models the Soviets had, not the front-line models in East Germany.

Arms races are not new. The idea behind an arms race dates back to the first invention of weapons (other than a rock or stick) by man. The point is to inflict damage upon an enemy or the enemy society to the point that the enemy will no longer oppose your society in whatever venture you are currently at odds over. Where the "race" comes in, is to achive those goals with a lower cost in whatever your society holds dear, in this case it's material loses and life of your citizens.

War is an ugly thing!

[moopster]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

~John Stewart Mill