And with AI, the way nations fight will get nastier

In late 1940s, many pundits believed that World War 2 would be the last large-scale military conflict. With the clarion call of “never again”, it was hoped that the world had entered a phase of long-term peace. Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Gaza by General David Petraeus and Andrew Roberts puts this hypothesis to a severe test. The authors show that not only did conflict not go away but evolved in surprising ways. 

After nukes were added to arsenals, with multiple countries testing their own nuclear weapons, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) came to dominate military-strategic discourse. However, MAD only put an upper limit to warfare, per the authors. It opened up a whole range of conflict situations and military tactics that could be carried out below that nuclear threshold. These evolved in stages over multiple conflict theatres. 

For example, the Chinese civil war – the first big consequential conflict after WWII – saw the better equipped nationalist forces under Chiang Kai-shek get routed by Mao’s communist peasant soldiers. While much of this was due to the nationalist forces’ losses fighting the Japanese in WWII, it was also due to Chiang’s personality. The Generalissimo had a centralised command structure and surrounded himself with ‘yes men’ who avoided giving their leader tough advice. 

The pattern repeated with American General MacArthur in the Korean war. MacArthur cultivated for himself a larger-than-life image that couldn’t be questioned. As a result, the war between communist North Korea and US-backed South Korea saw massive loss of lives and a frozen conflict. Per the authors, Korea and then Vietnam also created an impression among communist autocracies that capitalist, liberal democracies were flaky and didn’t have the stomach to go the distance in a fight. 

Plus, the history of conflicts since 1945 shows that autocracies sans internal opposition are more inclined to mount surprise attacks to initiate wars, be it Korea in 1950 or Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. However, this doesn’t necessarily give the aggressor a long-term advantage.

Meanwhile, the evolution of guerrilla tactics, particularly in Vietnam, showed that underfunded, rag-tag forces could defeat much richer modern Western armies. But India also showed in Kashmir in 1947 how effective counter-insurgency operations could be mounted. Despite wars with Pakistan in 1965, 1971, 1999 – and more recently during Op Sindoor – India has managed to prevent the low-intensity conflict in Kashmir from evolving into a bigger conflict. 

But in Russia’s war in Ukraine, Moscow made some classic mistakes – it underestimated Ukraine’s resilience, pushed over-optimistic propaganda and conducted a WWII-style military campaign that is completely ill-suited to modern warfare. In Gaza, it was Israel that underestimated Hamas’s capability to launch a terror attack with military tactics. 

So, what’s the future of warfare? The authors say conflicts are bound to become more multi-dimensional with everything from national currencies to public opinion being weaponised. This also changes the meaning of victory and defeat, making them temporary positions. The world might just be entering an era of continuous war where new technologies like AI can potentially weaponise every aspect of our lives.

END OF ARTICLE