Revolution In Military Affairs

The previous years of the beginning World War I, the military technology produced an enormous firepower that made the 20th century’s western armies capable to set up advantageous positions, and during the course of the war, tanks, artillery and infantry weapons, aircraft, battleship, and gas were decisive solutions. For example, Knox and Murray state that in 1917 air force was a very important power in both Britain and Germany, which provided them not only the reconnaissance to reconnoiter enemy positions but also artillery observation to support the bombing missions by enhancing its attack and coordinating ground-air operations. Due to today’s progress in technologies since World War I has acquainted with, military is able to conduct fight by using advanced technologies in the uncertain and complex environment whether in defensive or offensive positions that enhance the speed and quality of combat, as well as the basic combat value of an individual warrior. In today’s warfare, similarly World War I, military forces use last advanced weaponries and unmanned aircrafts to provide air operations in terms of intelligence and reconnaissance and to continue their combat role by attacking high-value targets. For instance, in today’s conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq the unmanned aerial vehicles play the same

This paper was written by Dr. Richard L. Kugler from the National Defense University, Center of Technology and National Security. Operation Anaconda was a success, but taught many lessons for modern-era force operations and defense transformation that deserves to be remembered (Kugler, 2007). Even though the battle plan was complex and sophisticated, it was not followed by the Afghan forces, which left US ground troops to do the battle alone. US forces had to replan the battle at a moment's notice.

Our nation’s military continuously evolves to ensure success in future operations. This change is only be possible if our top leaders work in concert towards a common goal. The purpose of this document is to highlight how General Stanley McChrystal changed the manner in which the U.S. Military operates and communicates in an ever-changing environment.

The increase in technology and intelligence will play a crucial role in the development of the Army. Gen. Milley hit on some important notes in regards to unit effectiveness with these changes. The most difficult question discussed revolves around the how to ease armed conflict. The delivery methods of conflict are evolving and have the potential to completely transform warfare. Also discussed within the same context was the standards of national interest. Furthermore, the implementation of robotics creates a potential for warfare to completely be redefined.

Technologies based on ideas from the First World War have changed the way countries defend and attack during wartime through the mechanization of warfare, chemical warfare, and war transportation.

“Assess the significance of the deployment of new technology in influencing the nature of warfare in the years 1845-1991”

The US Army has fought two major wars since 2001. The outcomes from these two war has informed the need to understand the operational environment through partnership with US allies in the regions of US interest in order to dominate these areas. The full benefits of Regionally Aligned Forces (RAFs)/Brigades can therefore not be overemphasized.

In the introduction to his book, World War II: New Technologies: Technologies That Affected WWII Warfare, Ryan Jenkins said, “Weapons are not the only technology of war, however. Wars are not won by guns, bullets and bombs alone. Communications and intelligence technology, production techniques (both industrial and agricultural), weapons components, and much else are a part of warfare, and the nations that succeed in those areas are just as likely to succeed as those whose success comes solely in the form of weapons.”

Since the beginning of our nation and the development and expansion of the services that defend it, we have faced a myriad of complex issues: shrinking force structures, global security concerns, and fiscal constraints to name a few. From George Washington’s Continental Army, which evolved into the current Joint Force operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are faced with increasing complexity of the operating environment. This heightened complexity and ever shrinking available assets to satisfy these requirements, are the very reason that all commanders at all levels need to find innovative ways to increase operational efficiency in addition to lowering fiscal and asset demands. This new operating environment has also driven the Army Reserve to transform from a traditional strategic force to an operational force.

Although the article was written a long time ago, it help me gained a better understanding about the historical perspective of the regulatory issues that are associated with a WMD attack response. I was able to compare and contrast the WMD response strategies that were used during the time that article was written against the current WMD response strategies that I learned throughout this course. Finally, I was able to learn about some of the laws and polices that were created to improve WMD response

The Mine Resistant Ambush Protective (MRAP) program featured remarkable speed of development and production at the time the United States shifted its counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. The controversy over the MRAP program revolved around the three year delay from when the field initially identified its need until its production. This paper asserts that while MRAP development and production speed was impressive, the slow reaction to the enemy’s Improvised Explosive Device (IED) capability and the lack of doctrine and concept development led to delay. To support this position, this essay describes the strategic environment with its competing efforts, and it compares the MRAP acquisition to normal Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP). Furthermore, it recommends rapid acquisition of other MDAPs of equivalent strategic importance and urgency, and it highlights the key roles of senior leaders, the Services and the CCMDs within the MRAP acquisition process.

Field commanders requested safer vehicles suited for irregular warfare tactics, and received up-armored Humvees and add-on armor kits, which did not provide sufficient protection in an irregular warfare environment. Further, the services were slow to respond to combatant commanders’ requests for MRAPs because their priority was to develop the JLTV, fueled by the assertion that MRAPs would be obsolete beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This speaks to the tendency of the services to invest in future capabilities, while failing to provide combatant commanders with a method to develop or procure equipment necessary to successfully fight present wars (Carter, p.2). The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) oversees JCIDS and is “often misaligned because it often defers to the services. Neither the Army nor the Marines wanted to invest in MRAPs, so neither did the JROC” (p. 10, Lamb). As a result, the requirement for MRAPs was slow to validate and once valid remained an unfunded requirement until political pressure and public opinion forced the Pentagon to reevaluate fielding MRAPs in large numbers.

Warfare on the battlefield has been ever changing since the conception of it in the early human era. The first weapons used on the battlefield were extremely primitive but it did not take long for the evolution of warfare to begin. Human ingenuity can be extremely beneficial towards the betterment of mankind, unfortunately it can also be destructive. Eventually air threats were introduced into warfare, resulting in the need to shoot them down. The complexity of ever-changing aerial threats warranted the need for the most powerful countermeasures to be put into place known as Air Defense Artillery (ADA).

Political support is the primary and foremost key component in developing successful innovation. Furthermore, military innovation cannot deviate from the strategic guidance of the nation, without reconstructing the defense strategy and military vision. Nonetheless, this reconstruction can occur if the current innovation and military development is defined upon outdated technology. Therefore, peacetime innovation is an opportunity to combat deficiencies as well as capability gaps in order to maintain the competitive edge against potential enemies or threats to a nation. Most importantly, the cost of the innovation, training, and implementation must be feasible through current funding and allocation and approved by bureaucrats. Spending outside ones means in this factor will result in both incomplete and inadequate innovation. 1

Stepping into a world of advancing technology brings in the improvement of devastating artillery. In