The Strategic Advantage Of Technology

By 2004 it was clear that Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) were lethal and the weapon of choice for insurgents engaged in irregular warfare in Iraq. Field commanders faced a struggle regarding how best to protect their troops from the evolving IED threat and the resulting catastrophic injuries and fatalities they produced. Standard thin skin Humvees did not provide ample protection, nor did up-armored Humvees. Route clearance and explosive ordnance disposal vehicles, known as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP), gained a reputation among field commanders for being survivable vehicles. (Feikert, aug07, p2) Thus began the debate as to whether to continue using up-armored Humvees, push for MRAPs, or hold out for a future vehicle

By 2004, it was clear that Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) were lethal and the weapon of choice for insurgents engaged in irregular warfare in Iraq. Commanders faced a struggle regarding how best to protect their troops from the evolving IED threat and the resulting catastrophic injuries and fatalities they produced. Standard thin skin HMMWVs did not provide ample protection, nor did up-armored HMMWVs. Route clearance and explosive ordnance disposal vehicles, known as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP), gained a reputation among field commanders for being survivable vehicles. Thus began the debate as to whether to continue using up-armored HMMWVs, push for MRAPs, or hold out for a future vehicle that met the requirements for

Warfare is a relentless pursuit to gain an edge on the opponent and defeat him as quickly as possible and minimize your own losses. The new American way of war uses massive firepower, excels in advanced technology, and pursues total victory. Backed by U.S. mighty military power, the new American way of war has put on impressive shows in wars in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. The new American way of war is faster in maneuver, armed with sharper precision firepower, and advanced command and control. This new American way of war, according to Max Boot, avoids the traditional, industrial-age necessity of overwhelming force in favor of maneuver, flexibility, and speed, all empowered by greater use of C4ISR, smart munitions, special

Von Moltke’s second advantage (arguably the major military innovation) was the use of the telegraph (in 1866) to link the headquarters of each “field army” with the Prussian King and the Chief of the General Staff. No such means of rapid, secure communications had previously existed in war. Von Moltke, whose job was to give broad strategic direction and delegate powers, could demonstrate strategic deployment by remote control, and communicate with the King. He entrusted his entire correspondence to the telegraph and synchronised the opening moves of the war from his Berlin office. Only once, on June 30th, did he leave his Berlin office and travel to Bohemia with the King and the Great Headquarters. The importance of this telegraph system cannot

The Mine Resistant Ambush Protective (MRAP) program featured remarkable speed of development and mass production at the same time that the United States shifted its counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. The main controversy over the MRAP program revolved around the three year delay from its initial identification as a need to its production. This paper asserts that while MRAP development and production speed was impressive, the slow realization of the enemy’s Improvised Explosive Device (IED) capability and the lack of doctrine and concept development led to inaction. To support this position, this essay describes the strategic environment with its competing demands, and it highlights the roles of senior leaders, the Armed Services and the Combatant

Theories and technology are tools for the commander, but the ingenuity and skills allow their best use to achieve the objectives of the war. This is important because the uncertainty surrounding the fog of war make military leaders prone to try to imitate successful strategies from past wars without considering the differences between the scenarios. Swiss theorist Baron de Jomini in the XIX century claimed that governments should choose their best commander and leave him free to fight war according to scientific principles. These principles were focused on the tactical level and were inspired by the decisive maneuvers during Napoleonic wars; however, war has no universal rules that assure victory. In World War I, new technologies like machine guns and

War, in ancient times, was won by soldiers in the fray. The Spartans, the Greeks and the Romans, these great empires were considered to be the masters in close combat. All of them sharing one philosophy, that ‘new always

Over the past decade, wars and interventions in the Middle East have broken up existing states, fostered sectarianism and destroyed infrastructures, creating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It is now a region full of failed or failing states, increasingly dominated by militias and terrorists. In response to ISIS's recent advancement and terrorist acts, America has created a surveil and a strike mentality that now dominates our counterterrorism in an effort to avoid placing U.S. grounds troops in harms way. It is popular with our government officials because it is easy, plays to our technological strengths, and does not force us to make any significant foreign policy changes. However, the United States objectives cannot be achieved

Over the last century, the evolution of warfare has predominantly been influenced by the introduction and technological advances of air power. The United States utilizes these new technological advances and the advantages of air power to achieve strategic objectives in their intervention of Islamic states in the Middle East. Their overall purpose for using air power in warfare is to minimize American causalities while eradicating insurgents to ensure national security as well as secure the United States' dominating economic position. Undoubtedly, air power

In the early stages of the war on terror the United States military flooded the Middle East with equipment that had not been updated since Desert Storm. Troop carriers and up armored Humvees were flown in to the Middle East along with being sent by naval vessels to accomplish the mission at hand. However, with the changing of times the opposing forces and tactics adapted to impact the US-led invasion. The outdated equipment of yesteryear was causing catastrophic casualty rates at levels never seen before. An innovative enemy was created, the improvised explosive device (IED). With this undeniable threat, a change needed to be employed immediately to increase the survival rate

Arguably, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in December 2001 and Iraq in 2003, it expected similarly decisive results as U.S. military supremacy was still unmatched. However, as history has demonstrated, over the past decade the U.S. has had to redefine its military strategies to counter the growing asymmetric tactics utilized against U.S. forces by terror organizations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Strategists define asymmetric warfare as conflict deviating from the norm, or an indirect approach to affect a counter-balancing of force (Grange, 2000). The USSR was the first to coin the term during its unsuccessful attempt to defend its invasion of Afghanistan against the Afghan Mujahedeen (Rowley & Rathbone, 2002), but the tactical advantages provided by asymmetric warfare have encouraged its use since the earliest of conflicts. Asymmetric warfare at its core is a tactic or methodology, demarcated by a weaker opponent’s use of limited force to capitalize on a specific weakness of an unsurmountable military opponent (Snow, 2014).

The nature of warfare is ever evolving. Due to various factors such as globalization and technological advances, twenty-first century warfare is different from previous conflicts. The United States participated in two large, protracted conflicts since the start of the century – Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. These wars demonstrated the hybrid nature of warfare where the United States faced both conventional and then irregular forces. Today another type of threat is emerging in the cyber domain. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin E. Dempsey, stressed the changing nature of warfare in the forward of the 2015 National Military Strategy, explaining that the United States faced not only

Thesis Statement: Technology alone is not a silver bullet without strategy and operation tactics in war victory.

The modern day business environment is evolving at a rapid pace and the economic agents are forced to develop alongside, or risk the loss of their competitive position. The changes currently affecting the business community have their roots in a multitude of instances, including the increasing forces of globalization and market liberalization, the intensifying competition from both domestic as well as international players, the changing demands of the customers, the changing political and economic contexts, or the quick evolution of technology.

The technological community is evolving at a rapid pace, generating change within the entire economy and forcing the other domains and sectors to also develop alongside. Within its internal context, the technological field is a highly complex one, not only due to the complexity of the innovations, but also due to the implications they generate, such as ongoing change, the need to integrate the innovations for multiple benefits or the competition intensified by the technology.