Interesting concept, but if we hit WWIII its going to be from Iran bombing israel, or at least that is my bet.

On Tuesday I was flipping through the encyclopedia of sociology (yea I read it for fun). Can't remember what it said about china's development after the death of Mao, but I do remember it clearly said that the leaders had to mix it up because of how hard it would be to educate the people and keep them employed even with an expansive military, but I don't think we are going to go to war with China, the business ties are too strong.

Quote from zetamale

Interesting concept, but if we hit WWIII its going to be from Iran bombing israel, or at least that is my bet.

On Tuesday I was flipping through the encyclopedia of sociology (yea I read it for fun). Can't remember what it said about china's development after the death of Mao, but I do remember it clearly said that the leaders had to mix it up because of how hard it would be to educate the people and keep them employed even with an expansive military, but I don't think we are going to go to war with China, the business ties are too strong.

A great piece of satire,the onion network would be proud of such a story.

People often claim nuclear weapons made war between large states impossible, or obsolete. They posit therefore such wars may return if the threat of nuclear attack is removed, and people have put forth many claims in this area. As or more vital is the fact that the first world war demonstrated that it was possible for any advanced state to militarise every aspect of its society and almost the whole of its population; conventional warfare undertaken for a clausewitzian purpose ceased at that point to be a worthwhile game. It will always cost more to wage a war against a modern state with the will to fight and resist than you might gain unless some vast imbalance exists. This was intrinsically understood, and explains why it took such obscene aggression and provocation to begin the second world war. A third world war we must posit would require no less.

The idea China, by 2025, could have acquired military assets enough to challenge the United States is, in no uncertain terms, one of the most risible suggestions I have ever heard. China has a large army and its forces are relatively sophisticated but at this moment it has almost no ability to project force. Literally zero. China would be hard-pressed, logistically, to maintain active forces in South East Asia, or in Russia, let alone the continental United States. While it is true downing US satellites would provide a potent advantage in any way what precisely would this be followed by?

Will the Chinese armed forces strap themselves to bits of drift-wood, float across the pacific and storm the West Coast?

Resistance is an act of will, and so long as it can be maintained the attacker must in the end have the ability to physically become involved, and with overwhelming force remove their opponents ability to resist in a very real nuts and bolts way. This is why Hannibal eventually had to flee Rome and it's why England never realistically felt compelled to surrender in the second world war.

GPS signals crucial to the navigation of U.S. ships and aircraft worldwide are compromised. Carrier fleets begin steaming in circles in the mid-Pacific. Fighter squadrons are grounded.

I can navigate a sea-going vessel without GPS. What prevents the US from doing so? They had absolutely no problems fighting in the Pacific without it during WWII. The same goes for fighter squadrons. Of course their ability to project force globally would be limited, and GPS is invaluable for long-range actions, but in a scenario like this all they need to do is prevent the PRC from projecting force across the Pacific (I could probably do this with a slingshot and a surfboard) this article completely ignores several points. China and the US between them are not the only nations with assets in space and the capability to launch satellites. Almost every other nation which does has no reason to be happy about mindless Chinese aggression (Russia and Japan) not to mention others being tenaciously allied to the US (England and France) try not to forget as well that in any potential war with China America controls what is essentially a tenaciously defended, unsinkable aircraft carrier just off its coast (Japan) and is likely to do so for as long as the Japanese constitution forbids them to project force. The is unlikely to ever change; it is far too profitable for Japan to have such a small military budget.

Even with only land based detection and control systems (X-band radar and so on) it is not impossible, indeed, perfectly possible to perform offensive operations, to maintain control of aircraft and shipping. With such assets in Japan even without satellites the US could launch air strikes on most of Chinas coastal cities.

While those second-rate U.S. supercomputers fail to crack the malware's devilishly complex code

This is Salon.com right? What evidence do they have to assume the US's supercomputers will be second-rate, apart from the standard liberal bias and hate-for-all-things-American?

Fine though let's talk about, let's pretend such an attack really is fatal. Imagine China threatens to launch nuclear weapons at the US unless they surrender unconditionally, and of course the US can't launch back because of the magic virus. Let's not assume that any of these vital systems operate on closed networks, or that there are any other insurmountable security devices. Forget that it was, and remains perfectly possible to target large cities with ICBMS without GPS or any other satellite based system, and that even if we assume a poor hit-rate using such methods the US's nuclear arsenal is such a joke that it could utterly ruin the entire PRC with fallout alone (without scoring a single hit, but just launching its weapons randomly about the country-side) bearing all that in mind.

The rest of the world (including other nuclear-capable NATO powers) just sit back and take it? During WWII the final bargaining chip of any country facing occupation was its fleet. The French fleet was an objective of much controversy. The British drew up plans to transfer their substantial (at the time, the worlds largest) navy into dominion hands in the event of occupation. One peculiar, but potentially very effective British gambit was the suggestion of offering it to the United States at essentially collateral in order to forge a war-pact. A powerful fleet is a serious asset. The US fleet can, on its own, confer super-power status (there is full first or second-strike capability within its forces) it is quite likely a NATO ally could, with the potential to take possession of this force, prove a limiting wild-card.

I'll make some notes on more likely scenarios later. I do not really believe WWIII is possibly although a large nuclear exchange might be.

There will be a WWIII. When it happens, most of the people in the world will either be dead or suffering in prison, thanks to the global police state. Before the war starts, you'll all be given the option to take death over slavery.

@dad_savage I'm eagerly awaiting your further ruminations!

Quote from dad_savage

Will the Chinese armed forces strap themselves to bits of drift-wood, float across the pacific and storm the West Coast?

. . .

Of course their ability to project force globally would be limited, and GPS is invaluable for long-range actions, but in a scenario like this all they need to do is prevent the PRC from projecting force across the Pacific (I could probably do this with a slingshot and a surfboard)

Lol, I believe you're poking fun at China's navy capablilities. In this article, "Why the West Rules--For Now," Ian Morris writes:

. . . China recreated a unified empire in the 6th century AD, while the West never did so. For more than a millennium, until at least 1700, China was the richest, strongest, and most inventive place on earth, and the East pulled ahead of the West. East Asian inventors came up with one breakthrough after another. By 1300 their ships could cross the oceans and their primitive guns could shoot the people on the other side . . . Geography determined that it was Western Europeans, rather than the 15th century’s finest sailors—the Chinese—who discovered, plundered, and colonized the Americas. Chinese sailors were just as daring as Spaniards; Chinese settlers just as intrepid as Britons

Which is an overwrought way for me to make the somewhat irrelevant point that the Chinese were awesome sailors. Coincidentally, that article also states:

The shift of the world’s center of gravity to Western Europe in the 19th century and from Europe to America in the 20th triggered the biggest wars of all time. Tens of millions died because the rulers of great powers in relative decline did not understand why the tide of history seemed to have turned against them. Our own century looks even more alarming. China’s GDP will probably overtake America’s by 2030, and if present trends continue, its military spending will catch up before 2040. The assertiveness China already shows in Asia and Africa is just the beginning . . . The challenge for the 21st century is to prevent the rise of the East from being as violent as the earlier rise of the West.

I learned in International Relations that war is an incredibly predictable occurence when one power is rising and the reigning power is declining. There comes a point when the hegemon regards the rising power as an imminent threat, but still thinks that it could win in a war against the new rival. At that moment the hegemon strikes.

Quote from dad_savage

This is Salon.com right? What evidence do they have to assume the US's supercomputers will be second-rate, apart from the standard liberal bias and hate-for-all-things-American?

Alfred McCoy, the author of the Salon article, states that:

Similarly, American leadership in technological innovation is on the wane. In 2008, the U.S. was still number two behind Japan in worldwide patent applications with 232,000, but China was closing fast at 195,000, thanks to a blistering 400 percent increase since 2000. A harbinger of further decline: in 2009 the U.S. hit rock bottom in ranking among the 40 nations surveyed by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation when it came to "change" in "global innovation-based competitiveness" during the previous decade. Adding substance to these statistics, in October China's Defense Ministry unveiled the world's fastest supercomputer, the Tianhe-1A, so powerful, said one U.S. expert, that it "blows away the existing No. 1 machine" in America.

And as I've noted in my blog, China's fifteen-year-old students are the smartest in the world.

Quote from dad_savage

. . . Almost every other nation which does has no reason to be happy about mindless Chinese aggression (Russia and Japan) not to mention others being tenaciously allied to the US (England and France) . . . The rest of the world (including other nuclear-capable NATO powers) just sit back and take it? During WWII the final bargaining chip of any country facing occupation was its fleet. The French fleet was an objective of much controversy. The British drew up plans to transfer their substantial (at the time, the worlds largest) navy into dominion hands in the event of occupation. One peculiar, but potentially very effective British gambit was the suggestion of offering it to the United States at essentially collateral in order to forge a war-pact. A powerful fleet is a serious asset. The US fleet can, on its own, confer super-power status (there is full first or second-strike capability within its forces) it is quite likely a NATO ally could, with the potential to take possession of this force, prove a limiting wild-card.

Probably true enough. However, there has been some talk recently that the special relationship between the UK and the US is over . . But you're probably right. France, the U.S. and the U.K. are more alike than different when compared to China.

Strueth Sparky, they were claiming world war 3 back in the sixties where the Ruskies were going to nuke all and sundry. Last time I looked there were over 200 wars in the world at this moment. There isn't enough time to start another one..

Which is an overwrought way for me to make the somewhat irrelevant point that the Chinese were awesome sailors.

The British, Dutch and Japanese all have strong naval traditions too. There is a difference between being good sailors, and having a powerful navy. China has nill ability to project force. Its economy is growing as we sit here, but it will not be able to go on growing at the economic rate it has been while also developing militarily enough to present a viable threat to the US navy in a mere fifteen years. I'm not sure you understand just how much of an asset the US navy is. There are not many countries on earth that operate aircraft carriers; America has eleven - England for example has one - and the whole world combined (excluding America) has ten. China and America both have one under construction, and while China probably is only capable of building that single carrier America could be building something like another fifteen if it needed too. It takes time to establish a military-industrial complex capable of creating such assets; time, and obscene amounts of money. It took Japan almost forty years to turn itself into a genuine sea-power, working its way up from nothing, which is to say to wean itself off dependency on foreign industry in creating its assets. A blue-water navy is an incredibly expensive thing, and cannot just be zapped into being. Not only that but it requires assets which cannot simply be created. The US has a crypto-Empire in the South Pacific made up of nations reliant on them (on paper) for protection, or in the area of foreign aid. This is an asset which cannot be built or bought, but must be politicked and fought for. Furthermore the fact that Chinese sailors had skill in bygone days means nothing. There is such a thing as naval culture. Some nations have it, some don't, some have the potential for it. The requirements of the culture change as the technology does. It must be nurtured and built up. Generally when a nation expands into a new platform of war-making which it has little experience with (see the Canadian navy in WWII) its performance will be awful. Across the board.

I'm not saying China will never have a great navy. Its population alone means it will one day take its place as a super, or hyper-power this is all but guaranteed. It will not happen in fifteen years though.

I learned in International Relations that war is an incredibly predictable occurence when one power is rising and the reigning power is declining. There comes a point when the hegemon regards the rising power as an imminent threat, but still thinks that it could win in a war against the new rival. At that moment the hegemon strikes.

This may have been the case in bygone days prior to facts learned in WWI about rapid millitarisation. It is not necessarily guaranteed though. Wars require hostility, clashes of interest, the potential for gain, etc. There is almost no possible way America could ever delude itself into believing a war against China could profit it in any way (in the same way Briton had no reason to believe a war with the United States or Russia could ever help in the 20th century) and given all these optimistic claims about China's economy there is little reason for them to attack the US when they're going to overtake them regardless.

Similarly, American leadership in technological innovation is on the wane. In 2008, the U.S. was still number two behind Japan in worldwide patent applications with 232,000, but China was closing fast at 195,000, thanks to a blistering 400 percent increase since 2000. A harbinger of further decline: in 2009 the U.S. hit rock bottom in ranking among the 40 nations surveyed by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation when it came to "change" in "global innovation-based competitiveness" during the previous decade. Adding substance to these statistics, in October China's Defense Ministry unveiled the world's fastest supercomputer, the Tianhe-1A, so powerful, said one U.S. expert, that it "blows away the existing No. 1 machine" in America.

It's a very loose extrapolation. China is a country dragging itself into the 21st century and post-industrialism. Just as with other countries which have made the same leap it is likely to see vast increases in the quality and volume of its productions, but it is risible to assume that said quality and volume will go on rising indefinitely. Please don't get me wrong I appreciate America is no giant in the world of high-technology, but should its own products ever reach a second-rate condition that is likely to severely depreciate national security to assume they will take no action in order to regain parity is a little naive. Even if they point-blank can do absolutely nothing about it internally they can always acquire such goods from foreign sources. Such as their ally Japan (whom you list as the current world no.1) however it seems much more likely to me China would rather sell such high-technology to the United States. At least if you consider what I've said above. There is no reason to assume America would ever deem a war with China profitable, so why wouldn't the Chinese simply continue to drive at what is truly enabling them to out-strip the Americans in other words innovation and economic growth. To me it does not seem unfeasible.

Probably true enough. However, there has been some talk recently that the special relationship between the UK and the US is over . . But you're probably right. France, the U.S. and the U.K. are more alike than different when compared to China.

The West is going through a phase where it feels wanton destruction is somehow progressive. I don't find sentiment like this surprising in light of that sad fact but there is no reason to assume it will go on forever.

Again don't get me wrong. China will be a super power. This is assured. It will almost certainly be a hyper-power as well at some point. This has nothing to do with its military. China has never been, and has no reason to become a belligerent or overly-militaristic society. It may be forced to become one as a result of the inherent 'responsibilities' most super and hyper-powers tend to feel regarding the protection of their global interests, but it is not going to militarily defeat the US in fifteen years. Nor is it going to turn around after five-thousand years of championing culture, hard-work, innovation and unity as the best means of progression and expansion and arbitrarily decide the way lies rather in hyper-active sabre-rattling and belligerency. This is my view at any rate.

To me the idea that great powers will ever again go to war for something they want (dominance, money, hegemony, etc) is unrealistic. If WWIII occurs I can almost guarantee its roots will be geo-political. Its roots will be in something needed. Mis-management of formerly productive oil fields for example might lead to a ‘big-brother,’ nation attempting to seize control of them to ensure that they are ‘managed with the interests of the international community in mind,’ something along those lines. It is very unlikely that ’for fun and profit,’ anyone will ever begin another war between major powers, let alone anything with the potential to lead to global conflict. Because war is simply neither fun nor profitable, and it has become so apparent to everyone that this is true that no amount of vested interest can convince enough persons in power otherwise. A country which goes to war with anything like an equal is a country which condemns itself inevitable to potentially irreversible economic damage.

After a quick skim through what people are writing about, I see some major flaws in thinking:

• World War III will be an extrapolation of World War I and World War II.
  This is often thought to be the case simply because, in terms of mobilisation and mechanisation, WW II was 'more' than WW I. However, WW I was like nothing much before it and two events of any kind - even world wars - do not make a trend.
• World War III will be necessarily anything to do with the USA.
  With 40% of the world's military spending, it is likely that one way WW III will be different to the 20th Century is that the USA will be an early combatant; however, this is not a given. Representing only 5% of the world's population and with no natural enemies the only way the USA is likely to be an early combatant is to start the war - which they admittedly seem quite willing to do these days.
• World War III will be national in nature.
  Ever since areas of the world started becoming heavily populated and powers wanted to control (and tax) subject populations, national borders have been defined with greater and greater rigidity. This has led to the geopolitical world we now have, where over 90% of the world's national borders are undisputed and Nationalism is (superficially) raised to an emotional level at least equivalent to religion or race (both of which are being subdued, making one's nationality even more important). Yet Nationality is a very nebulous construct which has no basis outside of indoctrination. Emotions are still more easily raised on the basis of geography or religion (e.g. Asians vs. Africans, or Christians vs. Muslims). It is entirely possibly that WW III will not have national borders: warfare will be fought within the borders and across borders. Such alternate scenario would start off with guerilla/terrorist/insurgent warfare based on gaining rights/privilege/acceptance/independence and look more like anarchy than nations going head-to-head.
• World War III will be swayed by nuclear. There's a lot to be said for this if the war is national: any losing nation with nuclear armaments (or chemical, maybe biological) will use such armaments. Only by first ensuring that the target nation has no WMD does a nation become a viable target of invasion (as with Iraq). If the war is fought without regard to national border but within national borders, using such armaments becomes a lot harder.
• World War III is something in the future, not something happening now.
  The Great War became a World War when the major empires of the day joined in. The German, French, Dutch and British Empires all had lands across the globe, so when they started slugging at each other, those lands around the globe got to join in the fun. The Sino/Japanese, Russian/Finnish, South African, European conflicts were all distinct in the 1930s until the British and French stuck their noses in, at which point about half the world's populated area took sides and it became another World War. The World Wars are defined because areas around the world were at war. A look at a map today of areas of the world at war will show that there are few hourly latitudes that do not bisect armed conflict. Although these are not currently the same war, the world is at war.

Something will happen, and soon, from the chinese. They are buying up the planet. They single-handedly own South america and control it's entry and exit points. They need South America for it's iron ore and it's forests for charcoal. Last year the chinese spent over 43 Billion in buying up foreign assets with mergers and acquisitions. I would tend to think a physical war would not be the way they would be going about it. UI think it will be a economic war such as the Japanese tried in the 70's and 80's with major product dumping into our markets at near zero if not - profit.

The chinese are extremely hungry for brute product. They have allot of folks to keep afloat. Their sheer numbers may be their weak point in the long run. Heading into a military action would cost them allot. They don't have a very educated ppl on the whole. We do see many articles and such about smart chinese kids. These are not the norm for the whole. Many chinese are still at peasant status. They are however aware of this and the present governement is moving to educate the masses in a hurry. Not an easy feat.

To wage war some may say you don't need education, but you do need education in modern day warfare. We are quite far from the vikings or celtic bretons slinging axes and glaves. Just feeding such a large polpulace and the amount of money that goes into buying up brute product to keep the country afloat may be a precursor tho the chinese to want to invade countries that have major unresourced product. To educate and feed and house an army this size, you need major resources to succeed.
We should be watchful of the emerging dragon and it's omnivore attitude. The chinese own war more than the average person may think. They are buying the planet!! Every time you buy a crappy dollar-rama teacup or cheap incense holder, you are giving your money to the chinese and the likes. Lord knows dollar-rama and cheap shit is every where and women love those places. I really try to buy local when it is available, it is becoming increasingly difficult to encourage local with the free-trade laws in place.

Give Us Your Soy, Your Iron, Your Grain...

War is always possible. It takes cool heads to prevent one and there are always hot heads around.

China has not tried to extend power in its history. It has consolidated itself through internal wars in old times and more recently determined its internal governance / ideoplogical changes without going beyond its borders.

The South China Sea and that side of the Pacific is more their natural playground than it is America's. It is America that has to be grown-up and share the playground rather than dominating it like some bully.

Entrance to the Indian Ocean is currently via the Straits of Mallacca. This is not 'American' so much as International although heavily overseen by Western-Friendly forces. China uses it currently for trade. Were China to seek its own-controlled passage it will take the Sunda Strait. It would be wise to let them.

China has not got a navy built to project. It might have one aircraft carrier soon - second hand and refurbished. That would not suffice. It's Army is huge but modestly equiped. It's Air Force is equiping with 5th Generation fighting machines that can match anyone's. They are only able to defend their own territory out to 800 miles, and then with short CAP time.

WW3 does not have to be between the USA/west and China. China could, indeed, be just the major force needed to hold Muslim aggression in check. It would not serve China's own interests to have a western world taken over by Islam as they would not be any sort of replacement market.

America ought, right now, be reducing its footprint by its own volition, carefully in a planned and democratically agreed way rather than by its current fiscal ineptitude. But it is that very ineptitude that bodes no well at all.

Frankly I do not think America has the maturity to continue 'running the world'. It has made a complete pig's ear of legitimate power use from its inception. It's insertion into the last two Great Wars was late and reluctant.It was happy to see Europe being devastated, until Japan attacked them. Only then did they see the seriousness of the issue. It may be Big (the Sleeping Giant) but it ain't a very bright giant. It's post-war activities have been abysmal politically and its military might is so excessive as to be a threat to everyone else. That in itself does not make friends.

If a war between China and America were to break out, I would expect it to be through American ineptitude rather than Chines expansionism.

Quote from Percy

[The USA] was happy to see Europe being devastated, until Japan attacked them.

And Germany declared war on them. Despite all the (feminist styled?) re-writing of history, it is worth noting that the USA might never have actually joined the world war if Germany had not declared war upon them.

Quote from Percy

If a war between China and America were to break out, I would expect it to be through American ineptitude rather than Chines expansionism.

Depending on what you mean by ineptitude, I agree. There are powerful people in (and out) of the USA who would deliberately, wittingly, lead the USA to even more wars than it has currently started. The ineptitude is on the part of the democratic voters for allowing this to happen (that's not an anti-USA rant: the same applies to my own nation, the UK).

World War III will be an extrapolation of World War I and World War II.
This is often thought to be the case simply because, in terms of mobilisation and mechanisation, WW II was 'more' than WW I. However, WW I was like nothing much before it and two events of any kind - even world wars - do not make a trend.

Good point, but new wars present new realities, and new 'military horizons,' crossed. Once crossed these horizons tend to become fixed properties of warfare. So one must be able to separate trend from fixture.

World War III will be necessarily anything to do with the USA.

I think the USA is likely to be involved. Not necessarily as the agressor or defender.

Ever since areas of the world started becoming heavily populated and powers wanted to control (and tax) subject populations, national borders have been defined with greater and greater rigidity. This has led to the geopolitical world we now have, where over 90% of the world's national borders are undisputed and Nationalism is (superficially) raised to an emotional level at least equivalent to religion or race (both of which are being subdued, making one's nationality even more important). Yet Nationality is a very nebulous construct which has no basis outside of indoctrination. Emotions are still more easily raised on the basis of geography or religion (e.g. Asians vs. Africans, or Christians vs. Muslims). It is entirely possibly that WW III will not have national borders: warfare will be fought within the borders and across borders. Such alternate scenario would start off with guerilla/terrorist/insurgent warfare based on gaining rights/privilege/acceptance/independence and look more like anarchy than nations going head-to-head.

Such wars rarely tend to qualify as major events, but the existance of stateless people should not be discounted. They are often hardy persons, and displaced ethnic groups or such stateless groups are often used by nations attacking other nations. Either as cause (ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia) or as internal support (US support for Kurdish insurgents) the problem is without a state people have a limited ability to war in the modern sense. I'm not dismissing this entirely. Such things need to be considered though.

World War III will be swayed by nuclear. There's a lot to be said for this if the war is national: any losing nation with nuclear armaments (or chemical, maybe biological) will use such armaments.

Not necessarily. It depends on the intensity of the struggle. If one country invades another, but is driven off, and the defender agrees to a ceasefire without attempting to launch a counter-invasion I see no reason why nuclear weapons would come into play.

Only by first ensuring that the target nation has no WMD does a nation become a viable target of invasion (as with Iraq). If the war is fought without regard to national border but within national borders, using such armaments becomes a lot harder.

Good point, but I want to mention something about invasion. It is unlikely. Save major powers invading much, much weaker nations invasion really does not seem likely to me anymore. Invading a country with a reasonable industrial complex, large population, decent military assets, etc is simply too costly. This is why I believe geo-politics are likely to be the cause of WWIII: we might see multiple major powers invading the same areas (the middle east mainly) in order to take control of dwindling vital resources. Such nations could become battle grounds between hostile forces, much as Belgium has long-been the 'duelling patch,' for Germany and France.

I will make further note tomorrow on a particular piece of technology I believe could be the cause of future wars if anyone is interested. I must sleep now though.

You are assuming that China and the US will enter some sort of conflict and this will esclate into a military one. Britain the the US were often in conflict and the US put pressure on the UK to wind up its empire and "world domination" passed to the USA. Similar is possible between the US and China.

I would say cyberwars are more likely, and these may be between states or between states and other organisations or even individuals.

The UK in the past few months announced a massive increase in spending anticipating cyber attacks. Indeed recent break ins into the uk prison, driving licence, tax databases show how vunerable states now are

As I mentioned earlier there was a particular piece of technology I would like to make note of. It has the potential to generate some substantial changes and it seems to me few people have truly considered the whole of what its impact may be. I imagine most of you are familiar with the reoccurring patterns of military history, but if not I can explain. For those who are there is a disturbing series of advancements occurring within the militaries of most modern western states. This new technology is likely to effect us in three ways however I should describe the technology itself first.

In the 80's the US army trailed a project for a revolutionary type of infantry weapon known as the OICW, perhaps the most radical small-arms advance since the introduction of the rifled gun, but it was scrapped due to the expense. Even at the time however it was appreciated by all concerned that this was the way foreword, and the next step in infantry combat will be these objective air-burst rounds or weapons, and almost every nation that has the ability is pursuing them through some contractor. Even my own country (Australia) is pursuing this technology via the metal storm concept (this is to say using the metal storm concept to power an OICW-style weapon) and we are normally behind the eight ball on such developments. Furthermore these objective combat weapons are being partnered with an equally ambitious support and information sharing system known in the US as the Land Warrior system. A system which may potentially render the soldiers of today's armies - as equipped - insignificant military assets. It is a project entailing prohibitive cost, and it may be years before it becomes a reality and we see anything like it deployed in life battle-space but everyone involved understands it is an irreversible development. Like the Maxim gun even those states not currently pursuing this technology appreciate at some point they must in order to remain viable.

To give some appreciation of what we're dealing with the OICW in early tests increased the equipped soldiers lethality by 500% - that was without the additional benefits of the land warrior system - land warrior yields geometric gains, and is capable of potentially more than doubling a soldiers effectiveness. Together we are talking about a 1000%+ increase in lethality with smaller, yet still vast increases in survivability and flexibility. To give some notion of the cost however in the 80's the OICW was projected to cost $50 per round fired.

That cost is in itself an important point. Consider the advantages however.

1. substantially increase the situational, tactical and objective awareness of soldiers in the field,


2. networking observations. If one soldier sees something, they all see it.


3. up to the second updates on operational factors, intelligence, battlefield conditions, enemy movement and known capabilities.


4. ability to nonverbally communicate complex ideas in a manner that cannot be interfered with by environmental factors and improved communication between soldiers - no soldier will be able to get lost, left behind, trapped, etc and soldiers will aware at all times of their numbers, strengths, location, etc.


5. ability to fire from cover without loss of accuracy, and to circumvent cover visually.


6. 300% increase in effective range of small arms

7. ability to circumvent the protection offered by cover, body armour, etc.


8. increased lethality of OICW will force dispersion making soldiers more dependant on LW for communications and situational awareness.


9. 20mm barrel of OICW will give soldiers improved anti-material capability.

10. Increased sensory awareness (microphones will pick up and amplify minute sounds for example, ability to perceive the battle-space via thermal or other forms of non-standard imaging)

This is not a piece of technology like the assault rifle which allows any man to pick it up, and be a force. This is best seen as a parallel to something like the lance or composite bow: a weapon requiring substantial dividends in time and dedication before yielding effective results which will nevertheless in the hands of such skilled users become the pre-eminent battle implement of its era. Soldiers without it generally will not be able to engage soldiers with it on anything like reasonable terms, and soldiers without it will be unable to acquire it without a massive investment in both money and, most especially, time. It will be almost useless to insurgents, rebels, and the soldiers of poor or backward states who lack superb command and control facilities and information gathering tools.

What does this mean? It means the effective elements of the armed forces in any nation are going to shrink by an extensive margin. It will massively curtail the positive effect of state-wide militarisation. There is a reason why (prior to WWI) very few states militarised themselves completely when facing defeat and that was because it would make little difference. If Carthage had rallied its entire population to defend itself during the third Punic war they would simply have been cut-down by the Roman legions with their élan and advantages in training, their cultivated ability to fight face to face in deadly ways (not an innate human talent) however in modern times the reason why England did essentially militarise its entire country when facing German aggression was because a poorly-trained home guard soldier with a Lee-Enfield is capable of killing the finest, most Aryan Waffen SS elite with a single shot. It is of course unlikely. Nevertheless guns do level the playing field as training beyond a certain point yields ever diminishing returns, and that point can be reached quite quickly. If NATO invaded Iran with a superbly equipped military force trained and armed with OICW like weapons and Land Warrior-style equipment the various paramilitary Jihadist militias in that country would be a force of dubious value despite their boasted-of 4 million or so members. Without OICW and Land Warrior style equipment such a force could, if dispersed through the population and kept away from decisive engagements, wage an intense low-level campaign of insurgency that while likely unable to win the war would cause enough casualties to give anyone pause. This is one of the reasons why a nation like Iran is unlikely to be invaded. When you take these advantages away you re-legitimise warfare of a clausewitzian style, and of a colonial style.

All I've said so far is very loose, I do not claim to have constructed perfect allegories however it should be food for thought. In this day and age you can destroy the better part of a countries armed forces, and if they still have the will to resist it is possible for them to win, or negotiate a ceasefire without ceding too much. New men can be placed under arms quickly. They will not perform superbly but they can get the job done. This factor of modern war-making is likely to shrink. It will shorten the duration of wars and decrease the casualties. War may cease to be such a dirty word when it becomes culturally viewed as the province of an 'other,' an elite-group of warriors, as opposed to soldiers whom most people can identify with the other men from their communities. This will cripple insurgents, it will cripples second-rate states who cannot afford such developments, it will cripples guerrilla action, it will cripple the idea of resisting, in an armed sense, any so-equipped authority.

There is a concern on my part about governments monopolizing the abilities, and those with the ability, to effectively fight which has bearing both on how states that are part of the monopoly will treat those that are not, and (potentially) how states will treat their citizens who are unable to develop the same skills. It seems logical to me (and to many historians) that one of the limitations of state power occurs via the proliferation of simple and effective lethal weapons. When the effective methods of making war in an era are available to 'the people,' the state is forced to respect their potential to take up arms. Even if in the end all their resistance comes down to is blowing vulnerable infrastructure and shooting people who try to stop them. In periods where the most effective methods of war-making were easily monopolized, based on rare or valuable technology or difficult to acquire skills their operators become agents of the state, or seize seize the reigns of power for themselves. These are the warrior aristocracies of history in which the upper classes were defined by their ability to master a certain skill at arms, and access to the expensive or rare technology enabling them to do so. The ease of use and lethality firearms brought ended these monopolies by ensuring even the most hardened regulars could not, with an acceptable ratio, oppose inexperienced amateurs to the point where they were overawed into complete submission. This may very well be change. I'm not saying we are going to see military take-overs, or military-backed tyranny. I'm not saying everything will be turned up-side down, but I believe this will have effects beyond what those people pursuing its development have considered.

The infantryman is the heart of any military, and it is going to make him perhaps ten times more lethal, and many times harder to kill. On a squad level such advantages may produce geometric gains. A division with such skills might be worth thirty without them. To imagine this will not change the character of war-making seems credulous. The firearm is an important technology, and a wide-spread one, in a few years the best firearms may be five times more lethal than what now exists. This is potentially a greater leap than anything seen since the proliferation of firearms making use of rifled barres.