Game-changers or not? The role of technology in military affairs
The term “game-changer” is often used to describe new and emerging technologies that have the potential to radically transform the nature and conduct of warfare. It comes from the managerial vocabulary and the literature on disruptive innovation, which refers to the process of creating new products or services that disrupt existing markets and create new ones. It reflects a view of the military world as a competitive market, where one needs to gain a comparative advantage over uncertainty and “black swans”, or unpredictable events that have a major impact. Some examples of game-changing technologies in military history include the chariot, gunpowder, rifled gun barrels, nuclear weapons, and spy satellites. However, not all technologies pay off, and their effectiveness depends on various factors such as logistics, doctrine, tactics, and context. Therefore, game-changing technologies are not just the technologies themselves, but the systems and concepts that enable their use in warfare.
However, this view neglects the human, political and strategic aspects of war, which are often more decisive than the mere technological factors. Connable et al. (2018) remind us that military victory depends on the ability to achieve political objectives, to mobilize resources, to adapt one’s doctrine, to command effectively, etc. These human aspects of war are not only relevant for the adversary, but also for the friendly and partner forces, as they influence their will to fight, morale, cohesion, and resilience. Moreover, the political and strategic aspects of war require a comprehensive understanding of the context, the actors, the interests, and the goals of the conflict, as well as the ability to align the military means with the desired ends. Therefore, war cannot be reduced to a mere contest of technologies, but rather a complex and dynamic interaction of human wills, political decisions, and strategic choices.
The term “game-changer” also reveals a latent debate in the military world, between the supporters of the primacy of the ideal and intangible factors (doctrine, morale, command, etc.) and those of the primacy of the material factors (quality and quantity of weapons, balance of power, etc.). While some argue that technology is the decisive factor in warfare, others contend that human factors, such as leadership, creativity, and adaptability, are more important. The challenge for smaller states, in particular, is to find innovative and asymmetric ways to leverage technology to offset the advantages of larger adversaries.
François Heisbourg, a senior adviser for Europe at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, illustrates his point by taking the example of the war in Ukraine, where the deployment of many technological systems was presented as “game-changers”. He shows that these systems did not have the expected effect, either because they were countered by other means, or because they did not meet the operational needs, or because they did not influence the political situation. Heisbourg concludes by calling for a more nuanced and realistic approach to military technology, which is not blinded by myths and fantasies. He invites us to take into account the complexity and diversity of war situations, as well as the interactions between the different levels of analysis (technical, tactical, operational, strategic, political).
