Military revolution free essay sample

†¢ What is the difference between a military revolution and a revolution in military affairs (RMA)? Why is the difference important? †¢ Are we currently experiencing a military revolution, an RMA, or something else? †¢ What is the Western way of war? What are its key elements and how are they different from warfare practiced by the rest of the world? †¢ Is an RMA defined by technology or something else? †¢ Are RMAs something we can plan and control? †¢ What does history tell us about the nature of revolutionary developments in warfare? †¢ And finally, so what? What does this mean to me? Care must be taken to ensure that we remember that each time has its own unique context and that the contingency of events is always in play. Things really can go the other way, nothing is pre-determined. Military history contributions: (Luvaas) †¢ History offers a vicarious experience. Students of military history can learn from mistakes and successes of others. †¢ Luvaas notes that history offers ways to capitalize on what others before him (specifically Napoleon) had experienced. †¢ Two other areas in which history can offer primary instruction are teaching how Soldiers react to fear and how Soldiers are motivated. †¢ Since fear typically does not show in training situations, experience remains the best demonstration of how individuals and units react under its unique stress. Soldiers learn from history by: (luvaas) †¢ Identifying with Soldiers and events †¢ Understanding their problems †¢ Accepting past experience on its own terms †¢ Asking pertinent questions What does Luvaas say are the pitfalls or fallacies of studying military history? Select all that apply. †¦ Luvaas warns: †¢ Although analysis of military history is the primary engine of theory and doctrine, their interrelationship has fallacies. †¢ Perhaps the greatest disservice to history and its lessons comes from its frequent association with a given set of military principles or doctrine. †¢ History can illustrate principles or doctrine, but cannot prove them. †¢ There is a natural tendency to let doctrine sit in judgment of historical events. †¢ Faith in doctrine easily and frequently distorts history. Difference betw military revolution and RMA? Murray and Knoxs Definitions †¢ If you follow the arguments presented by Murray and Knox, you would define military revolutions as periods of dramatic change in the way violence is used to pursue policy by other means. †¢ Military revolutions are caused by major upheavals in society, economics, politics, or diplomacy. †¢ Military revolutions are massive in scope, and while they may not proceed quickly by todays frantic measurement of progress, nonetheless, they carry with them profound change. †¢ Military institutions—armies, navies, and air forces—find themselves hard-pressed to keep up with changes that come with a military revolution. †¢ And, afterwards, societies will not organize for, nor conduct war the same way as before. †¢ RMAs tend to apply to military behavior rather than social, political, and economic behaviors. †¢ The difference between the two is important because of the scope in change that each brings about. †¢ If you follow the definitions offered by Murray and Knox, you will view revolutions in military affairs as significant, but not as broad or sweeping in their effects on the battlefield. Military revolution definitions †¢ Its defining feature is that it fundamentally changes the framework of war. †¢ Military revolutions recast society and the state as well as military organizations. †¢ uncontrollable, unpredictable, and unforeseeable †¢ They [who experienced military revolutions] came to recognize the grim face of revolutionary change; they could rarely aspire to do more than hang on and adapt. The Napoleonic Revolution In another momentous bequest to the 19th century, and even to the 20th, Napoleon revolutionized the methods of warfare. Because his operations were bigger and more extensive than earlier ones, logistics became a more important team-mate of strategy. Putting into effect as an art the principles of warfare advocated by preceding military thinkers and field commanders, he forced other countries to be imitative as the only hope of success. One of historys minor ironies is that France abandoned conscription under the Bourbon restoration, at a time when other countries were adopting it so as to compete with the France of Napoleon. – Robert B. Holtman, The Napoleonic Revolution (Lippincott, 1967) The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 18th to the 19th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transport had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions in the United Kingdom. The changes subsequently spread throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world. The onset of the Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was eventually influenced in some way. Starting in the later part of the 18th century there began a transition in parts of Great Britains previously manual labor and draft-animal – based economy towards machine-based manufacturing. It started with the mechanization of the textile industries, the development of iron-making techniques and the increased use of refined coal. Trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, improved roads and railways. The introduction of steam power fuelled primarily by coal, wider utilization of water wheels and powered machinery (mainly in textile manufacturing) underpinned the dramatic increases in production capacity. The development of all-metal machine tools in the first two decades of the 19th century facilitated the manufacture of more production machines for manufacturing in other industries. The effects spread throughout Western Europe and North America during the 19th century, eventually affecting most of the world, a process that continues as industrialization. The impact of this change on society was enormous. The First World War World War I (abbreviated as WW-I, WWI, or WW1), also known as the First World War, the Great War, the World War (prior to the outbreak of the Second World War), and the War to End All Wars, was a global military conflict which involved most of the worlds great powers, assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies of World War I centered around the Triple Entente and the Central Powers, centered around the Triple Alliance. More than 70 million military personnel were mobilized in one of the largest wars in history. More than 15 million people were killed, making it one of the deadliest conflicts in history. During the conflict, the industrial and scientific capabilities of the main combatants were entirely devoted to the war effort. The assassination, on 28 June 1914, of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, is seen as the immediate trigger of the war, though long-term causes, such as imperialistic foreign policy, played a major role. The archdukes assassination at the hands of Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip resulted in demands against the Kingdom of Serbia. Several alliances that had been formed over the past decades were invoked, so within weeks the major powers were at war; with all having colonies, the conflict soon spread around the world. By the wars end in 1918, four major imperial powers—the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires—had been militarily and politically defeated, with the last two ceasing to exist as autonomous entities. The revolutionized Soviet Union emerged from the Russian Empire, while the map of central Europe was completely redrawn into numerous smaller states. The League of Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict. The European nationalism spawned by the war, the repercussions of Germanys defeat, and the Treaty of Versailles would eventually lead to the beginning of World War II in 1939. – Wikipedi Nuclear Weapons A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter; a modern thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than a thousand kilograms can produce an explosion comparable to the detonation of more than a billion kilograms of conventional high explosive. Thus, even single small nuclear devices no larger than traditional bombs can devastate an entire city by blast, fire and radiation. Nuclear weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction, and their use and control has been a major focus of international relations policy since their debut. In the history of warfare, only two nuclear weapons have been detonated offensively, both near the end of World War II. The first was detonated on the morning of 6 August 1945, when the United States dropped a uranium gun-type device code-named Little Boy on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The second was detonated three days later when the United States dropped a plutonium implosion-type device code-named Fat Man on the city of Nagasaki, Japan. These bombings resulted in the immediate deaths of around 120,000 people (mostly civilians) from injuries sustained from the explosion and acute radiation sickness, and even more deaths from long-term effects of ionizing radiation. The use of these weapons was and remains controversial. Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, nuclear weapons have been detonated on over two thousand occasions for testing purposes and demonstration purposes. A few states have possessed such weapons or are suspected of seeking them. The only countries known to have detonated nuclear weapons—and that acknowledge possessing such weapons—are (chronologically) the United States, the Soviet Union (succeeded as a nuclear power by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, the Peoples Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel is also widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it does not acknowledge having them. – Wikipedia RMA- def â€Å"Revolutions in military affairs require the assembly of a complex mix of tactical, organizational, doctrinal, and technological innovations in order to implement a new conceptual approach to warfare or to a specialized sub-branch of warfare. † Examples of RMA’s†¦ Combined arms is an approach to warfare which seeks to integrate different arms of a military to achieve mutually complementary effects. Combined arms doctrine contrasts with segregated arms where each military unit is composed of only one type of soldier or weapon system. Segregated arms is the traditional method of unit/force organization, employed to provide maximum unit cohesion and concentration of force in a given weapon or unit type. Though the lower-echelon units of a combined arms team may be of homogeneous types, a balanced mixture of such units are combined into an effective higher-echelon unit, whether formally in a table of organization or informally in an ad hoc solution to a battlefield problem. For example an armored division — the modern paragon of combined arms doctrine — consists of a mixture of infantry, tank, artillery, reconnaissance, and perhaps even helicopter units, all coordinated and directed by a unified command structure. Also, most modern military units can if the situation requires it call on yet more branches of the military, such as fighter or bomber aircraft or naval forces, to support their operations. The mixing of arms is sometimes pushed down below the level where homogeneity ordinarily vprevails, for example by temporarily attaching a tank company to an infantry battalion. – Strategic bombing is a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating an enemy nation-state by destroying its economic ability to wage war rather than destroying its land or naval forces. It is a systematically organized and executed attack from the air which can utilize strategic bombers, long- or medium-range missiles, or nuclear-armed fighter-bomber aircraft to attack targets deemed vital to an enemys war-making capacity. It differs from terror bombing in that the latter targets civilian populations, in an attempt either to bend a nations will to that of the attacker, such as the World War II bombing of Rotterdam, or to punish a nation for political actions, as in the 1941 bombing of Belgrade for treachery. – Wikipedia The US Navy has dominated aircraft carrier warfare since the 1920s. Conceived to provide scouting eyes for the fleet, the carrier evolved an attack capability that rivaled that of the battleships during the interwar period. Offensive tactics were developed during annual fleet problems by innovative admirals, notably Joseph Mason Reeves, and a small cadre of younger naval aviators led by John H. Towers. In World War II, the carrier became the major arbiter of American sea power, a role more or less perpetuated during and after the Cold War. US carrier forces have engaged in five principal roles and missions of varying priority according to operational objectives: (1) Fleet support, using scouting planes for reconnaissance and fighter planes as defensive interceptors; (2) Destruction of the enemy fleet, especially opposing carriers, with attack planes (bombers); (3) Protection of merchant shipping as defensive convoy escorts or offensively in hunter? killer groups, against submarines; (4) Destruction of enemy merchant shipping at sea or at anchor; and, (5) Projecting aerial firepower inland. The function of the latter objective has been twofold: supporting amphibious assaults with close air support of infantry over the beach, protective fighter cover against enemy planes, and interdiction of enemy transportation systems (bridges, roads, rail lines) in order to isolate the beachhead; and striking strategic targets—airfields, army installations, port facilities, and industrial plants. – Answers. com Naval warfare is divided into three operational areas: surface warfare, air warfare and underwater warfare. The latter may be subdivided into submarine warfare and anti-submarine warfare as well as mine warfare and mine countermeasures. Each area comprises specialized platforms and strategies used to exploit tactical advantages unique and inherent to that area. Modern submarine warfare consists primarily of diesel and nuclear submarines using weapons (like torpedoes, missiles or nuclear weapons), as well as advanced sensing equipment, to attack other submarines, ships, or land targets. Submarines may also be used for reconnaissance and landing of special forces as well as deterrence. In some navies they may be used for task force screening. The effectiveness of submarine warfare partly depends on the anti-submarine warfare carried out in response. – Wikipedia Amphibious warfare is the use of naval firepower, logistics and strategy to project military power ashore. In previous eras it stood as the primary method of delivering troops to non-contiguous enemy-held terrain. In this modern era amphibious warfare persists in the form of commando insertion by fast patrol boats, zodiacs and mini-submersibles. In the modern era of warfare, an amphibious landing of infantry troops on a beachhead is the most complex of all military maneuvers. The undertaking requires an intricate coordination of numerous military specialties, including air power, naval gunfire, naval transport, logistical planning, specialized equipment, land warfare, tactics, and extensive training in the nuances of this maneuver for all personnel involved. – Wikipedia Signals intelligence (often contracted to SIGINT) is intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether between people (i. e. , COMINT or communications intelligence) or between machines (i. e. , ELINT or electronic intelligence), or mixtures of the two. As sensitive information is often encrypted, signals intelligence often involves the use of cryptanalysis. However, traffic analysis—the study of who is signaling whom and in what quantity—can often produce valuable information, even when the messages themselves cannot be decrypted. As a means of collecting intelligence, signals intelligence is a subset of intelligence collection management, which, in turn, is a subset of intelligence cycle management. – Wikipedia Why are military revolutions like earthquakes? †¢ Like forces of nature, military revolutions tend to defy mans attempts to control them. †¢ They come from vast causes and lead to vast outcomes in every arena of human activity. †¢ You will recall from your reading that Murray and Knox suggest that the best a military institution can do is to attempt to anticipate and adapt the forces of change that come with a military revolution. Murry and knox Explaining History Studies †¢ You should be able to relate case studies with the concepts described in Murray and Knoxs introductory essay. †¢ WWI had monumental impacts on economics, social structure, culture, and political systems across most of Western civilization (and quite a few places where Europeans had built empires in the Third World). †¢ The military revolution of 1914 – 18 generated massive changes in the technology of warfare; and, in the interwar period that followed, the new weapons of war were refined, tested, improved, and integrated into new military organizations designed to make the most out of them. †¢ The primitive tank of 1916 led to the sophisticated fighting organization—the Panzer division. †¢ The flimsy canvas and wood machines of the Western Front led to the creation of multiengine bomber groups capable of delivering munitions from one continent to the next, and so forth. 1600’s creation of the modern state Pre-shock RMAs: †¢ Longbow †¢ Edward III’s strategy †¢ Gunpowder †¢ Fortress architecture Direct and Aftershocks: †¢ Dutch and Swedish tactical reforms †¢ French tactical and organizational reforms †¢ Naval revolution †¢ Britain’s financial revolution French and Industrial revolution Pre-shock RMA: French military reforms (post Seven Years War) Direct and Aftershocks: †¢ National economic and political mobilization †¢ Napoleonic way of war †¢ Financial and economic power based on industrialized power †¢ Technological revolution of war (railroads, rifles, and steamboats) World War 1 Pre-shock RMA: Fisher Revolution (1905 – 14) Direct and Aftershocks: †¢ Combined arms †¢ Blitzkrieg †¢ Strategic bombing †¢ Carrier warfare †¢ Unrestricted submarine warfare †¢ Amphibious warfare †¢ Intelligence †¢ Information warfare (1940 – 45) †¢ Stealth RMA Components †¢ This question requires you to dig a little deeper into the definitions. †¢ Recall earlier in this section that the authors wrote:Revolutions in military affairs require the assembly of a complex mix of tactical, organizational, doctrinal and technological innovations in order to implement a new conceptual approach to warfare or to a specialized sub-branch of warfare. †¢ The significance here is that most people tend to think that RMA are exclusively driven by technology. †¢ The Murray and Knox definition forces you to think of the conceptual and institutional adaptations needed to make an RMA possible. †¢ Recall the way RMA encompassed more than just changes in the weapons used on the battlefield. †¢ For example, the tank did not become the decisive weapon of the blitzkrieg RMA until it was integrated into a combined arms formation (the Panzer division) and guided by a doctrine that took advantage of the tanks speed and shock effect. According to Hundley, an RMA involves a paradigm shift in the nature and conduct of military operations: †¢ Which either renders obsolete or irrelevant one or more core competencies of a dominant player †¢ Or creates one or more new core competencies in some new dimension of warfare †¢ Or both What are some notable characteristics of RMA? Rarely brought about by dominant players Gives an immediate advantage to the first player to exploit them Usually result from combinations rather than individual technologies The first to exploit is NOT always the first to invent. RMAs are NOT always technology-driven. Successful ones have three components: technology, doctrine, and organization More failed examples than successful ones May take a long time to develop RMAs are rarely started by the dominant player. They also consist of organizational, technical and doctrinal components. Revolution Fundamentally changes the framework of war Uncontrollable, unpredictable, and unforeseeable Violence is used to pursue policy Massive in scope Caused by major upheavals in society, economics, politics, or diplomacy. Massive in scope, and while they may not proceed quickly by today’s frantic measurement of progress, they carry with them profound change. Military revolutions are broad or sweeping in their effects on the battlefield; RMAs may just be significant. Military revolutions also apply to all the social, political and economic aspects, rather than strictly the military ones as RMAs do. RMA Rarely brought about by dominant players Assembly of a complex mix of tactical, organizational, doctrinal, technological innovations Applied to military behavior rather than social, political, and economic behaviors. Significant but not broad or sweeping in their effects. RMAs just apply to the military aspect. They’re significant, but don’t have a military revolution’s broad, sweeping effects. Since RMAs have only military effects, they don’t apply to the political and social aspects of the Napoleonic Revolution or Industrial Revolution. Rarely brought about by dominant players Gives an immediate advantage to the first player to exploit them The first to exploit is not always the first to invent Successful ones have three components: technology, doctrine, and organization May take a long time to develop More failed examples than successful ones Negative Consequences (murry and knox) †¢ The two authors found that DESERT STORM encouraged a tendency in the US military to micromanage military operations from the highest level (they suggested the spirit of McNamara was resurrected). †¢ They believed DESERT STORM encouraged the Services to continue searching for all the multi-billion dollar, high-tech toys they could accumulate instead of thinking about what they really needed and how best to use their resources. †¢ They believed the 100-hour victory led to the expectation of quick, near-bloodless victories. †¢ Finally, they believed the technological wizardry displayed in the Gulf seemed to promise that the United States would not have to do hard strategic thinking. Warfare Styles †¢ Parker argues that every culture develops its own style of warfare. †¢ Western civilization developed their unique way of fighting. †¢ The Western styles significance is that it became the dominant style, essentially leading to the Wests dominant position. Western War Technology †¢ The armed forces of the West have always placed heavy reliance on superior technology, usually to compensate for inferior numbers. †¢ That is not to say that the West enjoyed universal technology superiority. †¢ Until the advent of musketry volleys and field artillery in the early seventeenth century, the recurved bow used by horse archers all over Asia proved far more effective than any western weaponry, but, with few exceptions, the horse archers of Asia did not directly threaten the West and, when they did, the threat wasnt sustained. †¢ Nor did the all the advanced technology originate in the West: many vital innovations, including the stirrup and gunpowder, came from eastern adversaries. – Parker 2 Discipline †¢ Western military practice has always exalted discipline rather than kinship, religion or patriotism as the primary instrument that turns bands of men fighting as individuals into soldiers fighting as part of organized units. †¢ The critical element of discipline I s the ability of a formation to stand fast in the face of the enemy, whether attacking or being attacked, without giving way to the natural impulses of fear and panic. †¢ Discipline proved particularly important for western armies because their wars were normally won by infantry. Withstanding a full cavalry charge without flinching required arduous training, strong unit cohesion, and superb self-control. – Parker 2, 3 Highly Aggressive Military Tradition †¢ Aggression – the export of violence – played a central role in the rise of the West. †¢ For most of the past 2,500 years, military and naval; superiority rather than better resources, great moral rectitude, irresistible commercial acumen or, until the nineteenth century, advanced economic organization under-pinned western expansion. †¢ This military edge meant that the West seldom suffered successful invasion itself. None encompassed total destruction. Conversely, western forces, although numerically inferior, not only defeated the Persian and Carthaginian invaders but managed to extirpate the states that sent them. – Parker 10 Emphasis on Innovation †¢ Normally, military technology is the first to be borrowed by every society, because the penalty for ailing to do so can be immediate and fatal; but the West seems to have been preternaturally receptive to new technology, whether from its own inventors or from outside. †¢ Technological innovation, and the equally vital ability to respond to it, soon became an established feature of western warfare. †¢ Since the Persian wars in the fifth century BC, few periods can be found during which the West proved unable to muster forces with a fighting potential superior to that of its immediate adversaries. – Parker 2 Unique System of War Finance †¢ The Wests ability to mobilize money in support of its campaigns is the most overlooked aspect of its superiority. †¢ Financial strength enabled the West to finance technological innovation, to pay soldiers enough to submit to discipline and to build armies and navies big and mobile enough to project power around the world. †¢ After the introduction of gunpowder weapons and defenses, the cost of each war proved significantly higher than that of the last, while the cost of military hardware rose to such a degree that only a centralized state could afford to buy. †¢ The financial burden of fighting may be spread over a wide social group or even over several generations. †¢ A capital-intensive military system, by contrast, requires the stockpiling of a wide panoply of weapons that, although extremely expensive, may so become outdated. †¢ Its attraction, however, lay precisely in the combination of high initial cost with low maintenance. †¢ An example is the Harlech castle, one of Edward Is magnificent fortifications in Wales, cost almost an entire years revenue to build, but in 1294 its garrison of on 37 soldiers defended it against attack. †¢ Another example is the Manhattan Project which spent millions of dollars on the production of nuclear devices which, delivered on two August mornings in 1945 by just two airplanes, precipitated the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan and the millions of her troops still in arms all over southeast Asia. – Parker 6, 7 Why Imitating Western-Style Warfare †¢ Western-style warfare comes as a package. †¢ To adopt Western style warfare, countries outside the West have difficulty because the Western style of warfare is so inextricably tied to Western culture. †¢ Countries also have to be able to mobilize resources in a way that is competitive with the West. †¢ Military institutions tend to be conservative in outlook, and this feature frequently prevents them from adapting to the Western style of war. †¢ As Geoffrey Parker points out, one country that proved able to adapt the Western way of war to its own culture was Japan. However, there are few other examples. is it hard to imitate western style warfare? According to Murray and Knox, what were the negative consequences of the US victory in DESERT STORM? The two authors find that DESERT STORM encouraged a tendency in the US military to micromanage military operations from the highest level (they suggest the spirit of McNamara was resurrected). They believe Operation DESERT STORM (ODS) encouraged the Services to continue searching for all the multi-billion dollar, high-tech toys they could accumulate instead of thinking about what they really needed and how best to use their resources. They believed the 100-hour victory led to the expectation of quick, near-bloodless victories. According to Geoffrey Parker, the Western way of war is the unique way of fighting that developed in Western civilization. Park The significance of the Western style is its dominance. It led to the West’s dominance. er argues that every culture develops its own style of warfare. History shows that each culture develops its own version of warfare which is evident in our COE. The Western way of war has become the paradigm. It is based on five essential features: Technology, discipline, Highly aggressive military tradition, emph on innovation, unique system of war finance. Training and leadership can be considered generic to all cultures. The West really didn’t have an edge on those aspects. Which event was more revolutionary? The 9/11 attacks against the Pentagon and World Trade Center or the shock and awe campaign against downtown Baghdad? †¢ The Al Qaeda hijackers used existing technology to dramatically revise the US perception of national security. †¢ By attacking and killing civilians wholesale, they demonstrated an unwillingness to follow traditionally held values and rules of engagement generally accepted by Western armies. †¢ By contrast, the US bombing campaign against Iraq was a technological marvel intentionally designed to avoid civilian casualties. †¢ The precision and visual impact of our strikes was impressive, but their impact remains uncertain. One might argue that neither attack was truly revolutionary. †¢ The Japanese kamikazes of 1944 – 45 demonstrated the ability to use human pilots to turn normal aircraft into precision-guided munitions. †¢ The joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs) of 2003 were just an evolutionary improvement of the laser-guided weaponry of the late Vietnam War. †¢ Perhaps, more revolutionary, was Al Qaedas failed attempt to hit the White House, just as the US Militarys attempts to kill Saddam Hussein at the outset of the Iraq War. Military Revolution Definitions †¢ Its defining feature is that it fundamentally changes the framework of war. †¢ Military revolutions recast society and the state as well as military organizations. †¢ uncontrollable, unpredictable, and unforeseeable †¢ They [who experienced military revolutions] came to recognize the grim face of revolutionary change; they could rarely aspire to do more than hang on and adapt. Analysis of military revolutions helps by: †¢ Understanding the impact of revolution on the society, the state, and the military. †¢ Recognizing an onset of a military revolution to better make decisions to assist military organizations to adapt to change. †¢ Predicting future military requirements based on changes brought about through military revolutions. †¢ Understanding what changes are possible based on the environment. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Summary Military Revolution †¢ Occur during periods of dramatic change in the way violence is used to pursue policy by other means †¢ Caused by major upheavals in society, economics, politics, or diplomacy †¢ Are massive in scope †¢ May not proceed quickly by todays standards †¢ Produce profound changes Revolution in