Political Science behind War - Assignment Example

Political Science Section Have drones represented a technological revolution in warfare? The devastations experienced by the participants in the World Wars drove a new demand in technological advancement as means of either defending oneself or easily taking down the enemy. However, 9/11 seems to have driven the demand higher as America [and other big economies] hastened in coming up with complicated weaponry in securing their soil. In the Afghanistan and Iraqi War, the United States of America and its allies applied a new form of combat; drones. Drones, otherwise known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, have the ability to spy, locate, and attack an enemy without requiring any manual operation since they are controlled remotely, even from thousands of miles away. As has been evident in the recent wars and the virility of drone technology use, it is sufficient to state that robotics, inclusive of drone warfare, represent technological revolution in warfare and global security. Drones are now at the top of the robotic weapons employed by the U.S. since 2004. Since their inception, winning wars has not only become simpler, but world politics are also taking a more positive approach. One of the biggest roles played by drones so far has been in counterinsurgency fights. In the Afghanistan, Iraqi, and Libyan Wars, the American commanders were awarded a great advantage by drones. First, they could survey enemy territory without being noticed. As such, they would plan their attacks to attain maximum effectiveness. In short, they knew where to hit, and when, using what kind of power, and what the likely outcome was. In this way, they had greater command over the battlefield. This justifies that warfare has undergone significant revolution unlike ancient times when rivals blindly went into battlefields with the least idea of what awaited them. Second, unarmed drones played a key role in undermining enemy’s networks of communications. Before and during the wars, spy drones would invade enemy airspaces and bypass their communication systems. Back at headquarters, the drone operators would collect intelligence from the information being relayed by the UAVs. As such, they knew much of what the enemy was planning, or they could easily locate insurgents’ hideouts. This advancement in collecting intelligence enabled the United Sates to suppress terror attacks as well as take the enemy by surprise. In the event that an enemy is caught unawares in battle, the war is a win-win situation. More importantly, drones can be used to interrupt enemy communications thus disrupt their activities. One of the most popular applications of drone spying and disruption is the Stuxnet case in which the United States traced down a nuclear program in Iran and sent the Stuxnet virus to destroy the entire setup (Swan 34). Additionally, multiple improvised explosive devices were deactivated in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq as drones used jammers to cut the communication from the triggers.This saved the lives of many American troops and worked to further weaken the insurgents. Weakening the enemy is yet another instance of drone technology revolutionizing the war of conducting war. According to Enemark (16),the United States has been training more drone operators than bomber and fighter pilots combined. Being a superpower, the U.S. seems to have sufficient reasons for investing more in robotics than in any other form of war. One potential reason might be that drones can substitute quite a number of troops required in battlefronts while providing more lethality and defense. With the size of drones decreasing as their military ability increases, drones might soon be sent to battlefields in place of real soldiers. Their small size allows them to move in swarms or formations. These can be launched from the ground or carrier aircraft. Today, ground troops are backed by aerial drones and ground robots such as tankers and bomb defusers. The advantage that comes with replacing troops with drones is that on average, drones are much cheaper to use. This includes their maintenance and weaponry. However, the biggest advantage that they carry is that troops will no longer die in their numbers as was the case before since less will be sent to war. Additionally, they will not have to die on foreign soil. The other concept of drones that shows a revolution in war is that in the future, wars will not require troops to combat. Rather, commanders from the warring sides will only need to sit in front of computer screens and order their drones remotely. In this way, it will be drone versus drone and not troop versus troop. The revolution in this case suffices in that people will no longer die in war, and that war will take the shape of computer games. Apart from reduction in deaths caused by war, this nature of war will discourage fighting in the long run since it would appear “less serious”. In this case, warfare will undergo a revolution in that fighting will significantly decrease. Other than weaponized or military drones, unarmed drones also exist. These types of drones can be used to spy or simply take videos or photographs of distant places while being remotely operated. In fact, there are even domestic drones that can be owned individually. These can be used as surveillance mechanisms. On a more wide-scale application, news bodies use drones to provide real-time war reporting. In ancient times, the news of war would only get to the public after the war was over and the troops returned home. This catered for much loss of perception as news could be altered by the reporter. Today, news agencies such BBC and CNN use drones to access the centers of battlegrounds and relay real-time events as they unroll. This helps the world to better understand the nature of war. It may appear like the frequent reports of war suggest an increase in conflict. This is however not the case since it is reported that compared to the era of WW1 and WW2, the world is at its most peaceful juncture today (Keynes 102). This can be attributed to the real-time reporting supported by drones since people learn of the horrors caused by war and are largely advocating against it. In short, drones are contributing to the decrease in warthus achievement in world security. Section 2: John Nagl:A conventional military force is not adapted to fight an asymmetric war John Nagl, having served in the U.S. in major conflicts such as the 1991 Gulf War and the War in Afghanistan comes out to strongly state that a conventional military force is not the way to go in an asymmetric war. Conventional military style in his case refers to the type of war that is widely accepted by society and is fought as per society’s “good” way. In his book, Knife Fights: A Memoir of Modern War in Theory and Practice, he reveals that during the Gulf War, he hinted this to the U.S. that their conventional way of millitary would fail them in future. This came into being especially after 9/11 and the failure of the Iraqi war to restore the state. This is because the enemy had taken to asymmetrical forms such as terrorism, insurgency and guerilla warfare which a conventional army could not easily take down. As such, Nagl felt that America could not win such a war by using its conventional military force. “Conventional armies are designed to defeat other conventional armies” (Nagl 94). In this case, Nagl implies that if a conventional army goes against a non-conventional army, it cannot succeed. This is true bearing in mind that the U.S. has been replacing its ancient ways of war with what they call “advanced military power”. For instance, troops are replaced by robots (machines), making it impossible to trail insurgents in villages. This has made the insurgents’ body to become stronger and wider. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. faced difficulties in telling out insurgents from villagers because they went after a weak and poor enemy using dense forms of military equipment. The robots, as Nagl argues, cannot patrol villages and flush such insurgents out. This supports Nagl’s argument that the two are incompatible, thus the ineffectiveness observed. Conversely, a conventional military strategy might not be a bad idea after all. For instance, going by the way 9/11 was executed, a conventional application of military might is the only way to counter such from recurring. If devising sophisticated mechanisms for acquiring intelligence from suspected bases would enable the military to prevent such, then it should apply them despite that some aspects of it might be unacceptable. Additionally, it does not mean that since an enemy is weak, so should the U.S. army reduce itself to. As has been evident in robotics’ use, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Col. Muamar Gadafi were all tracked down and eliminated by the help of sophisticated mechanisms otherwise termed as conventional. In the event that Nagl’s argument was put into practice, it is possible that these subjects would still be roaming free, and more tragic events would have been allowed to happen. In a nutshell, a conventional army possesses the ability to understand the asymmetrical order of today’s enemy, and in it, can effectively neutralize them without having to degrade itself to the “weaker” army’s level. Section 3: Is the world rearming since 2000? In topics of military advancement, only the U.S., U.K., and its Middle Eastern rivals are mentioned with regards to atomic, chemical, and robotic research. It seems like the most powerful economies on earth are constantly revisiting their military might and try to outdo each other in terms of power. It makes sense that after the wars of previous centuries, military strength has been a factor of determining who has a say, and who has to remain silent. Concisely, in as much as such debates revolve around these able economies, the collective world has been silently rearming since the onset of the new millennium. Latin America, one of the calm regions of the world has been highlighted in the recent past as upping its military strength. In 2009, about 33 nations in the region devoted about 57.8$ to military research and operation, and this shows an increase compared to yester times. Venezuela, for instance, has been acquiring weapons such as short-range missiles, T-72 tanks, and Sukhoi fighters. Brazil has also been seen purchasing fighter aircraft fleets and nuclear-powered submarines from France (Isacsonn.p.). It is not clear what these weapons are being acquired for, but it is sufficient to state that they are indeed rearming. Russia has not been left behind. It has been documented that one thing that Vladimir Putin has been investing in is Russia’s military power (Gvosdevn.p.). Russia has been in constant conflict with western nations, and this might be a reason why Putin decided to prepare his military in defense of his state in the event that a war breaks out. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is today said to be engaging in its largest rearmament exercise going by its budget allocations. According to cite, Russia plans to own 100 new satellites, 28 submarines, 2,300 tanks, 50 surface ships, and about 1,200 new helicopters. Evidently, this rearmament is too big to be concealed. Finally, one of the most unique forms of rearming has been seen in Japan’s move to allow its military to fight beyond its borders. In short, it lifted a ban that had come into place since its loss in WW2. In its recent action, Japan stated that the move was aimed at attaining collective self-defense by resurrecting its ties with its allies. The rearmament in this case is evident in that by becoming militarily active again, Japan, with its so called “allies” are likely to cause tension in their region. For instance, South Korea, a colony of Japan, sent a sharp outcry on the move. The biggest threat is however China since the two states are in constant conflict regarding ownership of some islands in the East China Sea (Fox News n.p.). In this case, South Korea, China, Japan, and their allies are likely to rearm since the chances of buried conflicts arising are likely. All in all, these revelations justify the statement that the world has been rearming since 2000. Works Cited Enemark, Christian. Armed Drones and the ethics of War: Millitary Virtue in a Post-Heroic Age.Routledge, 2013. Print. Fox News. “For the first time since World War II, Japan overturns ban on military fighting overseas”, Foxnews.com, 2014. Web. 9 Feb, 2014. Gvosdev, Nikolas. “The bear awakens: Russia’s military is back”, The National Interest, 2014. Web. 9 Feb, 2014. Isacson, Adam. “Why Latin America is Rearming”, Washington Office on Latin America, 2011. Web. 9 Feb, 2014. Keynes, J. The Economic consequencs of the Peace.Lightning Source, 2007. Print. Nagl, John. Knife Fights: A Memoir of Modern War in Theory and Practice. Penguin, 2014. Print. Swan, Sean. On the Cyber.Lulu, 2009. Print. Read More