The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have reignited intense global debates over the role and use of weapons on the battlefield.The articulation between the ‘classic’ (airpower, artillery) and ‘new’ (drones, AI) technologies of war is a central dimension of these discussions. In a recent report by the Center for strategic and international Studies (CSIS), War and the modern Battlefield: Insights from Ukraine and the Middle East, the chapter on airpower evolution notes that “the tools and tactics used to perform these functions [of air power superiority] are constantly changing, having experienced a particularly rapid evolution on the battlefield in Ukraine” (p. 92). Such statement exemplifies this larger, dominant, and yet largely unquestioned, instrumental conception of weapons in strategic and military discourse, where armaments are routinely framed as ‘tools’ or ‘instruments’ used to achieve political objectives.This framing, rooted in classical strategic thought, especially Clausewitzian theory, treats war as a rational extension of politics by other means. Weapons are the means through which political will is enforced when diplomacy fails. Nevertheless, to call weapons ‘tools’ or even ‘instruments’ is to obscure their unique and irreversible effects. Military weapons are not neutral entities in the hands of rational decision-makers, nor do they passively submit to human will. The capacity of weapons to override human intent arises from a property intrinsic to their design and function: they are designed to kill, to destroy, to terrorize at an industrial scale. A hammer or a wrench does not provoke cycles of retaliation.But missile strikes, artillery rounds, air bombings, automatic fire form machine gun do. Their use does not just ‘serve’ political ends. Weapons generate mass death and destruction, and with it, a cascade of (un)expected consequences that no other ‘tool’ can produce: the hardening of political positions, the rise of vengeance, the escalation of violence.
This is precisely why the ‘instrument’ metaphor is flawed and ideologically biased. More than a metaphor, it embodies a dominant vision of what weapons are. It perpetuates the notion that the ethical and political implications of weapons’ violence structurally depend on how they are used. By continually reaffirming the possibility of control, the ‘tool’ metaphor legitimizes the expansion of military technologies and infrastructures under the guise of strategic necessity. As Elke Schwarz shows in Death Machines (2018, chapter 4), this core-concept of control in strategic thinking naturalizes the presence of weapons in political life and sustains the belief that more advanced tools will yield better outcomes. In doing so, it contributes to the normalization, and even the eternalization of militarization, embedding violence deeper into the structures of governance and technological development.
But if weapons are not simply strategic tools,then what are they? Addressing this question requires moving beyond the conventional frameworks of strategic analysis,which tend to seeing weapons in terms of their intended functions or their operational effectiveness. To engage with the social nature of weapons, we must begin not with what they are designed to achieve, but with what they consistently produce: large-scale destruction. From this perspective, my point is that the reality of weapons in modern warfare is shaped less by coherent strategic reasoning than by a pervasive technological fetishism. More precisely, by a political-military mystification of destruction that the technological power of weapons induces.Contemporary scholarship on war and armaments should more seriously engage with the proposition that the development and deployment of weapons are frequently enough driven not by rational strategic calculus, but by a more elemental belief in the inherent value of technologically enhanced violence. this belief manifests as a conviction that increased lethality and destructive capacity are synonymous with military progress and the promise of victory. In this context
“`html
The Evolution of Military Technology: From Precision to Attrition
Table of Contents
Military technology has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent decades, revealing an unexpected and destructive path. Initially marketed during the War on Terror as instruments of surgical precision and ethical warfare, these technologies are now being deployed in ways that prioritize overwhelming force and attrition, raising serious ethical and strategic concerns.The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza serve as stark examples of this shift.
The Promise of Precision Warfare
Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States and its allies invested heavily in technologies designed to minimize civilian casualties and conduct more targeted military operations. Drones, in particular, were touted as a key component of this new approach. The idea was to eliminate threats with pinpoint accuracy, reducing collateral damage and fostering greater accountability. However, despite these intentions, the reality on the ground often differed. Reports from organizations like New America demonstrate that counterterrorism operations,even those utilizing drone technology,were responsible for a significant number of civilian casualties.
The Rise of Drone Warfare
Drones offered several perceived advantages: reduced risk to soldiers, persistent surveillance capabilities, and the ability to strike targets remotely. These advantages led to a rapid expansion of drone programs,not just by the United States,but by numerous other countries. However, the proliferation of drone technology also created new challenges, including the potential for misuse, the difficulty of establishing clear rules of engagement, and the psychological impact of constant surveillance. The Council on Foreign Relations provides a extensive overview of the global landscape of drone warfare, highlighting the increasing complexity of this domain.
From Precision to attrition: The Ukrainian Conflict
The war in Ukraine represents a significant departure from the earlier emphasis on precision. russia is deploying massive salvos of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), often referred to as drones, to bombard Ukrainian cities. This strategy isn’t about surgically eliminating specific targets; it’s about overwhelming Ukrainian defenses and inflicting widespread destruction. This approach transforms what was once framed as a precision tool into a mechanism of indiscriminate attrition and terror. Reuters reports on the frequent large-scale drone attacks,illustrating the scale of this shift.
The Impact on Urban Warfare
the use of drones in Ukraine has fundamentally altered the nature of urban warfare. Cities are subjected to relentless bombardment, forcing civilians to seek shelter and disrupting essential services. The psychological impact of these attacks is significant, creating a climate of fear and uncertainty.Furthermore, the sheer volume of drones makes them difficult to counter effectively, even with advanced air defence systems.
The Gaza Conflict: Overwhelming Force
Similarly, the war in Gaza exemplifies a stark request of overwhelming force. Airpower and artillery fires have been used at gigantic levels, especially in densely populated areas. While Israel maintains it takes measures to minimize civilian casualties, the scale of destruction and the high number of reported deaths raise serious questions about proportionality and the adherence to international humanitarian law. Human Rights Watch provides ongoing documentation of the conflict and its impact on civilians.
The
Worth a look
Worth a look