Does military strategy determine weapons or the other way round? In general, a well-established military strategy has facilitated to determine which weapons and operations are needed for achieving its objective.
As state-of-the-art technology comes to...
Does military strategy determine weapons or the other way round? In general, a well-established military strategy has facilitated to determine which weapons and operations are needed for achieving its objective.
As state-of-the-art technology comes to the fore, however, this causation tends to be reversed. Technology can be served as an independent variable to change military strategy. Cutting-edge weapons can lead for dominant tool of winning battlefield combats by leading to military oversee battlefield dominance.
Emerging innovative weapons are classified into three categories: conventional weapons, asymmetric weapons and nuclear weapons. These weapons have changed strategy-driven battlefield into five technology-ridden battlefields: gray zone battlefield between war and peace, fusion tactical nuclear-based battlefield, ecosystem-oriented battlefield, interconnected battlefield between kinetic and non-kinetic weapons, and hybrid and complex battlefield.
Furthermore, the changing battlefield environment is directly linked into the changing military strategy. The recognition of technology as an independent variable sheds some light on eligible policies such as integrating military organizations, changing how to deter North Korea’s nuclear threats, and reorienting towards Korean-style gray zone military environment of the Korean Peninsula.