Armed Forces: The Changing Nature of Warfare

To say that warfare has changed in nature in the last 50 or so years would be a vast understatement. The nature of war has changed so drastically it is barely recognisable to its former state. Since the end of World War Two war has taken a series of very different turns with the focus of warfare no longer being on two advanced armies but rather guerrilla warfare.

At the close of World War Two the world split into two diametrically opposed “factions” the west and the east, democracy and communism. However owing to the nature of the advancement of the two armies traditional warfare became suicidal. The advent of nuclear weapons guaranteed mutually assured destruction should any party attempt direct warfare. This meant that traditional warfare became all but impossible as it would result in the absolute destruction of all parties involved. Since the end of WW2 no advanced i.e. modernised, state has gone to war with any other. Instead, during the cold war, a series of proxy wars were fought where the dominant actors (The US and USSR) tried to exercise control and influence of third countries in order to bolster their own strategic positioning. The most famous of these wars was the Vietnam War which involved US ground forces against the pro-communist Vietnamese. However a number of other wars were fought across Africa, the Middle East and Asia.  All of these conflicts were generally characterised by one of two things – A superiorly armed force fighting a guerrilla force or two groups fighting a civil war supported by one of the two superpowers. This kind of warfare has drastically changed how war could be fought with technology becoming increasingly powerful yet ineffective in terms of fighting insurgents and other locally grouped military organisations.

Since the end of the cold war there has not been a single conflict involving a westernised country where one side did not have vastly superior force with technology that far outstrips the opposing force. Most conflicts have been internal within countries or missions of intervention by “peacekeeping forces.” This has led to a focus on guerrilla warfare and terrorism as a method of fighting. This new form of conflict has made traditional military power much less effective in tackling new forms of threats and conflict. Modern fighting tactics have developed into a decentralised network of fighters and groups using hit and run tactics in order to eventually attempt to wear down conflicts and opposing forces. This in combination with terrorism has made the dangers of modern warfare vastly different from historical wars. Modern military forces have been relatively slow to adapt to the changing nature of modern warfare and have encountered frequent problems whilst trying to prevent fatalities and slow the tides and growth of insurgents. The key problem is that modern developments designed to lessen casualties in modern warfare cannot work efficiently against guerrilla forces. Conventional tactics like surgical strikes, sanctions and direct combat action have proved hugely ineffective with policing seeming the only real preventative action that can be taken.

With this change in warfare combatant safety has to be the highest priority and safeguarding against combatant death must as always be the top priority of armed forces worldwide. Armed forces insurance has become a necessity for all those serving in the armed forces as the services themselves have been slow to take every measure that could guarantee the safety of those serving their country abroad. Progress is being made but the pace is relatively slow with specially armoured vehicles and body armour only recently being adopted by some armed forces.