New realities change warfare

By Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo

This is the first of two articles on global security based on the advancement of technology in warfare equipment.

JAKARTA (JP): The development of technology has always improved the conduct of warfare. Bismarck of Preussen or Germany took about three months to defeat France in 1870. But 70 years later it took Hitler only three weeks to accomplish the same feat.

The dramatic developments in aviation and motorized transportation, further enhanced by the increase of firepower has made that possible. We must also not forget the improvement of military thinking that laid behind the invention of mobile warfare or the blitzkrieg practiced by the German Wehrmacht in 1940.

But technology has developed further and became more and more sophisticated. Firepower has become much more deadly and today individual weapons can destroy tanks and attacking aircraft.

Missile technology has produced a broad variation of weapon systems, ranging from the intercontinental ballistic missile which can reach more than 5,000 kilometers, down to the cruise missile and the individual antiaircraft and antitank missile.

More and more nations have mastered missile technology. It is reported that today 38 nations possess ballistic missiles and more than 70 nations have cruise missiles.

Parallel to the progress of missile technology came guidance technology. The progress of electronics and the laser has very much improved the accuracy factor of every kind of missile and projectile.

It is now considered normal for a cruise missile launched at a range of 3,000 km to have a spread of only 30 meters. Bombs dropped from an attacking aircraft can now hit their targets exactly where intended, and are therefore called "smart bombs".

The invention of precision guided munition has had a revolutionary effect on conventional weapons. Because of the high hit-probability, the destructive effect of the explosive in a warhead is much more effective than before.

Antimissile defense has also very much improved, mostly because of the efforts of the U.S. government when it started the Strategic Defense Initiatives.

Here the progress of information technology, including the use of satellites, has also played an important role. Although there are people who doubt the real effectiveness of the Strategic Defense Initiatives against an all-out Soviet attack against the U.S., the knowledge gained through the Strategic Defense Initiatives research efforts would make it possible to establish a relatively effective antimissile defense.

Looking from a psychological angle, we find that education has influenced people to become more politically oriented and less dependent on their government. People are becoming more and more willing to defend their existence against a dominating force.

The masses are not easily defeated, even if their government has capitulated to the enemy. If their country is occupied by enemy forces, they would first take a noncooperative stance towards the occupying force. They would later organize resistance groups and arm themselves for guerrilla warfare.

The progress in small-weapons technology today makes guerrilla resistance very harmful to occupying forces, as seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Although the U.S. and the Soviet Union were military superpowers with the most advanced weapons systems in the world, they were not able to defeat the Vietnamese and Afghan guerrillas. On the contrary, the superpowers endured a bloody experience with a traumatic aftermath for the U.S., and the breakdown of the Soviet Union was in part caused by its failure in Afghanistan.

An increase in firepower usually strengthens defense. That was the case when the machine gun was invented. Attacking forces on the battlefield could no longer march in close formation towards enemy forces. They had to disperse which made movement and control more difficult than before. Today with the increase in volume and accuracy of firepower, defense can be considered stronger than offense.

The result would make invasions a great risk. At the initial stage of invasion, attacking forces would be easily detected and identified by the use of satellites. They could then be immediately reported to the nation under attack.

This could happen either on land or at sea. The defending nation could immediately alert its long-range defense systems, composed of attack aircraft and especially long-range and medium- range ballistic and cruise missiles.

If the initial movement develops into an offensive, crossing borders or approaching at sea, with or without a declaration of war by the attacking nation, the defending side would launch a counterattack using attack aircraft and its missile systems.

In 1980 Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, the chief of the general staff of the Soviet armed forces, came to the conclusion that a technological revolution was taking place.

This would give conventional weapons a level of effectiveness in the field comparable to that of small tactical nuclear weapons.

Armor on a march might be detected, bringing attack by missiles with conventional warheads, showering self-guided antitank weapons, in an operation conducted from a distance of several hundred miles and with as little as 30 minutes between detection and assault. What can happen to an armored movement can easily happen to an approaching naval force at sea.

If the invading forces are able to overcome these defensive air and missile counterattacks, they will find themselves facing an organized defense, consisting of ground, naval and air forces, also equipped with precision guided weapons.

Moreover, the backup support for the invading forces that must maintain the momentum of the offensive will be heavily attacked at long range by the missile defense system.

The possibility is therefore, that the offensive cannot sustain its forward movement and must come to a standstill.

Of course, the invading side could also launch its own long- range missiles to attack the defense and continue its forward movement. If the defense is unable to defend itself properly against the offensive missile attacks, there is a possibility that the attacking forces would move forward and occupy important parts of the defending country, including its capital city.

But then the invading forces would have to encounter fierce guerrilla resistance, which would endanger its long supply lines and isolate the attacking force in the occupied cities. The defense could then prepare and launch a counteroffensive to annihilate the attacking force in the isolated points. But even if there were no counteroffensive, the guerrilla resistance would make the occupation a very expensive adventure.

Even with superior military forces backed by a strong industry and economy, a military invasion today could not guarantee the achievement of its objectives. One must not forget that a military invasion must achieve a political objective, which almost always requires the domination of the defeated nation. Even if the invading force were able to occupy the capital city of its opponent and all other important cities, as long as there was fierce resistance by the people, no important political objectives could be secured.