Feature image: Call of Duty

With a boxing record yet to beat, War is the pandemic we are yet to free ourselves from. Active for over 4000 years, holding a knockout count of over 3.5 billion and starring 14,500 times, War is and will continue to be the adversary we just can’t make “bite the dust”. Chemistry Nobel Prize winner Richard Errett, the father of nanotechnology, put it best: War will be one of the 10 biggest challenges we’ll face in the next 50 years.

Analogies aside, 76 years ago the world was immersed in a war that cost the lives of 1 in every 33. Yes, 1 in every 33. With one single blow, the “Little Boy” – the first Uranium based detonation – obliterated 130,000 people in Nagasaki, Japan.

These “feats” occurred 76 years ago, in the pre-digital era, at a time when computers would weigh 3 times a car, cover the space of an entire house and had the processing speed of calculators.

So if 76 years ago we had the ability to obliterate 75,000 people and 50,000 buildings in one go, how much damage could a full fledged war prompt today? Would it be the end of humanity? How will war be fought in the future?

How much Damage could a Fully-Fledged War Cause?

Before endeavouring into technologies, numbers and casualties, there is a need to define what we mean by a fully-fledged war. A fully-fledged war is a war where superpowers engage in unrestrained attacks. No longer will either superpower abide with moral impositions or with that tawdry frame they call jus in bello or ad bellum – laws of entry and conduct during war –nor attend to the repercussions of their actions. What ensues, use what you have.

Is this scenario likely? Thankfully this scenario is highly unlikely. As Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite said:

My dynamite will sooner lead to peace than a thousand world conventions. As soon as men will find that in one instant, whole armies can utterly be destroyed, they surely will abide by golden peace.

What Mr. Nobel wanted to say is that as offensive power increases and outweighs defensive power war becomes more costly. This increase will encourage both sides to seek for alternative means of dispute resolution. Why? War becomes less beneficial the moment you know it entails mutually assured destruction or the obliteration of entire cities.

So having defined what a fully-fledged war entails and why, thankfully, it’s unlikely event. What kind of weaponry could be used though if this unlikely event unraveled?

Tsar Bomba – AN602 Hydrogen Bomb

As the name indicates this is the “emperor of all bombs”. Created in the 1960’s it’s the most powerful artificial explosion yet to be experienced by humanity. With 4000 times the power of “little boy” or 10 times the combined power of all conventional explosives used during the 6 years of World War II, this hydrogen bomb is the last of its kind. Why? Shortly after its creation the two great powers of the Cold War decided to hit the break on the arms race scared by what could unravel. This led to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. We should definitely thank Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Nixon for halting there nuclear program otherwise we would live in a world where someone had the ability to start the Armageddon in a press of a button.

Chimeric Organisms – Biological Warfare

As we speak several phenomena are taking place. One phenomenon is urbanisation. At the turn of the 20th century, 247 million people lived in cities. Today, around 3500 million people live in Urban areas. What does this mean for warfare? There is a strand of warfare called Biological Warfare. This type of warfare uses biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi as a means of warfare. Despite being forbidden by the Biological Weapon Convention of 1972, a fully fledged war knows no limits. One of the worst warfare scenarios would see Chimeric Organisms being used in densely populated areas.Result? Millions could die within seconds.

vx – O-ethyl S-[2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl] methylphosphonothioate – Chemical Warfare

Whilst biological weapons are also forbidden by international conventions, there use has been known. In 1995 a religious movement in Japan called Shinrikyo released Sarin in a Tokyo Subway station killing 12 and severely injuring 50. Thankfully, they used the liquid form thus minimising the amount of potential damage.

A more deadly attack could involve VX. VX is an organophosphorus compound that affects the transmission of nerve impulses in the nervous system. RX is tasteless, odourless and has a slow evaporation rate persisting from days to months – depending on conditions – in surfaces. It is also fast reacting and lethal in tiny amounts thus the “perfect” area-denial weapon.

How Will the War of the Future be Fought?

So we’ve spoken about the trinity of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. These are, as of today and given our knowledge the most lethal weapons out there. More sophisticated technology exists but its lethal capability has been heavily reduced, why? As we said, several treaties have come into place limiting the destructive power of weapons. Weapons of mass destruction have been replaced with weapons of precision. Having said this, how will the wars of the future be fought? What will be the characteristics of war? Will we resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction? Will Cyberwarfare dominate the scene? Will humans be directly exposed in wars? Will it involve states?

CHARACTERISTIC 1: Non-State Actors and Proxies

As the graph shows the number of state to state conflicts is on a low and new actors seem to be emerging. This will continue to be a trend. States who are anti-status quo are likely to show discomfort through proxies i.e. Hezbollah. Why? As offensive capabilities continue to increase and globalisation has everyone under one fate, states have more to lose when engaging in belligerent action. As a result they resort to less traceable and more mobile groups to advance their interests.

CHARACTERISTIC 2: Cyberwarfare

We all remember the hack on Sony Pictures entertainment this past November. Hacking is not just a thing that involves individuals or corporations but also a means of warfare. An example of cyberwarfare was the attack on Natanz Nuclear Facility. In June 2010 Iran was victim of a cyber-worm called Stuxnet. This cyber-worm, reportedly a US and Israeli effort destroyed over 1000 Iranian nuclear centrifuges and set Tehran’s atomic programme back by at least two years. Cyberwarfare is not only dangerous but the future of warfare. As more and more things are computerised, the ability to hack into them increases. In 2011 the U.S. Screech AFB’s drone and Predator fleet’s command and control data stream had been key logged. What this could potentially mean? You know. To show the potential and dangers that computerisation could lead to, watch this video on how your car can be controlled from a computer without you even noticing it.

CHARACTERISTIC 3: Back to Convetional War

Pulitzer Prize Winner and Foreign Policy defend expert Thomas E. Ricks suggest that we might end fighting wars with weapons of the pre-digital era. Why? There are two reasons for this. One the previously mentioned. When you have something computerised you incur the cost of being hacked. The other reason, electromagnetic pulse. Electromagnetic pulse or transient electromagnetic disturbance are pulses that interfere, damage or disrupt electronic equipment. In future operations belligerents will either have to make sure they have an upper edge on their defensive capabilities or risk having all electronic equipment destroyed.

CHARACTERISTIC 4: No more Casualties

Named one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers by Foreign Policy, P.W. Singer suggests that the future of war will be Robotic. Want to know why? Check his Ted Talk. A brilliant prediction of what war could entail.