What am I talking about? Isn’t this a little, well, far-fetched? Too specialized? Too erudite? I don’t think so. Read a little further and then decide whether this makes sense, or not.

Warfare has been used for millennia to impose one nations’ wishes on its neighbors. I contend that warfare had not changed substantially for the past several thousand years until the last quarter of the 20^th century. The concept of warfare (read Sun Tzu, The Art of War for a clear understanding of the underlying principals of warfare. It was written in roughly 500 BC and remains in use today. Its principals are unchanging; its tools for implementation are radically different than even 30 years ago).

During the time from when we came down from the trees and stood on two legs until roughly the end of the 20^th century, war was fought between roughly equal forces. Big armies were faced by other big armies. In effect, sides were of roughly equal strength. They fought with each other using similar tactics. These were decided by the strategy as set down by their rulers and military leaders; then geography, trade, manpower, and a myriad of other issues and special circumstances dictated how the warring factions would tactically deal with one another. Both sides basically used the same weapons and the same general approach in the struggle. This could be called Symmetric Warfare. (Roughly equal opponents using roughly equal equipment, in the same way, to achieve similar goals).

The most recent struggle where roughly equal forces faced one another was World War II. Giant armies, and all which that implied, faced and fought each other on roughly equal terms. But during this world wide struggle science and technology was used to an unprecedented degree. Post WWII saw a dramatic change.

Nuclear weapons were developed. The Soviet Union, led by Russia, followed in the steps of the United States. While there was a tremendous amount of saber-rattling, it was clear to the leaders of both sides that mankind had finally developed a series of weapons which could destroy the human species. This was something that had never occurred in the history of warfare. Sure, you could kill many people (for example the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese forces in China in 1937), was truly a terrible event. But in the city of Shanghai, only 200 miles away there was no effect. But in nuclear war everybody was in danger. This evolved the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In simple terms, the two power blocks said “If you destroy me I will destroy you,” And thoughtful leaders on both sides knew they could posture and threaten, but they all knew and understood that there was a line which could not be crossed. Seeing your country lose a war was one thing; wiping out humanity and all living things on the planet was a different kettle of fish.

Then science and technology went farther. Weapons became more precise. Much more precise. In WWII there was a concept of “carpet bombing” to attack cities. Why? Because we couldn’t be sure that any one bomb would destroy a particular target. So, we dropped lots of them. Some times that worked, and sometimes it didn’t. Today, we can send ONE controllable missile from over 1000 miles away to hit a precise spot. I mean it can hit the second floor of a building, third window from the left. And, these weapons are cheap! Less than a million dollars. And, they can have nuclear warheads, among others.

The implications are that no group of leaders can ever gather simultaneously at one spot. If the opposing sides’ intelligence is good (and it generally is) the leadership of the other side can be destroyed with one attack. The entire concept of warfare has changed.

So, what does this asymmetric warfare have to do with anything? No country can possibly challenge the United States with equivalent, similar military force. But they can attack us with little bombs to blow up trucks. They kill a few soldiers at a time. They have no major armies, and no integrated leadership. They just kill a few people using suicide bombers. And to what end? They want to run things their own way, with no interference from the US. One side, the US, has a mind-boggling arsenal which faces tiny forces with a few homemade bombs. And we, the US, can’t stop them. This is the concept of asymmetric warfare. (Drastically unequal opponents using completely different equipment, in wildly different ways, trying to achieve dramatically dissimilar goals).

So what? The implications are substantial. We are supporting a giant military force which has no similar opponent. We can reduce our military by substantial amounts of men and material, which currently costs an enormous amount to support. And worse, some of our current force uses tactics based upon technology which is many generations out of date. This is not a good idea.

We have to have a force which can be expanded if and when large countries decide to oppose us, militarily. But the development of highly precise and specific weapons make that scenario highly unlikely. The United States should reduce its military force by tremendous amounts (say 50%) and train highly mobile, small specialized forces which would operate against terrorists in a manner similar to the way the terrorists operate.

In addition, American Foreign Policy should be altered. We should “Speak softly and carry a Big Stick,” giving encouragement and modest support to the people of oppressed nations whose populations want to achieve a more democratic way of life. Recent events in Egypt spring to mind, where the revolution came about heavily supported and aided by the use of modern technology communications. There seems to be a message here.

In essence, modern technology has transformed the way all present and future warfare must be waged. The concepts of huge static armies, requiring enormous logistic support, that are not capable of being protected, are faulty. Therefore, they must be disbanded, and entirely different forces must be developed using the tools of modern technology, today. This use of modern technology is in keeping with emotional, public, physical support to the oppressed populations, world wide, whose day is coming, and in fact is here, today. It would be a good idea for the United States to align itself with the future, which is here now, rather than the past which can no longer be supported or maintained.