Strategies of War: Has it Changed
March 17, 2008 by alpersa
No individual can argue that the concept of war is anything other than a conflict between nations, states, or individual parties. What makes it war is that they choose to settle this conflict with the use of force either by land, sea, air, or a combination. However, one could argue the strategies and tactics of fighting wars have dramatically changed over the past several centuries. Take, for example, the Spartans during the first century. They fought with bravery and courage, swords and shields. As the centuries passed, the gun was introduced, and shortly thereafter an even greater invention–the airplane. This new technology made air warfare a battle strategy of many. The main reason the strategies and tactics of fighting war have changed is due to advances in technology.
Let’s first look back at the history of war beginning with the Spartans. Foot soldiers went into battle in the formation of a giant mob. Each army charged at the other and fought a bloody battle. In the 7th Century B.C. the phalanx was developed. It is a simple linear formation with its width significantly larger then its depth. The length and depth depends merely on the enemy and the number of soldiers present. With the development of this new fighting strategy armies became stronger and more successful in fighting battles. The phalanx formation was and still is used in many wars in the past, present, and probably near on in the future. The final decision, of course, is left up to the general in charge which is similar to past and present fighting tactics. Next let’s look at the second stanza of a famous World War I poem written by Wilfred Owen:
“Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.”
World War I was one of the first wars in which gas was used as a strategic method of warfare. Gas was not used much previous to this time period only because the scientific understanding was not developed until shortly before. Gas was a major source of death during World War I. Had the scientific understanding not been developed it is possible many would of lost their lives in a less tragic way. The way in which Owen describes the death by mustard gas “And floud’ring like a man in fire or lime…” would lead a reader to believe the victim is suffering a horrible death. I do not consider the scientific understanding of mustard gas a positive step on the war front.
After looking at a commercial recruiting ad for the United States Air Force (which is the branch of the military that relies mainly on technology) in their commercial they focus on three major aspects: dropping soldiers in Iraq, bringing wounded soldiers home, and evacuating soldiers from Lebanon. Without the technology to complete these and similar tasks, the United States would have lost the lives of several more soldiers and our fighting tactics and strategies would be dramatically different. For example, let’s look at the role of the United States in World War II. None of the war was fought on United States soil other than Pearl Harbor. If the United States did not have access to air planes to transport soldiers and goods they would have had to done this by ship which would of taken several more days. Without the advanced technology the US would not have been able to be such an avid participant in the war.
After researching the ability of the U.S. military and understanding a small part of how technology plays a rather important role, it is also important to ask how many trillions of dollars the U.S. is spending to update and advance their equipment. Sometimes we should wonder is there something else that the money could be better spent on. Having a technologically advanced military has many pros but as a nation our military is far beyond other countries in the world. How much farther are we going to continue to go? Where is the line drawn between being safe and able to protect our country in times of crisis and when are things getting ridiculous?
Sources
Spartan WarfareStudy World 17 March 2008
War Poetry
17 March 2008
YouTube
17 March 2008
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
I like your post because you make a good connection between the strategies of war dating back to the fighting of the Spartans. I see the connection that you made using Owen’s poem and relating the mustard gas to a strategy of imposing death as a war tactic. Also, I understand how technology has played such a pivotal role in the advancement of the U.S. military in terms of fighting wars by land, sea, and air. Technology has been on the side of the U.S. since the fighting of wars began. Military spending is the reason why the U.S. has such advancements in technology, which is a high cost to pay because of it’s impact on the economy.
The questions asked in your post are good questions. I also wonder how much money the U.S. is going to spend and willing to spend for military purposes. The Iraq war for example, has already cost the U.S. three times as much as it expected. Recently in the Iraq war, cold war, and the Vietnam War, it appears that the U.S. is using its technology to help fight other countries wars. The price of these wars in high in dollar amounts, but I think the costs are higher in terms of life and humanity.