I’m not sure I agree. Just about any advanced nation has the capability to “turn off” social media making it a dull weapon almost instantaneously.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
War in Israel
- Thread starter Mirage
- Start date
- Status
Seriously? If you really believe this, you haven’t been paying attention to the world lately.
Strategy- and humanity- is nuanced and doesn’t accurately sum up to sound bites like that. Social media might be something relatively “new”, but information warfare isn’t. Much like the machine gun in WWI (not a chemist’s invention), it changes the “how” of attacking and defending, but the strategy of warfare is the same.
Use of force will always have a strategic value. How do you think terrorists got their hostages? Whether as deterrent, defense, coercion, or attack, those tactics either add or take away from an actor’s strategy in war and peace. But without force, or threat of force, you’re just shitposting on Reddit.
Last edited:
Iran denies involvement. I, for one, do not believe them. Meanwhile Israel is striking Gaza hard.
apple.news
Hard to say. It’s going to be ugly, and probably drawn out. My guess is Israel won’t be abandoning Gaza anytime in the foreseeable future.
Israel pulverises Gaza after Hamas attack as it collects its dead — Reuters
Israeli air strikes hammered Gaza on Tuesday, razing entire districts and filling morgues with dead Palestinians as Israel took revenge for the Hamas assaults that have triggered some of the worst blood-letting in 75 years of conflict.
Hard to say. It’s going to be ugly, and probably drawn out. My guess is Israel won’t be abandoning Gaza anytime in the foreseeable future.
Support for Hamas (and Hezbolla) is pretty much fixed and known. This might result in a slight uptick in “donations,” but the same can be said for Israel. The end will be like every end in this area…bang, boom, a few “oh my this is terrible” from the international community, and a brokered peace that will last a few more years.
Possibly, unless some actors decide to punish Iran. Who knows, just spitballing. You may be right though.
Iran also denied sending EFPs into Afghanistan and Iraq. I didn’t believe them then either.
I agree, that seems to be the most obvious vector for broader escalation at the moment.
I hope it doesn’t happen, but I’m also sick of seeing Iran do what they do.
This has a bit of tieback to Iran. Looks like a GSO nightmare.
kaldor2c7
IWC CW Mustang
By all means let me explain my perspective.
As we both know modern warfare has drastically evolved, reflecting the changing nature of global conflicts and the emergence of new technological domains. While it's undeniable that direct kinetic warfare—tactically speaking (short term)—remains a crucial tool in the military arsenal, its role in the contemporary strategic (long term) landscape requires contextualization.
For instance, today's conflicts often manifest within densely populated urban terrains. Resorting to direct kinetic force in such settings can lead to high civilian casualties and significant infrastructure damage. This not only complicates immediate military objectives but also potentially sows the seeds of long-term unrest and negative public opinion. Additionally, we now live in an era where state actors frequently confront non-state entities, from rebel movements to terrorist organizations. In these asymmetric battlefields, the sheer display of direct force might not yield the strategic advantage one would expect (Middle East examples are dripping w irony here).
Financial considerations also come into play. Modern military equipment, replete with cutting-edge technology, comes with soaring costs. Maintaining a kinetic approach can quickly drain a nation's financial reservoirs, especially during protracted conflicts. In contrast, non-kinetic methods like information and cyber warfare offer a cost-effective means to achieve certain strategic objectives.
On the geopolitical front, any direct military action against another nation is fraught with potential ramifications. A kinetic strike could inadvertently draw in allies of the affected nation, result in crippling sanctions, or disrupt the intricate web of global trade. In today's hyper-connected world, the instantaneous dissemination of information means that images of war atrocities or civilian casualties can instantly swing public sentiment against military operations (deja vu??). Information warfare, if executed correctly, can shape narratives and control public perception without a single bullet being fired.
We must recognize the expanded boundaries of today's battlefields. No longer confined to just land, sea, and air, modern warfare has infiltrated the digital realm. Cyber capabilities, from hacking essential infrastructure (gray area of kinetic sure..."Cyber Physical") to manipulating financial systems, offer a new form of deterrence—one that can be just as formidable as traditional shows of force in the social domain. The essence of strategic warfare hasn't necessarily changed, but its tools and tactics have evolved. The challenge for modern military strategists is not to choose between kinetic and non-kinetic means but to understand how best to integrate them in a world that continues to change socially…very rapidly.
When I posted my response, I thought something like this might happen. FFS. I sort of asked for it, with my comment on nuance vs. sound-bites, didn't I?
@kaldor2c7 , thank you for the long, sterile, policy opinion piece that is effectively conveying nothing new.
My point stands- kinetic force and threat thereof is and will continue to be strategically relevant on the battlefield, and as a deterrent to would-be aggressors.
I think you might want to check your open tabs. This is airwarriors, not command and staff online.
Ukraine...??
- Status