How does new technology affect War?

Answer 1

That is an excellent question, but there is not a simple answer. Technology has a huge impact on warfare, from how they are fought to how long they could last and how many casualties each side would take. I'll give you an example off the top of my head.

In the Civil War, the accepted means of battle were for each side to square off against each other and exchange volleys of fire at each other. This may sound insane by our standards, but consider the limits of technology and it may make more sense. By our standards, the musket was a heavy and inaccurate weapon (generally speaking), which took a considerable amount of time to load and discharge. A skilled infantryman could fire only four shots a minute. This led to the tactic of large formations to maximize firepower. In this sense, technology had a direct effect on how men waged war. Not so much later, during WWI, technology had advanced to the point where the formations of the Civil War were completely obsolete. Such a tactic would amount to nothing more than an execution in the face of new bolt-action rifles and machine guns. Armored tanks, although ineffective by the limits of technology at the time, would greatly influence the Blitzkreig tactics of the German Army in WWII twenty or so years later. And the airplane, which served primarily as spotters in the early years of the war, would be adapted as a machine of war as its offensive and defensive potential was realized.

But the greatest effect technology has on warfare is the destructive power that each soldier can bring to bear. Like I said earlier, the average musket-wielding infantryman could fire four shots a minute. Today, even the least trained soldier can fire four rounds in a second. Machine guns, sniper rifles, warplanes, and ships all allow the military to accomplish more using less manpower. Some people cynically call war an economic contest of nations, ushered by mass-production technology. The importance of technology in all things, including war, cannot be understated.

While the most obvious military technology is used to kill people, some quiet military technology has arguably prevented some death.

In general, fewer people die in attacks where "smart bombs" are used than in the "carpet bombing" of "dumb bombs".

Satellite photos and UAV photos can potentially convince people to spare certain buildings and locations that they would otherwise demolish.

Military aircraft often airdrop food and medical supplies.

Airdropped Propaganda leaflets are useful to convince people to surrender without bloodshed.

Megaphones are useful to help convince people to surrender without bloodshed.

There have been cases where helicopters and airplanes have been used to evacuate soldiers and civilians who believed they would otherwise be overrun and killed.

... the effect of airplane Photography on the Cuban Missile Crisis ...

Many non-military technologies also affect war.

In particular, the first war where color television cameras were carried into war ...

Telephones -- in particular, the so-called "red phone" -- ...

Also, note that "new" technology does not often get used immediately in War, and even if it does make it into the next war after its invention, often does not have any noticeable impact.

The key is the use of technology in new and innovative tactics. These new tactics often incorporate certain abilities of the technology that are different than any other, to make a significant impact on warfare. It is thus common for a weapon (or technology) which has been around for a significant amount of time, without being notable in any way, to suddenly become a game-changing weapon, because someone thought up a new way to use it.

Conversely, it is also possible for technology to simply obsolete old tactics, not by any new or outstanding capability of the technology, but simply because the new technology pushes beyond what the old tactics were capable of dealing with.

The machine gun is a stellar example of this latter case: having been invented more than three decades before WW1, and quite extensively used in those three decades after being invented, it was hardly a "new" technology in WW1. However, the refinement of the use of the machine gun caused the obsolescence of frontal assault tactics by infantry, and forced a radical overhaul of small-unit tactics.

Answer 2

depends on which side you mention. about people or about the fame of war? for people; makes worse, for the fame of it; better than it has never been.