The British WWII strategic bombing campaign reveals a core logic of war: success provokes a neutralizing reaction. As British bombing became more effective, Germany reallocated vast resources to air defense and countermeasures. This response ultimately negated the initial British advantage, showcasing the dynamic interplay of action and reaction.
Related Insights
Despite a poor formal education, Winston Churchill consistently grasped the strategic potential of new technologies like the tank, radar, and nuclear weapons. His innate sense for the "realities of these things" allowed him to champion innovations that established experts and military leaders initially dismissed or misunderstood.
The development of AI won't stop because of game theory. For competing nations like the US and China, the risk of falling behind is greater than the collective risk of developing the technology. This dynamic makes the AI race an unstoppable force, mirroring the Cold War nuclear arms race and rendering calls for a pause futile.
Strategist Otto von Bismarck understood that after unifying Germany in 1871, it had reached its "culminating point of success." He knew any further expansion would trigger a hostile global coalition. His successors ignored this logic, pursued further greatness, and predictably created the very alliance that destroyed them.
The losers of WWII, Germany and Japan, paradoxically "won the peace." Their complete devastation forced a societal and industrial reset, funded by the US. This allowed hyper-modernization and rapid economic growth, while victorious but bankrupt Britain was stuck with aging infrastructure and financial burdens.
Military technology often evolves incrementally. However, a breakthrough like the Maxim machine gun can suddenly render centuries of established doctrine—such as the drilled infantry charge—completely obsolete. This creates a strategic crisis that forces an equally radical technological and tactical response, like the tank.
Ed Luttwak identifies a recurring historical pattern of self-sabotage. Imperial Germany challenged the British Royal Navy, which protected its global commerce. Today, China challenges the US Navy, which secures the sea lanes vital for Chinese trade. This is a recurring strategic error driven by a misplaced desire for military parity.
Trump's direct, aggressive actions often achieve immediate goals (first-order consequences). However, this approach frequently fails to anticipate the strategic, long-term responses from adversaries like China (second and third-order consequences), potentially creating larger, unforeseen problems down the road.
When complex situations are reduced to a single metric, strategy shifts from achieving the original goal to maximizing the metric itself. During the Vietnam War, using "body counts" as a proxy for success led to military decisions designed to increase casualties, not to win the war.
Using an analogy from Clausewitz's "Mountain Warfare," a force occupying a mountain peak is tactically unassailable but operationally impotent if the enemy army simply bypasses it. This highlights the different levels of war: tactical victory is meaningless if it doesn't contribute to operational goals within the wider theater strategy.
Before the 2022 invasion, Russia seemed invincible after small-scale successes. However, the large-scale Ukraine war revealed a critical weakness: a complete lack of logistics. As military professionals know, logistics—maintenance, supply lines, support crews—are what enable major wars. Russia's failure in this area proved its military is not a true great power machine.
