A paradox exists in modern conflict: while technology like drones and sensors makes the battlefield incredibly lethal and difficult to operate on, political leaders remain optimistic about using war as a tool of statecraft. They consistently believe they can achieve a decisive victory despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Modern warfare's first-person drone footage, showing individual soldiers' last moments, creates a horrifying intimacy. This personal, "artisanal" scale of death can be more shocking to the public than larger, impersonal artillery strikes that kill dozens anonymously, shaping public perception of conflict.
The proliferation of satellites and drones has created a "transparent battlefield" where forces are under constant observation. This blanket of sensors makes it incredibly difficult for armies to move, concentrate forces, or achieve surprise, fundamentally changing traditional military doctrines that rely on maneuver.
The future of armed forces isn't a total replacement of traditional assets with drones. Instead, the dominant model will be a "hybrid force" that integrates expensive, crewed platforms like stealth jets and aircraft carriers with complementary unmanned systems like "loyal wingmen" drones and autonomous ships for scouting and high-risk missions.
Recent conflicts and political rhetoric have eroded the laws of war, normalizing threats against civilian infrastructure like bridges and power plants. Western populations, accustomed to distant conflicts, are psychologically unprepared for the possibility that their own critical national infrastructure could become legitimate targets in a future high-intensity war.
Military lessons from one conflict are not a universal blueprint. The small, disposable drones effective in Ukraine are ill-suited for the vast distances of the Pacific. Geography powerfully shapes the required capabilities, meaning a drone for a conflict with China must be larger, more expensive, and less disposable, creating a completely different strategic calculus.