Thomas Donnelly writes: Electromagnetic guns, hypersonic projectiles or even directed energy death rays would by themselves not necessarily constitute a revolution in warfare. But these technologies could yield a substantial increase in the capabilities of a wide variety of legacy platforms—and, importantly, again provide U.S. forces with a significant battlefield edge. Most of all, such investments could get the American military back in the habit of continuous modernization and the operational innovation that comes from actually fielding new capabilities – Hoover Institution’s Strategika
Max Boot writes: The pattern of history is clear: Good ideas travel fast, and effective technologies are disseminated quickly. It is doubtful that any future invention will allow the U.S. to dominate the military sphere for long. In fact, it is sobering to realize that despite its recent technological dominance, the U.S. has not been winning wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq against low-tech adversaries. Superior weapons don’t necessarily deliver superior strategic results. While the Pentagon rightly devotes considerable resources to R&D, it should save some mental room for grappling with why the U.S. has not had a better record of achieving its aims by force—and how it can improve in the future. – Hoover Institution’s Strategika
Kiron Skinner writes: As a tool of war rather than one of its causes, technological innovation will have to be paired with the innovation of ideas, strategy, and doctrine. These latter factors have more to do with enhancing credible deterrence, peace, and stability than rapidly-changing exotic technologies. – Hoover Institution’s Strategika