Rethinking the future of war

Technology alone cannot win wars; doctrine, tactics, and culture remain decisive

Wars in Ukraine and Gaza offer many lessons for the future of warfare. But, when we remain beholden to the use of new technology, and sweeping lessons from it, we risk overlooking other important factors: doctrine, tactics, and culture are equally significant. Any useful military change must be rooted not only in technological induction but also in extensive experimentation with cultural and doctrinal effects. Care must, therefore, be taken to apply the right lessons.

The central question is: what will future wars look like? Will they blend old and new ways, fusing two distinct paradigms, or evolve into a new model of warfare with radical battlefield effects? The truth lies somewhere in between. Ongoing wars blur our understanding of where warfare is headed. For India, the narrative and polemics surrounding the success of Operation Sindoor further complicate the picture.

What is changing?

One truth is undeniable: warfare is changing at a rapid pace, and the evolutionary model of change no longer suffices. Driven by geopolitical, technological, and social factors, the pace of change necessitates a revolutionary approach. A simplistic characterisation of warfare, without taking cognisance of its multiple dimensions, might not be prudent.

Three aspects standout. First, wars are no longer confined to the battlefront. They increasingly penetrate the hinterland, raising the political costs of a protracted war. They test a State’s capacity, and the will and resilience of its leaders, populace, and the military. On the battlefront, they underscore the importance of industrial resilience, particularly in munition production and in the depth of peacetime inventories.

Ukraine and Russia have struggled to maintain the daily refill of munitions. Russia, once an industrial giant, now relies on industrially poorer allies, like North Korea and Iran, to cover shortfalls. Had the May 2025 conflict lasted longer, its impact could have been remarkably different. Meanwhile, China’s extensive military infrastructure along our borders makes the case for India’s military resilience even more compelling.

Second, technological developments are reshaping warfighting. Unmanned systems, though not new, are now widely available and affordable, adding quality and new dimensions to combat — where the enemy can be engaged from above, rather than frontally. Artificial Intelligence (AI) further enhances transparency and decision-making by processing vast amounts of data. Yet, doubts remain about whether AI can credibly level the playing field between unequal adversaries.

Warfare is also expanding into space and cyberspace. With satellites projected to quintuple from 10,000 to 40,000 over the next decade, space warfare may extend beyond communications, navigation, and surveillance, to kinetic or non-kinetic strikes against adversary capabilities. Outer space is the next shadowy area of combat, to blind an opponent, or deliver anonymous strikes.

Meanwhile, cyberspace has become a new constant battlefield, and the electromagnetic spectrum has been weaponised beyond imagination. Its convergence with space, quantum, and hypersonic technologies could create far more debilitating effects.

Third, hybrid warfare — through propaganda, subversion, and proxies — remains intrinsic to conventional warfare. While it may not alter the balance of military power, it disrupts an adversary’s decision-making. India and Pakistan’s continued celebration of their May 2025 successes shows how hybrid warfare shapes public perception and influences political and military leadership.

What is the challenge?

These changes unfold against a rapidly shifting global strategic environment. This poses a few challenges. First, we live in a tripolar world dominated by the United States, China, and Russia, with the latter two increasingly aligned to contest US dominance. As Washington becomes increasingly ambivalent about its global role, India finds itself at the intersection of these poles, sometimes benefitting, but mostly struggling to assert its salience. This underscores the need for a resilient India.

Second, the volatility of global politics accentuates the pursuit of new technologies, potentially expanding the traditional battlespace. For India, future wars are not confined to contested borders; the hinterland is acutely vulnerable. Its population, infrastructure, resources, economic and financial strength, and internal cohesion —
all are at risk. The Indian State and society must demonstrate resilience, or
risk early cracks and fatigue in a protracted conflict.

Finally, India’s leaders must absorb technological changes, and adapt to directing future wars. While technology facilitates control and command, the chaos it generates makes it all the more difficult to do so. Over-reliance can stress the leadership, and even become debilitating.

Also, technology alone cannot win a war, it must be incorporated into doctrines, concepts, and tactics, lest capabilities rest on false foundations. Drones have produced a stalemate in Ukraine by substituting for Ukraine’s missing capabilities — aircraft, tanks, and artillery. By the time these deficits were addressed, drones had already evolved into an alternative capability, now touted as the new way of war.

What could be done?

Three aspects are pertinent. First, India’s policymakers must distil lessons from the wars in Ukraine and Gaza across geostrategic, warfighting, and societal contexts. A tripolar world will intensify global politics, forcing difficult strategic choices. Militarily, India must build a more tech-savvy force to deter adversaries, while societal cohesion remains vital to State resilience, and an integral aspect of its security.

Second, India must assess the future of warfare holistically — doctrine, tactics, and technology together. Land power, the integration of air and sea domains, battlefield transparency, precision, lethality, and hybrid warfare are key aspects. Also, cyber, space, quantum, and hypersonics must be leveraged to offset adversary advantages.

Third, India must reshape its defence resourcing, logistics, and future acquisitions. Industry must evolve rapidly to deliver battlefield needs, and expedite the acquisition patterns. As technological boundaries are blurring, warfare will increasingly demand a collaborative effort between the State, industry, and academia.

(The writer commanded the Leh Corps during the Eastern Ladakh crisis in 2020) 

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)