World War III Will Not Be What We Imagine. Its Primary Weapon Will Be Assembled in a Garage. Who Is Ready to Start a Global Conflict Now, and How?

 

"And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man." (Revelation 9:3–5)

 

NATO has prepared a war plan against Russia in the event of an attack on the Baltic states. The scale of the plan is evident simply from the rank of those who drafted it: the highest-ranking officer involved was a major—a rank equivalent to a regimental chief of staff.

 

One might think the document unworthy of attention, were it not for two factors. Modern military science is currently facing an acute tactical crisis. Tank wedges, army encirclements ("cauldrons"), and even prolonged artillery barrages have become unfeasible. The reason lies in the saturation of the front line with UAVs.

 

The second point is truly surprising. Never before have plans for a potential war been made public. It is as if NATO is signaling: we know everything, and we are ready for a new type of warfare.

 

In reality, the publicly presented plans reveal the contours of a non-nuclear World War III—assuming such a thing is even possible, where nuclear powers are drawn into a global conflict solely through participation in local skirmishes and proxy wars.

 

The NATO plan clearly indicates that the primary burden will fall on autonomous robotic systems.

 

While the concept of fully autonomous systems remains hard to fully grasp, remotely controlled systems have already transformed military tactics more profoundly than the advent of artillery or machine guns. The only comparable shift was the introduction of rifled weaponry, which rendered column-based attacks impossible.

 

Today, a tank cannot move into position because the fields are littered with "waiters"—drones that have landed and are lying in wait for the command to take off and attack. Yet, just a few years ago, it seemed that nothing would ever change and that tanks would decide the outcome of any war.

 

And now, NATO has published a defense plan for three small states—geographically and politically—drafted by a mere major, yet clearly demonstrating that the alliance is prepared for new methods of warfare.

 

I am convinced that this was the sole purpose of drafting and publishing the plan: to send a message to those who are truly ready, drawing on four years of combat experience.

 

The contours of a future non-nuclear World War III are clearly defined. I am no military expert, so I will speak in broad strokes without getting into the details. Special forces are the only units where a human role remains—a point noted in the NATO plan.

 

In the late 1980s, a special forces officer told me with authority that special forces units operating in the army's interest had become ineffective. He predicted a general decline in the caliber of all elite army units. Yet, the spiral has turned once more: future armies may well consist of special forces operating in the service of robots. UAVs have already transformed conflicts, and artificial intelligence and autonomous systems are poised to transform them even more radically.

 

Massive armies will become obsolete. Inflicting a strategic defeat on an adversary will no longer require vast columns of military hardware. A massive military-industrial complex will not be needed. Everything will be compact.

 

Even today, drones can be assembled in a garage—and that is enough.

 

Yes, over time, the requirements for the electronic components of combat systems will become more stringent. Yet, it is difficult to say right now whether these components will differ in any significant way from the systems found in smart homes or smartphones.

 

Major powers with their vast, expensive armies no longer hold a monopoly on resolving global disputes with other nations through military force. The primary targets will shift from military installations to infrastructure. Indeed, why chase after military targets when you can destroy power plants and prolong the war until the enemy’s batteries run out of charge?

 

Power plants would be heavily fortified. However, it is impossible to protect high-voltage transmission lines along their entire length.

 

This could lead to a significant fragmentation of generating capacity. The USSR had experience with this, using decommissioned nuclear submarine reactors to supply electricity to northern cities.

 

And most importantly: the mass deployment of drones—controlled by a very small number of people or even by fully automated systems—would be inexpensive. Furthermore, these systems would be easily replaceable.

 

This is a far cry from transporting ammunition to the front line. That process requires trains followed by truck convoys. And even then, you might have to fire dozens or hundreds of shells just to score a single hit.

 

During one of their offensives in World War I, the Entente fired 25 million shells. That figure matches the total number of troops mobilized by the Central Powers throughout the entire war—25 million people. That works out to one shell per person for the whole war, yet that volume was expended in just a single offensive.

 

Moreover, these shells are becoming increasingly expensive, and firing them is becoming ever more dangerous. Mass employment of such weaponry has long since become unfeasible.

 

World War III would be fought between the lesser allies of nuclear powers—powers that themselves huddle under their nuclear umbrellas.

 

A large number of local conflicts is the only scenario for a future world war.”