Short And Long Term Effects On American Warfare

Three events that arguably had the most profound effects on warfare was the advent of three different “ages”: the Napoleonic age, industrial age, and nuclear age.
Napoleonic Age. In the eighteenth century, European warfare was comprised of long-service regulars, officers from the nobility lacking military training, and a professional infantry recruited from the dregs of society requiring strict discipline. Warfare was slow because armies marched around towns (rather than through them) and could only march during the daytime, given that infantry may try to desert under the cover of darkness. Armies were very expensive, so warfare consisted of ongoing maneuvering to try to cut off the other army’s supply line. A good general need not be a good
Napoleon understood how to use mass movements of troops. He establishes a number of corps whose marshals obeyed his commands and can move independently. Though these marshals were not good strategies, they were capable executors of Napoleon’s orders. Napoleon could therefore decentralize maneuver while centralizing control. By moving the corps separately as combined-arms units, Bonaparte increased the speed of movement and decreased the burden of logistic support. This naturally changed fundamentally the strategies used in
During the Crimean War, reporters in the field used telegraphs for the first time, having an impact on the common people as they learned that war is not as glorious as it was imagined to be. Trench warfare, an ominous foreshadowing of what would occur in World War I, was witnessed at the Petersburg battle in 1865. Prussia in the mid-nineteenth century won three wars based on general staff planning and the use of railroads. With long-range guns empowering the defense, it is advantageous to arrive first, select good terrain, and have the enemy go on the offensive. Nuclear Age. The nuclear age is the third event of great import. The nuclear age entails a transformation of warfare strategies into strategies of deterrence and how not to use nuclear weapons. As noted by Lawrence Freedman, nuclear strategists were usually civilians rather than military personnel because nuclear strategy has more to do with international politics and higher decision-making in crises than the traditional use of force. The effects of nuclear weapons on military strategy were varied due to the competing interpretations as to their nature and their use. The long-term effect of nuclear weapons has primarily been deterring their use, but its use in short-term strategies have been