Comment Paper #3: Doctrinal Shifts and their Political Repercussions

The reading for Thursday made me think more deeply about what Singer calls “military doctrine.” As Singer explains it, doctrine is the guiding bureaucratic decisions that dictate the manner in which new technologies are to be employed by the armed forces. For example, in the aftermath of WWI—a period that Singer compares to the one we are living in right now—military officials needed to draft a new doctrine of use in response to the emergence of new technologies like the tank and the submarine. These doctrinal choices are important in that they could decide whether a new technology could turn the tide of war or make no significant impact whatsoever. As Singer points out, near the end of WWI, the British were the first to introduce tanks, but “had no doctrine at all on how to use them.” Therefore, tanks had a negligible effect on the outcome of WWI. For example, during the Battle of Cambrai in 1917, the “British tanks finally broke through the Germans’ trench lines, but there was no plan on what to do next and the offensive ended only six miles in.” Likewise, we are seeing some of the same lack of a “guiding vision” for drones and robotic warfare.

I believe, therefore, it is important to discuss the possible doctrinal shift caused by automated warfare and its likely political consequences. I will do this by focusing on one specific facet of automated/robotic warfare: the mothership concept. In his book, Singer points to some exciting new technologies that have emerged in the past few years, which could result in what are essentially manned “motherships” that control entire “fleets” of small automated drones, which are then able to be dispersed and report back to the mothership vessel. This new technology means an incredible new reach for each vessel. For example, “a mother submarine able to send out a dozen tiny subs can search a grid the size of the entire Persian Gulf in just over a day.” One area where this is making major splashes (no pun intended here, seriously) is in the area of naval warfare.

Naval warfare has been dominated for a long time by the doctrinal philosophies of Alfred Thayer Mahan, which called for the concentration of naval power into massive fleets that could meet opposing forces head on. However, what we are seeing here is a shift to the ideals of another military scholar, Julian Stafford Corbett, who believed that keeping a fleet concentrated only made the job of the enemy easier by revealing the location of the majority of your fleet, assuming that it is an asymmetric war. Therefore, the view that Corbett espoused was that a naval force should be comprised of smaller, dispersed squadrons of vessels, which were able to maneuver much more easily than a large-scale fleet. These new technological advancements may be triggering a move away from Mahan’s ideas and more towards Corbett’s.

So, with this rethinking in the way military (and specifically, naval) doctrine is conceived, what political consequences will likely follow from these new technologies and their accompanying doctrinal shifts? Well, for one, because each ship has such an increased reach and range in terms of surveillance and destructive capability, it will likely mean that overall, less manned vessels are employed in active duty. Essentially, this will lead to the U.S. not only using less of its already existing fleet, but also could mean that less ships/airplanes/submarines or any manned vessels are built in the future, therefore saving money on construction and development (assuming that the drones aren’t too expensive to build). As such, investing in this mothership technology could revolutionize the way the military spends money and lead to less money being spent in the long run.

Another positive political consequence that could emerge as a result of mothership technology is in terms of the existing military infrastructure. Because of the doctrine of maintaining large, concentrated fleets, the U.S. has also needed to maintain a network of costly naval bases around the world. These naval bases have been costly from both a monetary and a political capital perspective. However, with a shift towards mothership technology and the use of automated drones, many of those bases could be decommissioned. This would both save the US a substantial amount of money needed to maintain those facilities and save us from the lengthy (and sometimes hostile) negotiation with foreign countries over whether we can install a military/naval base on their soil.

There are obviously more impacts that this technology will have on warfare and politics (both positive and negative), but those are simply some of the ones that I felt were the most deserving of attention. I look forward to having a discussion about the impacts that many of you could imagine coming from these new technologies.