ITC Yhtomit

Modern Warfare and Technology

Hypothesis

The topic of technology and warfare has led to increased debate over the role of technology in warfare and whether the use of technology in battlefields has more harm than good. Some military systems have embraced technological advancements while others prefer the traditional methods of battle. Therefore, the study shall look to answer critical questions such as how has technology impacted warfare in recent times? Should technological advancements be incorporated in battlefields? And finally, does technology have a place in the future of battlefields and warfare? All the above-listed questions will be essential in analyzing the role of technology in warfare and whether technological innovations should be incorporated in warfare.

Research Design

Method

The hypothesis is focused on analyzing the relationship between technology and warfare. In a bid to effectively answer the research questions, a study involving retired and active soldiers will be conducted. The aim of the study is to receive first-hand information on the role of technology in warfare and whether technology aids or derails soldiers while in the battlefield. A sample of twenty retired veteran soldiers will be involved in personal interviews whereby they will provide the required information on how technological advancements either assisted or derailed them while in the battlefield. Forty active soldiers will be required to fill in questionnaires that will be both closed and open-ended. The aim is to conceal the identity of the soldiers and to ensure their feedback remains classified. The information gathered will be crucial in analyzing the role of technology in warfare and whether technological innovations should be incorporated in warfare. Therefore, personal interviews and questionnaires will be the selected methods of collecting information.

Variables

The independent variable in the study is the role of technology while the dependent variables will be the role of technology in warfare, the effectiveness of technology in battlefields and whether technological advancements should be assimilated in warfare. The variables will assist in determining whether technology and warfare go hand in hand and if they do, help to determine how some of the basics that must be observed in the implementation process.

Sampling Plan

Accessing veteran or retired soldiers will be a lot easier than accessing active soldiers. Therefore, the study will begin by conducting personal interviews with the retired soldiers. A list of forty willing veterans was provided giving enough options. The closest or easiest to access soldiers will be contacted until the desired number of twenty is attained. The personal interviews are expected to last for a total of ten working days whereby two veterans will be interviewed a day. Afterwards, the information will be compiled and prepared for analysis. The questionnaires will be emailed to the relevant army website where through collaboration and permission from the relevant stakeholders will allow soldiers to answer the questionnaires online via the website. The data will remain confidential, and no soldier will be expected to reveal their identity. The results will be emailed to the relevant authorities for further action to be taken. A two-week window will be given for answering the questionnaires which, as mentioned in the methodology section, will be both closed and open-ended.

Data collection

The personal interview is expected to provide thorough information. Some of the questions that will be asked are, what is your take on the role of technology in warfare? Do you feel more needs to be done to embrace technology in the battlefield? From your experience what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of relying on technology? Do you see a future where technology and battlefield would go hand in hand? If so, what are some of the recommendations you would suggest? If not, Why? These questions will help dig deeper into the experiences of the veterans and understand whether technology was essential initially and whether they deem technology as essential in modern warfare.

The questionnaires will be brief to avoid taking too much of the soldiers` time. The closed-ended questions will be, is technology useful in warfare? Do you consider enemies that have embraced technology to be more of a threat? What would you rather more guns and tanks or better ways to skillfully terminate the enemy? Up until now do you feel the impacts of technology? Do you believe more needs to be done to embrace technology? The open-ended questions will be, what are some of the disadvantages you believe come with heavy reliance on technology? Would you advise for increased assimilation of technology in warfare? If so why? If not, why? Give suggestions on areas you feel need technological improvements? What are some of the areas you feel do not need technological intervention? These ten questions will be enough to analyze the hypothesis and answer the research question.

Summary of Analysis

The information obtained will be analyzed through various methods. First, the results obtained from the personal interviews will be written down and submitted to the analysis team which will then interpret the data and convert it into percentages. Pattern matching will be the most reliable method of analysis as the results will be recorded in a chart. The chart will then be used to analyze how the respondents reacted and whether they saw technology as influential in warfare or not. Similarly, the questionnaires results will be recorded and represented in a table that will highlight the various results. The information collected will also be represented in charts and translated to percentage values. This will be empirical in providing a basis for analysis and consequently enable the drawing of relevant conclusions. Moreover, the data collected will be compared to determine the opinions of veterans and active soldiers coincide.

Limitations of the study

Some of the limitations encountered in the study are such as lack of cooperation. Dealing with active soldiers can be a highly demanding process, more so when it comes to obtaining consent from the senior stakeholders. The bureaucracy in the American army system might see the proposed dates changed which might affect the estimated duration of the study. Also, some of the soldiers might lack the time or interest to fill out the questionnaire. Another challenge is the filling out of questionnaires in groups which might lead to bias which might consequently affect the outcome of the study. Although interviewing the veteran soldiers has higher chances of providing reliable information, it might be fairly difficult to have a sit down with the veterans as planned. Some unavoidable circumstances might arise which will consequently lead to unprecedented delays. Another limitation is the lack of time to conduct an extensive analysis through all the ranks of the US Army, Navy and Air Force.

Buckley, J. (2016). Land Warfare: Attrition and Manoeuvre. The Ashgate Research Companion to Modern Warfare, 89.

Gray, C. H. (2013). Postmodern war: the new politics of conflict. Routledge.

Hooker Jr, R. D. (2011). Beyond Vom Kriege: the character and conduct of modern war. Parameters, 41(4), 1.

Jajodia, S., Shakarian, P., Subrahmanian, V. S., Swarup, V., & Wang, C. (2015). Cyber Warfare: Building the Scientific Foundation (Vol. 56). Springer.

Jordan, D., Kiras, J. D., Lonsdale, D. J., Speller, I., Tuck, C., & Walton, C. D. (2016). Understanding modern warfare. Cambridge University Press.

Rae, J. D. (2014). Analyzing the drone debates: targeted killings, remote warfare, and military technology. Springer.

Rovner, J. (2015). The risk society at war: Terror, technology, and strategy in the twenty-first century.

Sutherland, B. (Ed.). (2014). Modern Warfare, Intelligence and Deterrence: The technologies that are transforming them. The Economist.

Van Creveld, M. (2010). Technology and war: From 2000 BC to the present. Simon and Schuster.

Vere, C. (2009). The Napoleonic Wars and the Birth of Modern Warfare. Intelligence and National Security, 24(3), 464-470.