Future War Will Be Fought with Sticks and Stones
Introduction
In an era defined by artificial intelligence, drones, and satellite-guided warfare, it may seem absurd to suggest that the future of war lies in trenches, artillery, and rifles. Yet history has a way of circling back on itself and as nations race to develop increasingly advanced systems of destruction, they also create the means of their own paralysis. The next great war will not be won by the most technologically advanced army, but by the one that can still fight when all technology fails. This is not a romantic return to the past, nor a doomsday prediction, but a logical outcome of warfare’s evolution. Each new military breakthrough has produced a corresponding countermeasure, driving modern battle toward a point of diminishing returns. Directed-energy weapons now drop entire drone swarms from the sky. Cyber-attacks can paralyze command networks. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) systems threaten to fry electronics across vast regions. Logically, therefore, when all sides possess such capabilities, the advantage shifts not to the most advanced, but to the most adaptable.
The next great war will not be won by the most technologically advanced army, but by the one that can still fight when all technology fails.
The Paradox of Progress
For over a century, the trajectory of war has been defined by progress – faster aircraft, smarter bombs, and more connected command networks. Yet every step toward technological supremacy also increases fragility. Modern militaries are built upon vulnerable foundations: GPS, communications satellites, and data-dependent logistics. An adversary that can disrupt those systems does not need to outgun its opponent; it only needs to unplug it. The U.S., the U.K., China, and Russia are all developing EMP and high-power microwave weapons designed to do exactly that. The U.S. Department of Defense has warned repeatedly that an EMP detonation could disable unshielded electronics across an entire theatre of operations. Russia claims to have a number of non-nuclear EMP devices that have allegedly been tested for battlefield use. China’s military doctrine openly discusses “information dominance” as a means of blinding an adversary before the first shot is fired. If such weapons are ever used at scale, the result would be immediate regression as drones would fall, satellites would go silent, and precision-guided munitions would become scrap metal. Armies would be forced to fight with what still works: small arms, fieldcraft, artillery, and ground tactics that predate the digital age.
Lessons from Ukraine: The Return to Analogue
The war in Ukraine has already previewed this future and ushered in the return of trench warfare – something once thought consigned to the past. Both sides employ extensive electronic warfare, jamming GPS and communications across the front. Ukrainian units now use runners, paper maps, and wired field telephones because radios are routinely intercepted or disabled. Drones now dominate the battlefield – until they don’t, as when weather or jamming grounds them, troops revert to trench warfare that could be mistaken for the Somme. These realities have forced Western military planners and command structures to reconsider their assumptions – the U.S. Army’s recent training updates include renewed emphasis on map reading, camouflage, and radio silence. NATO exercises now simulate environments where GPS and satellite communications are denied. Even the British Army’s Future Soldier Program, heavily invested in digital modernization, includes contingencies for operating “off grid.” The lesson is simple: the most dangerous weapon in modern war may be the switch that turns everything off.
Enduring Wisdom: Sun Tzu’s Relevance in a Digital Age
Despite two millennia of technological progress, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War remains a more reliable manual for survival than any AI algorithm. His principles – planning, deception, adaptability, and the exploitation of enemy weakness – apply as much to cyber warfare as to swordplay. “All warfare is based on deception,” he wrote, and in a world of false signals, spoofed sensors, and electronic camouflage, those words have never been truer. In a world of super technology, Sun Tzu’s insistence on simplicity is what modern commanders risk forgetting. He warned against relying on elaborate systems that collapse when reality intervenes. The side that can maintain order in chaos, that can fight without instruction or connection, is the one that withstands. His enduring lesson is this: the ultimate weapon is understanding, not technology and is highly relevant in the digital age.
The Continuing Logic of Clausewitz
The Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz and his seminal On War still define strategic thought in warfare. His reminder that war is “a continuation of politics by other means” grounds every tactical innovation within political purpose. Yet the modern obsession with technology has inverted that logic – policy now often serves the tools rather than the other way around. Clausewitz warned that the “fog of war” would always obscure clarity and that friction would defeat even the best-laid plans. Digital warfare magnifies both – artificial intelligence may predict patterns, but crucially it cannot anticipate chaos, no one can. Clausewitz’s “friction” is still the great equalizer: the uncertainty that no algorithm can erase. As technology races ahead, his central truth remains unchanged – the human mind, not the machine, decides wars.
Strategic Theory and the Nature of War
Strategic theory distinguishes between the character and the nature of war. Its character changes with time, technology, and culture. Its nature, though, does not. The character of modern war may be digital, autonomous, and data-driven – but its nature remains human, violent, and political. Theorists from J.F.C. Fuller to Colin Gray have argued that every revolution in military affairs ultimately redistributes, rather than removes, risk. Today’s technological “revolution” will be no different. When the digital layer collapses, the elemental logic of war – to close with and destroy the enemy – reasserts itself. This is the enduring truth that modern strategists and students of war must remember: innovation cannot replace understanding.
The Coming Age of Denial Warfare
Military theorists describe this emerging environment as “denial warfare” – the battle to deny the enemy access to data, communications, or energy. In such a world, supremacy belongs to whichever side can fight in the dark. The first days of a major-power conflict will likely see cyber-attacks, orbital strikes, and EMP detonations designed to erase technological advantage. When that blackout comes, advanced militaries may find themselves less prepared than irregular forces. Armies dependent on drones and networked sensors will struggle, while units trained for self-sufficiency will endure. The general who prepared his men to live off the land, fight without GPS, and communicate by physical means will prove more modern than any AI strategist.
The general who prepared his men to live off the land, fight without GPS, and communicate by physical means will prove more modern than any AI strategist.
Preparing for the Collapse of Connectivity
Future readiness will not be measured by how much technology an army can deploy, but by how well it can survive its loss. Militaries must invest as heavily in analogue resilience as they do in digital capability. Shielded communications, manual targeting systems, and non-digital logistics should no longer be viewed as relics of the past but as insurance for the future. Command decentralization will be critical, as once electronic communication fails, local initiative replaces centralized control. This demands training soldiers to think independently, not just follow data feeds. It also requires re-learning the fundamentals of warfare: cover, concealment, close combat, and absolute violence in action. As Clausewitz rightly stated, violence should be used “unsparingly.” And in a world now dominated by remote warfare, this principle can be too easily forgotten.
Conclusion
Einstein once warned that if World War III were fought with nuclear weapons, World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones. His words, once symbolic, now seem literal. Though, to be clear, this is not a future of true primitive warfare, but one where the technological paradox forces a return to analogue essentials: hand loaded artillery, the rifle, the map, and the soldier’s sheer fieldcraft. The trajectory of modern warfare points not toward endless technological dominance but toward its collapse.
While this scenario remains a contingency – a future that may or may not come to pass – its possibility is the ultimate test of strategic foresight. The general who neglects to train his troops for this singular eventuality, the forced return to analogue warfare, is not merely unprepared; he is strategically doomed to fail.
When the satellites fall silent and the battlefield goes dark, war will return to its oldest form – fought by those who can see, move, and shoot without power. And that, paradoxically, will make them the most advanced soldiers of all.
The general of tomorrow will not be the one who masters technology, artificial intelligence, or machines. He will be the one who both harnesses them and trains for their failure. When the satellites fall silent and the battlefield goes dark, war will return to its oldest form – fought by those who can see, move, and shoot without power. And that, paradoxically, will make them the most advanced soldiers of all.
