By: Pranshu Agrawal
“Until merely a few hundred years ago, feudalism and monarchy were the norm for the mode of the state to be. While there were spurts of democracies here and there, the larger political unit was seldom so.
Even in the ‘democratic’ city-states of ancient Athens and Rome, once elected, the leaders usurped monarch-like powers with the commoners having little say in decision-making.
Related Posts:
A true democracy is marked by decentralisation of power. The average citizen has the ability to not just choose the decision makers but also influence the decisions. From the 18th century onwards, the world has seen the emergence of states which are largely, if not truly democratic.
Yet war remained a prerogative of states. A violent interaction between the state and an individual or a group of civilians, for instance, would be labelled as rebellion or terrorism. Rightly so, for such interactions were often either sporadic or localised or both. The asymmetry with the state’s forces was dealt with through tactical means such as guerrilla tactics or anonymisation.
Declaration of war has significant political connotations, both internal and external. Such a declaration, however, also gives the state access to a broader set of mechanisms which would otherwise be deemed
illegitimate. Thus, the status of war is invoked only in the face of major threats, which till recently, only organised militaries of foreign states were capable of posing.
Non-state actors have existed within various states for long. But never before has the impact of their attacks been to the extent seen today. The emergence of and ease of access to new-age technologies like offensive UAVs and automated weaponry has transformed the economics of war.
A quantitative analysis of available weaponry, once an ipso facto criterion for adjudging the relative strengths of warring sides, is now reduced to a secondary tool.
The low cost and ease of access to such technologies have balanced the asymmetric nature of such conflicts. Developed for commercial purposes, the offensive capabilities have been exploited in delivery drones. Some have been modified to establish hard-to-disrupt supply lines to the frontline. Others have been loaded with explosive payloads to obtain Kamikaze or loitering munition characteristics.
While not as sophisticated as the ones possessed by major militaries like the US, their effectiveness on the battlefield cannot be undermined. Using such techniques, the Houthi rebels have been able to dominate and disrupt a critical shipping line in a region having dense presence of multiple
advanced Navies of the world. On the Indo-Pak border, the reduction in mule infiltration attempts can be attributed to the use of drones for Narcotics and weapons’ smuggling. The economic and human costs on the infiltrating side have thus reduced, enabling more frequent bids towards the endeavour. The ease of access to funding through channels like Cryptocurrency and dark web has further accentuated the abilities of such groups.
In the absence of effective mechanisms to deal with the looming threat, the defending state is often compelled to resort to traditional and disproportionately more resource-intensive methods. The potential threats warrant such actions. However, the absence of specialised defences, makes the system vulnerable to getting overwhelmed with the constant barrage of adversaries. The costs involved for the attackers made it an extremely unlikely occurrence for a country with adequate defences till recently. But this deterrence has quickly vanished.
The recent entourage of 300 ‘projectiles’ fired by Iran towards Israel was led by around 170 drones. Despite being known for its air defences, and being actively assisted by allies such as the US and UK, merely 99% of the projectiles were intercepted. The David’s Sling apparatus, likely used for the purpose, costs more than 5 times the unit (allegedly Shahed drones) it seeks to counter. The much touted cheaper alternative, Iron Dome is significantly less effective against navigable drones with unpredictable trajectories. The Israeli response a few days later exemplifies the case, when it used cheap quadcopters to mislead and render toothless the Iranian defences. Up North, Hezbollah has been successful in repeatedly penetrating the Israeli air defences to cause non-trivial damage to civilian and even military installations on Israeli Soil.
More recently, the Houthis successfully targeted Tel Aviv all the way from Yemen. In the recently concluded Armenia-Azerbaijan war, the drones proved to be pivotal in the establishment of air superiority by Azerbaijan over Armenia. A hoard of low-cost drones would be flown towards the enemy, engaging with which would expose the location and nature of the defences. These sitting ducks would then be eliminated, leaving the airspace undefended.
While there is a widespread consensus on the tactical advantages the drones provide on the battlefield, some commentators have underplayed their strategic significance. It is true that at present drones play a tactical role. It is one however which has quick and major strategic implications. Would the establishment of air superiority not give one side a decisive advantage? Does the large-scale annihilation of traditional frontline equipment such as tanks and armoured vehicles, as seen in Ukraine, not obliterate the adversary’s strategic plans? Not to mention the jarring effect on the morale of the soldiers in the face of an invisible enemy. The intelligence gathered using drone surveillance can prove decisive.
Future developments such as ‘loyal wingman’ could have a clear and direct strategic role. The freshly acquired ability of non-state actors to pose strategic challenges to the states has transformed the nature of interaction between them. Given the stakes at play and willingness to scramble resource-intensive responses, the war room outlook towards such groups has shifted from a mere nuisance to a full-scale war. This is despite the lack of de jure recognition of the challenger. The emerging nature of diplomatic interactions between states and non-state groups resembles in many ways the inter-state interactions, albeit unofficially. The monopoly of states on the global high table is set to be disrupted. War has been democratised. The implications, while still blurry, are set to reshape international order, as we know it today.
