ISSUE 183 : Nov/Dec - 2010 - Australian Defence Force Journal

The Difficulties in Predicting Future WarfareIan WallaceAviation is fine as a sport. But as an instrument of war, it is worthless.[French] General Ferdinand Foch, March 1913 1I have a mathematical certainty that the future will confirm my assertion thataerial warfare will be the most important element in future wars.[Italian] General Giulio Douhet, 1921 2IntroductionWhen we take a look at past predictions regarding the shape of future warfare, one factimmediately jumps to the fore: how inaccurate such presages have usually been. At firstglance, this seems somewhat surprising, as a vital part of the strategic commander’s role issurely the planning of where, why, when and how tomorrow’s battles will be fought. Yet it isalso a common maxim that generals plan to fight their last war.As an example, take the contradictory quotes above—each made by senior militarycommanders within ten years of the other. Difficulties in predicting the future stem fromseveral issues. These include the way our brains work, the nature of the world we live in andthe character of warfare itself. All these factors act in concert seemingly to imply that the onlyreliable prediction we can make about tomorrow’s warfare is that any predictions are morethan likely to be wrong! A closer examination reveals that military forecasting is beset by amyriad of difficulties. Such examination also reveals why even inaccurate predictions are stillimportant and how, almost paradoxically, a simple acknowledgment and awareness of suchfactors can lead towards better forecasts.Human nature: past performance does not guarantee future returnsWar is a human activity, comprised of political, social and cultural elements. 3 As such, it hasalways been subject to problems of human perception. If you have ever read the detail of aninvestment statement, you will likely have come across the words ‘past performance does notguarantee future returns’. Surprisingly, despite the absolute unlikelihood of this statementever not being true, words such as these are legally required on most product disclosurestatements. This serves to illustrate how we need protection from the limitations of our ownminds—our reasoning tends to suffer from linearity and a confined viewpoint. We naturallytend to place events within a straight-line narrative (or trend) and then project that trend’scontinuance into the future. 4Alternatively or worse, we also often only project a single trend forwards, ignoring the effectof other factors, while some trends may prove self-negating, as recognition of such trendsspurs the development of countervailing trends. 5 For example, the dominance of nuclearweaponry in the 1950s led to an American government seemingly uninterested in developingconventional weapons. Such thinking, however, ignored the possibility that traditional, non-27