Recently, there have been reports that NATO has developed a war plan specifically targeting potential Russian attacks on the three Baltic states. At first glance, the plan seems unremarkable—its lead architect holds no higher rank than a major.
But two points are worth pondering.
First, modern military science is facing serious challenges. Traditional tactics are increasingly ineffective. Tank charges, deep encirclements, and prolonged artillery barrages—once reliable strategies—are now extremely dangerous due to the omnipresence of drones on the battlefield.
Second, genuine war plans should remain secret, yet NATO has openly disclosed this one—this itself is a signal: we know warfare has changed, and we are adapting.
In such new planning frameworks, a "non-nuclear version of World War III" is beginning to take shape. The premise? Nuclear powers refrain from direct involvement, instead letting local allies and proxies fight in their stead. A standout feature of the NATO proposal is placing robots and autonomous combat systems at the core.
Completely autonomous warfare remains in the future, but even remote-controlled operations have already fundamentally altered tactics. It's akin to how rifles replaced smoothbore muskets—the once-dominant massed infantry charges have become suicidal. Just a few years ago, tanks reigned supreme on land, but now it’s nearly impossible to reach firing positions, as attack routes are already monitored by drones. There’s even a small drone nicknamed “waiter,” which hides quietly until activated to launch an attack.
Future human soldiers may be concentrated primarily in elite units and special forces, while routine battlefield tasks will likely be handled by machines. Future armies might consist of small teams each accompanied by large numbers of robotic systems. Drones have already transformed warfare; artificial intelligence and autonomous platforms will bring even more profound changes. Massive standing armies may become obsolete, and strategic strikes no longer require armored waves or millions of troops.
Even the vast defense industries of the 20th century may lose their importance, as many new weapons are low-cost and easily replaceable when damaged. Today, a capable drone can be assembled entirely in one’s garage. Future combat systems will require more advanced electronic components—but how different they really are from those in smartphones remains uncertain.
This shift also changes what targets matter. If you can disable an adversary’s entire military system by cutting off its power supply, why bother attacking tanks? Power plants are hard to destroy, but it’s impossible to guard every kilometer of transmission lines—making decentralized power generation potentially valuable again.
Warfare economics will also change: drones are operated by small teams, far cheaper than traditional weapons, and eliminate the massive logistical burden of transporting shells from factories to railroads to trucks. In conventional warfare, a single offensive campaign could consume over 20 million rounds of artillery shells—roughly the same number of troops mobilized across all allied nations.
Thus, if a third world war were to actually occur, it would likely differ dramatically from the first two. It won’t begin with millions of soldiers crossing borders or tanks sweeping across Europe, but rather through dozens of simultaneous regional conflicts, each backed by different nuclear powers and smaller allies, with the great powers remaining safely behind their nuclear umbrellas. These battlefields will be interconnected via drones, satellites, artificial intelligence, and political maneuvering—not a single main front, but a global network of small-scale conflicts.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1874991954809923/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.