One of the most important influences on the historical evolution of warfare has been technology. Technological developments have led to advances in weaponry, transportation, communication, and surveillance.

In this new teaching activity from History Study Center, learn about some of the ways that technology has shaped modern warfare and what implications these changes have for both soldiers and civilians.

An example of the role of changing technology in war is the airplane, which had a limited role to play in the first decades of the 1900s. But by the end of the century, airpower had become the most important weapon in a nation's arsenal, used to devastating effect in conflicts such as Vietnam and the Gulf War.

Similarly, computers, satellites, stealth technology, unmanned drones, and other technologies have radically altered the nature of contemporary conflicts. And weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological) now threaten the safety of millions of non-combatants and even the very future of civilization.



An American cruise missile is launched from onboard USS San Jacinto in 2003.

Learning Activity

1. Assign students to read the introductions to HSC study units Warfare, 1792-1918 and Warfare, 1918- and have them scan through some of the sources that have been compiled for these study units.
   
   As they do so, they should take note of some of the ways that warfare has changed during the past two or more centuries. Students should pay particular attention to how technological developments have shaped tactics and strategies.
   
   
2. Lead a discussion with the whole class on how warfare has changed:

   What are the implications of these changes for soldiers, civilians, and the world as a whole?
   
   For example, what ethical principles should govern the use of unmanned drones?
   
   What threats are posed by the risk of nuclear proliferation, and what steps should be taken to reduce those threats?
   
   When precision bombing is used as a strategy, what lengths should the military go to in order to protect civilian lives?
   
   Is a government justified in abrogating the civil rights of its citizenry in order to protect civilians from the threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons?
   
   How much money should a nation spend on national defense when there are other critical social and humanitarian needs competing for funding?