The Evolution of Missiles as the Preferred Modern Weapon

In a world where missiles are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of modern warfare, the question arises: do they truly change the dynamics of conflict? The answer may not be as straightforward as one might think.

Missiles, once the domain of only the most advanced militaries, have become more accessible and versatile over time. Their ability to be customised for specific needs, launched from various platforms, and operate autonomously make them a weapon of choice in today’s combat scenarios.

However, the effectiveness of missiles in achieving strategic goals is still up for debate. While they have revolutionised operational warfare and made it harder for adversaries to hide, their ability to decisively alter the course of a conflict is limited. Strategic strike campaigns have often failed to achieve their intended outcomes, as seen in past conflicts such as Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Moreover, the use of missiles for signalling capability and intent can be a risky game. The potential for misperceptions and unintended escalation is high, as the line between a limited strike and all-out war can easily be crossed.

Despite these limitations, missiles have the power to shift the balance of power in conflicts. They allow less sophisticated actors to raise costs for more advanced militaries, making wars more costly and sustainable for all parties involved. This dynamic gives states like Iran, Russia, and North Korea an advantage in starting and sustaining conflicts, even if they may not have the arsenal to win in a full-scale war.

As the world grapples with the implications of a missile-driven warfare landscape, one thing is clear: the role of missiles in modern conflicts is complex and multifaceted, with both advantages and risks that must be carefully considered by all parties involved.