This is a takeoff of the general hostility to Wesley Clark’s position http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=685739&page=2
Specifically, the comment: “No, nations win because of how technologically advanced they are.” WC later went back and sort-of backed away from that position without backing away from it by listing numerous exceptions… which comprise a significant portion of all wars ever waged, so I’m not sure it’s a good argument. Because there was a certain challenge issued, I decided to take up that gauntlet and hurl it right back.
First, while technology is important, it not always or even usually the deciding factor in determining the outcome of wars. It is only one among many, and I will roll down and list the major elements as I can thing of. Some of these may seem familiar if you’ve read Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, though condensed here. You will note that technology isn’t even one of them, although it is an element of several.
The reason is that life isn’t like a video game. There are no “Tech Levels” and there is no “upgrading units” when you research Advanced Firearms VI (…mostly). Technology is a human solution to a social or physical problem which uses available materials, facilities, and knowledge. Technology cannot ever be more or less “advanced” - only more complicated or more practical. Advancement and progress are always human opinions and judgments about the state of things - never an intrinsic aspect of those things.
If I may be permitted to swear (once!) in GD, this is what I call “Fucking Star Trek Science,” because of all the times that Star Trek fell into the bad habit of instant-fix solutions which completely resolve a problem so that it need never be discussed again. Enemy has you hammered on the ropes? No problem! Just develop some counter-measure and his weapons are instantly useless! What, contradicting established canon and doing what’s explicitly impossible? Haha, that’s easy! Just use the tech to tech the tech while teching the other tech top the tech power - that solves everything!
Anyway, distraction halted, we can whine about bad television representations of science in CS, onto the meat.
(1) Geography. The physical organization of the landscape - and the understanding of how to exploit it, has and remains a massive factor in warfare. Even today, this is arguably THE key consideration in war and sets every conflict apart. Naval access, rivers, terrain, climate - these define how war is conducted in every nation on earth.
Note that geography in and of itself does nothing (unless you pull an Alexander and wipe half your army marching through a desert). Using it is the issue: technology can assist but technology is only a means, not the end, and can’t decide the war on its own. Later on in that thread Wesley Clark noted that European nations dominated many indigenous groups around Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The key factor in doing was one specific form of technology: naval development. The creation of reasonably fast, strong warships allowed Europeans to first get toeholds, then control whole coastlines, and then transport troops to get at the inland. But technology didn’t create the will or organization to create the ships or organize the expeditions: Rome, China, and several other nations did much the same with much more limited capabilities.
(2) Politics.
“War is the continuation of Politik by other means” - von Clausewitz
This is so widely recognized as to be trite, but it should be said anyway. War always has a political (or policy) purpose, even in small-scale tribes; it wouldn’t exist outside that purpose. The need for Kings to demonstrate power, the need for warlords to acquire land, the need for democracies to ensure a stabile trading network, even the need for idealists to remake the world - all cause wars and continue to do so. Likewise, war is frequently the result of a cruel prisoners’ dilemma where often the least bad outcome for at least one side to use physical violence.
This need not be rational to a viewer outside the group in question, because as they say, politics is all local. To the ruler or powerful politician, external war may be necessary to placate internal challenge or to stave off unrest. But because it requires significant internal support, war is rarely the expression on only the ruler’s whim.
Leaving that aside, political factors heavily affect the progress of a war. The nature of political systems on each side change how war is waged, how it can be ended, and who has to make the key decisions along the way.
(3) Military Organization. Not surprisingly, the nature of military organization affects the number and quality of troops, how they are armed, and how they fight. This issue is so large there’s no way I can adequately explain it all. Instead, let me give just a few examples of how American military organization affects how we fight.
*American troops tend to have high esprit de corps due to being volunteers, but won’t necessarily obey really stupid orders, or what seem that way to them. This won’t inherently mean disobedience - just very careful “interpretation”.
*American soldiers carry a lot of firepower at the lowest levels, and even very low-ranking soldiers can call in surprising levels of fire support.
*Decisions are pushed down, not up, the chain of command, and officers who don’t respect their NCO’s will learn the painful, hard way.
*Extreme physical and mental fortitude isn’t greatly valued; the concept of “fair play” just doesn’t make much sense. American soldiers would prefer to stand off and blow the holy hell out of an enemy without ever risking life or limb.
These traits are hardly universal, but they matter. These aren’t the result of technological advancement, but they impact it greatly. Then selection of what weapons we use and how we use them, from automatic rifles to nuclear missiles, reflects the character of military organization and the culture incubated there.
(4) Social Organization.
Not surprisingly, social attitudes and culture affect war, both in terms of the above
(5) Hardware and Production.
(6) Will.