Near the end of World War II, Nazi Germany unleashed a host of “miracle weapons” (Wunderwaffen) on the Allies, in a last-ditch attempt to stave off defeat. These secret weapons included the V-1 flying bomb, the V-2 missile, the Me-163 “Komet” rocket-powered fighter jet, and the Me-262 – the world’s first operational jet fighter. The Germans also developed the world’s first remote-controlled glide bombs and heat-seeking air-to-air missiles.
These weapons were impressive, and some – particularly the V-1 and V-2 – were even terrifying. But none won the war for the Germans or even delayed the eventual Allied victory. They could have been game-changers, but instead they ended up as museum pieces.
And this is the problem with the whole “game-changer” argument when it comes to “new and amazing” weapons: They actually rarely tip the balance in war. They may be new and they may be amazing, but in the end they are just one tool in a rather large toolbox comprising the whole operational art of war fighting.
The J-16D fighter and the DF-21D
Take the case of the J-16D, a new Chinese fighter jet based on the Russian-designed Su-30MKK. In a recent article in The National Interest, the author, Sebastien Roblin, makes a powerful case that this plane could turn out to be a game-changer for the Chinese, particularly in the South China Sea (although, to be fair, he never uses the term “game-changer”).
The J-16D is an electronic-warfare plane, equivalent to the US EA-18G Growler. Roblin speculates that it could carry two or three jamming pods under its wings and fuselage, “each optimized [to different] radar frequencies.” Such a configuration would still permit the aircraft to carry up to six anti-radiation missiles. Such a weapon, he implies, could “pose a nightmare” for large Aegis-equipped warships, the kind operated by the US, Japanese, South Korean, and Australian navies.
Now, from reading other articles by Roblin, it is clear that he is not an alarmist. And he is not the first analyst to credit the Chinese too much for their “superb and secret weapons.”
About a decade ago, many in the Western China-watching community were similarly panicked over China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile. This ASBM, it was argued, was such a novel weapon that there was “no defense against it.” Hence the DF-21D was deemed a “carrier-killer,” one that in particular threatened the US Navy’s whole approach to carrier-based strike operations.
The DF-21D is certainly a uniquely threatening weapon, but Western assessments of it being a game-changer have been tempered in recent years by the fact that US countermeasures have also improved, plus an acknowledgement of the limitations that the Chinese still face when it comes to things like target acquisition and terminal homing.
Other presumed game-changers include hypersonic missiles or the Russian Shkval torpedo, which uses super-cavitation technology (basically creating a bubble of air around itself) to travel at speeds of up to 200 knots (370km/h). Again, the presumption is that there is no way to defend against these weapons.
Disruptive deterrent or war-winner?
For a weapon to be a genuine game-changer, it must be truly disruptive as a deterrent or a piece of war-fighting equipment. In other words, it must either undeniably discourage an opponent from thinking about engaging in conflict in the first place, or else be unequivocally critical to ending a conflict.
Few weapons can meet such high standards. Even nuclear weapons – perhaps the greatest game-changer – have in fact had little impact on most inter-state conflict over the past 70 years. To be sure, they have probably played a critical role in preventing nuclear-armed states from going to war – at a nuclear level. Nuclear-armed states rarely clash with each other, and when they do, they almost immediately attempt to defuse and de-escalate crises so as not to lead to a nuclear exchange (such as the Cuban missile crisis or the 2001 Sino-American EP-3 incident).
But nuclear weapons have not prevented nuclear powers from skirmishing with each other in other ways, such as proxy wars (Vietnam during the Cold War or Syria today) or in competitions over regional hegemonies or spheres of influence – for example, the US-China duel over “indisputable sovereignty” versus “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea.
Moreover, states with nuclear forces do not appear to have enjoyed any special leverage or power over countries that do not possess such weapons. Non-nuclear Japan does not defer to nuclear-armed China when it comes to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, nor does Vietnam or the Philippines appear to be cowed by Beijing in the South China Sea.
Trivializing warfare
Ultimately, there are two major flaws with the “game-changer” argument. In the first place, it can lead to the mistaken impression that military predominance might be gained simply by acquiring a single piece of equipment (a fighter jet, a missile, a submarine). In reality, military power is synergistic, a collection of a number of disparate, mutually supporting systems (General Dwight D Eisenhower, for example, ranked the humble Jeep and the C-47 cargo plane as two of the key “tools of victory” in World War II, along with the atomic bomb and other armaments).
More critically, however, the idea of “game-changer” weapons trivializes the whole operational art of war. It reduces war fighting to just hardware. But war and conflict are more than just equipment – they are tactics and training, leadership and morale, geography, logistics, and just plain luck.
WHAT THIS LACKLUSTER WRITER FAILS TO EVIDENTLY KNOW IS THAT THOSE WEAPONS OF GERMANY AT THE END OF WW2 WERE IN SHORT SUPPLY.THEY HAD YET TO RAMP UP PRODUCTION. HAD THEY HAD THEM IN 1943 BEFORE THE ALLIES LANDED IN FRANCE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A VERY DIFFERENT OUTCOME.SO THE WEAPONS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM THE PRODUTION IS. THATS WHY THE US. IS FAST FORWARDING ITS RHETORIC AGAINST RUSSIA,TO PROVOKE A WAR BEFORE THE RUSSIAN S GET FULL BENEFIT OF THOSE HYPERSONIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WHICH WERE DEVELOPED BY THE CAPTURED SS GERAMN ENGINEERS AND SCIENTIST BY THE CCCP AT THE CLOSE OF WW2 .THEY WERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE WHEN THE CCCP COLLAPSED AND PUTIN AS KGB HEAD KNEW OF THEM AND RESTATED THE DEVELOPEMENT AFTER HE TOOK OFFICE IN 1999.
Exactly. Those weapons in sufficient supply would have desimated the Allied Military capabilities. But they came too late and in too few numbers. But the Jet fighter that Germany developed was able to knock the best Allied fighter planes out of the sky while being virtually invincible. .
This writer does not see the real problem here for the West and that is that both Russia and China are currently building " Wonder Weapon" in sufficient number to kill off the American Navy and Airforces.
Another point he failed to notice is that both Russia and China can target and hit cities in the USA that harbour it`s defence industrial centres. In the Second World War these industrial centres were out of reach of US enemies. Russia beat Germany by killing off Germany`s supply chain. The new weapons can kill off America`s strength and that is it`s ability to build weapons during a war to supply it`s armed forces with unlimited weapons and ammunition. In fact this is where his argument is at it`s weakest because the new weapons can sap Americas ability to fight. if New York, Chicago, Washington DC , Atlanta all dissappeared in a cloud of radio active smoke, or were even decimated with conventional warheads the question is would the US have the cajones to continue the fight?
It is not the gun, but the man behind it.
The problem with the Corporate Capitalist West is that the man behind the gun is deteriorating. The US school education factory outputs youth that can neither read nor count, and is falling behind in STEM (Science, Techonolgy, Engineering, Math). A technical savvy person is a sinequa non for today’s warfare.
The China, Russia, and India are producing youth that is highly technical. They have increased the quality of their educational systems, while the Americans and also the Europeans are producing Trump Nation, a youth incapable of being useful in the new Era of Globalization and Free Trade.
Abbas,hatred jelous of other people’s achievements won’t take u anywhere and you seem to suffer from inferiority complex when you try to compare yourselves with US achievements and ur jelousy is going to kill u prematurely!
Jackson Henry who can guarantee that your stupidity might not kill you first? Your comment shows that you are too full of yourself to see your own weaknesses and you dismiss criticism as mere jealousy. When your enemies walk up to capture the White House, you can tell them why you still think they are only jealous.
This is another CIA newspaper.
Great China is world future…
Great it is best analists .we have soviet example US vitanam so manny other . That weapons can not win a war.
You are so narrow….was atomic bomb not a wander weapon….what would have happened if it was developed by Germans first. No doubt they would have won the wall.
Well written and can bring the new mad rush to new weapons with some described as nice, sexy and beautiful and others, invincible and unstoppable to naught. Both your facts and your literature are peak enticing.
That same question can be asked to China and Russia and the answer will be same…a roaring no! So stop your weird dream of somebody in Moscow or Beijing feeling strong enough to unleash an unwinning war against the USA. On both sides there are good heads not morons, right?
Thomas Daniel Kuhn only problem i see with your logic is, doesnt the US have capability and will to wipe out both Russia and China at the same time? It’s a simple matter that anyone can see the equation of victory still remains on the side of the US should a full war nuclear and all happens.
Thomas Daniel Kuhn, ever heard of the First Strike Policy of the USA? like what it did to Syria recently? Did Russia-China-Iran lifted a finger to counter-strike? What if USA striked first the Russian-Chinese, will they still have the capacity to a 2nd strike..? US and its allies are not dumb not to anticipate for a retaliatory strike from their enemies nor Russia and China are nit dumb either..just my thought bro.. peace be to mankind.
Depends more on who is the flier. And how best one maneouver s a weapon or a machine. In 1965 it were the tiny gnats in the hands of Indian pullets that overpowered the US supplied Sabre jets. It is the infantry that wins wars and covers the ground. Other are weapons of destruction.