Elon Musk has recently said that the future of war is drone warfare, without soldiers on the field. What can you tell me about that; what was the context?
Elon Musk’s recent comments about drone warfare weren’t just off-the-cuff—they were part of a broader, pointed critique of how nations prepare for conflict. He made the remarks during a fireside chat at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in August 2024, which he later shared publicly. Musk argued that future wars will be dominated by drones and artificial intelligence, stating:
“If there’s a major power war, it’s very much going to be a drone war”.
He emphasized that the U.S. must accelerate domestic drone production, warning that most countries are still preparing to fight the last war, not the next one. His comments were framed by the ongoing war in Ukraine, which he described as already being a “drone war.” Musk also highlighted the role of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network, calling it the backbone of Ukrainian military communications because it resists Russian jamming and sabotage1.
The conversation gained further traction after Ukraine’s Operation “Spiderweb” in June 2025, where over 100 AI-enabled drones struck deep into Russian territory, damaging more than 40 aircraft including strategic bombers3. Musk responded to this by declaring,
“Drones are the future of warfare. Manned aircraft are not”.
This wasn’t just a tech prediction—it was a strategic wake-up call. Musk’s remarks reflect a growing belief among defense analysts that autonomous systems and remote warfare are reshaping the battlefield. And given Musk’s influence in both tech and defense circles, his words carry weight.
Would you like to explore how different militaries are adapting to this shift, or dig into the implications for air defense systems and tactical doctrine?
What are the current debates in tactical doctrine?
The current debates in tactical doctrine are being reshaped by the brutal lessons of Ukraine, the rise of autonomous systems, and the collapse of old assumptions about maneuver warfare. Here's a breakdown of the most pressing tensions and shifts:
⚔️ 1. Maneuver vs. Attrition
Debate: Is maneuver warfare still viable in the age of drones and precision sensors?
Context: Ukraine’s 2023 summer offensive failed to achieve breakthroughs using concentrated armored formations. General Zaluzhnyi noted that “modern sensors can identify any concentration of forces, and modern precision weapons can destroy it”.
Implication: Tactical doctrine is shifting toward dispersed, decentralized operations—more like World War I trench warfare than Cold War blitzkrieg.
🧠 2. Vertical Implementation of Doctrine
Debate: How well do tactical units align with strategic intent?
Context: A study of the Swedish Armed Forces found that lower-level units often ignore higher-level doctrine unless formal processes and cultural attitudes reinforce it.
Implication: Tactical doctrine isn’t just about battlefield technique—it’s about institutional coherence. Misalignment can lead to operational failure even with sound strategy.
🛰️ 3. Tech Integration vs. Legacy Tactics
Debate: Can militaries integrate drones, AI, and cyber tools without clinging to outdated tactics?
Context: RAND’s review of the Ukraine war found that cutting-edge tech is being used alongside trench warfare and artillery duels.
Implication: Tactical doctrine must evolve to exploit new capabilities without falling back on familiar but obsolete methods.
🛡️ 4. Survivability vs. Mass
Debate: Should forces prioritize survivability through dispersion, or mass for decisive action?
Context: The “tactical crisis” described by Bruce Menning—where increased lethality forces dispersion—has returned.
Implication: Doctrines must reconcile the need for concentration with the reality of precision-targeted destruction.
🔄 5. Continuous Adaptation
Debate: Is doctrine too rigid in a world of rapid tactical evolution?
Context: RAND emphasizes the need for “continuous learning and adaptation” as battlefield conditions shift unpredictably.
Implication: Tactical doctrine may need to become modular and iterative, more like software updates than fixed manuals.
Would you like to dive deeper into how these debates are playing out in NATO, Russia, or China’s tactical evolution—or explore how drone swarms and electronic warfare are rewriting the rules of engagement?
How are drones rewriting the rules of engagement?
Drones are radically reshaping the rules of engagement—turning centuries-old battlefield assumptions on their head. Here's how:
🧠 1. Decentralized Lethality
Old Rule: Firepower required centralized command and logistics.
New Reality: Small units or even individuals can launch precision strikes using drones with onboard AI, GPS guidance, and loitering munitions.
Example: In Ukraine, quadcopters costing under $1,000 have destroyed tanks worth millions. Tactical autonomy is now democratized.
🛰️ 2. Persistent ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance)
Old Rule: Reconnaissance was episodic and risky.
New Reality: Drones provide constant overwatch, enabling real-time targeting and battlefield transparency.
Implication: Surprise and maneuver are harder to achieve. Concealment is nearly impossible without electronic countermeasures.
⚔️ 3. Attrition Over Maneuver
Old Rule: Victory came from maneuvering to exploit weaknesses.
New Reality: Drone warfare favors attrition—constant strikes degrade enemy forces over time.
RAND Insight: Ukraine’s war shows drones used alongside trench warfare and artillery, not replacing them but amplifying their effects.
🧬 4. Human-Machine Teaming
Old Rule: Engagements were human-centric.
New Reality: Operators now direct drone swarms, coordinate with AI targeting systems, and rely on machine learning to optimize strikes.
Emerging Doctrine: Tactical units must integrate drone operators, electronic warfare specialists, and data analysts into frontline roles.
🛡️ 5. Air Defense Reimagined
Old Rule: Air defense focused on jets and missiles.
New Reality: Defenses must now counter swarms of cheap, low-flying drones.
Challenge: Traditional systems like Patriot or S-400 are overkill for $500 drones. New layered defenses (jammers, lasers, micro-missiles) are being developed.
🔄 6. Rules of Engagement (ROE) Under Pressure
Old Rule: ROE were designed for human combatants and clear lines of accountability.
New Reality: Autonomous drones blur legal and ethical boundaries—who is responsible for a strike if no human pulled the trigger?
Debate: Geneva Conventions and military ethics are struggling to keep pace with autonomous targeting.
Would you like to explore how different countries are adapting their tactical doctrine to these changes—or dive into specific drone platforms like loitering munitions, kamikaze drones, or AI-enabled quadcopters?
I have read that drone warfare now favors Defense. Explain that to me...
Absolutely—this is one of the most fascinating shifts in modern military dynamics. The idea that drone warfare favors defense flips decades of doctrine on its head. Here's why it's happening:
🛡️ 1. Cheap Drones Punish Concentration
Offensive operations typically require massing forces—armor, infantry, logistics convoys.
But small, cheap drones (like FPV quadcopters or loitering munitions) can now detect and destroy those concentrations with minimal cost.
Result: attackers are forced to disperse, slowing momentum and making breakthroughs harder.
🛰️ 2. Persistent Surveillance Favors Static Defense
Defenders can deploy drones for constant overwatch, spotting enemy movements early.
Offense relies on surprise and maneuver, but drones make that nearly impossible.
In Ukraine, Russian and Ukrainian forces both use drones to monitor no-man’s land 24/7—any movement gets targeted immediately.
🧠 3. AI-Enabled Targeting Benefits Fixed Positions
Defensive positions can be pre-mapped and integrated with automated drone response systems.
Offense must adapt on the fly, often without reliable comms or terrain familiarity.
AI-assisted drones can launch from static defenses with faster reaction times than human operators.
🧨 4. Cost Asymmetry
Defenders can use $500 drones to destroy $5 million tanks or $30 million aircraft.
This favors defense economically—attrition becomes sustainable.
RAND notes that drone warfare has “reintroduced the tactical crisis” where offense is punished for concentrating forces.
🧬 5. Electronic Warfare and Jamming
Defenders can saturate their territory with electronic countermeasures, disrupting drone control.
Offense must operate in unfamiliar EW environments, risking drone loss or misfires.
Defensive EW is easier to coordinate from fixed infrastructure.
🏗️ 6. Fortification Renaissance
Trenches, bunkers, and hardened positions—once considered outdated—are now drone-resistant.
Ukraine’s battlefield looks more like WWI than Desert Storm, because drones make open maneuver suicidal.
In short, drones have made mobility and concentration liabilities, while dispersion, concealment, and endurance are rewarded. Defense is no longer just reactive—it’s proactive, lethal, and economically efficient.
Would you like to explore how this shift is influencing NATO doctrine or how China and Russia are adapting their offensive strategies in response?
So how can Offense counter this?
Great question—and one that’s at the heart of modern tactical innovation. If drone warfare tilts the battlefield toward defense, then offense must evolve to outpace, outsmart, and outmaneuver the drone-dominated battlespace. Here's how it's being done:
🧠 1. Counter-Counterdrone Tactics
Offense is now developing countermeasures to drone defenses—a kind of arms race within the arms race.
These include:
Nap-of-the-earth flying to avoid radar and visual detection.
Autonomous navigation to resist jamming and GPS spoofing.
Swarm tactics to overwhelm air defenses.
Onboard defenses, like anti-radiation missiles that target jammers.
🛰️ 2. Electronic Warfare Dominance
Offense must own the electromagnetic spectrum.
This means deploying mobile EW units to jam or spoof defensive drones and sensors.
Some offensive drones now carry electronic payloads to blind or confuse enemy ISR systems mid-flight.
🧨 3. Saturation and Tempo
Instead of relying on a few high-value assets, offense now uses massive waves of cheap drones.
The goal: saturate defenses, force them to expend munitions, and create gaps for follow-on forces.
Think of it as a digital version of artillery prep—except it’s airborne, autonomous, and relentless.
🧬 4. Multi-Domain Integration
Offense is no longer just land-based. It’s cross-domain:
Underwater drones can disable coastal radar.
Cyber attacks can blind drone networks before a strike.
Space-based ISR can coordinate timing and targeting across domains.
🏗️ 5. Adaptive Doctrine
Militaries are rewriting offensive doctrine to embrace modularity and rapid adaptation.
Units now train with plug-and-play drone teams, adjusting tactics based on terrain, threat, and tech.
RAND emphasizes that success depends less on fixed doctrine and more on continuous learning and adaptation.
🔄 6. Industrial Mobilization
Offense needs volume and endurance—not just innovation.
That means ramping up drone production, shortening R&D cycles, and stockpiling attritable assets.
The U.S. Navy and UK MOD are racing to deploy high-energy lasers and kinetic interceptors to support offensive pushes.
In short, offense is becoming faster, smarter, and more distributed—less reliant on brute force, more dependent on agility and tech synergy. It’s a chess match of innovation cycles: drone, counterdrone, counter-counterdrone.
Want to explore how this plays out in real-world scenarios like Taiwan, Nagorno-Karabakh, or the Red Sea? Or dive into specific offensive drone platforms like the Shahed-238 or Switchblade 600?
But - as always - the aim of Offense is to get men to advance in the field. What's the winning strategy here??
You're absolutely right—despite all the tech, the ultimate goal of offense remains: to move men forward, seize ground, and break the enemy’s will. But in the drone-saturated battlespace of 2025, that goal demands a radically reimagined strategy. Here's what the emerging consensus suggests:
🧠 1. Dislocation Over Attrition
Winning isn’t about grinding down the enemy—it’s about collapsing their system.
That means targeting command nodes, logistics hubs, and communications, not just frontline troops.
Drones enable this by striking deep, fast, and often autonomously.
As RAND and West Point analysts argue, the goal is to rupture the enemy’s coherence, then exploit the chaos.
🛰️ 2. Multi-Domain Shock
Offense must now be simultaneous across land, air, cyber, and space.
A winning strategy uses:
Cyber attacks to blind sensors.
Drone swarms to saturate defenses.
Electronic warfare to jam comms.
Precision fires to isolate units.
This creates a “shock corridor” through which infantry can advance with reduced risk.
🧬 3. Modular, Agile Forces
Forget rigid formations. Offense now relies on small, adaptive units with embedded drone teams, EW specialists, and AI support.
These units operate semi-autonomously, exploiting gaps and feeding real-time data back to command.
Think networked maneuver, not massed assault.
🏗️ 4. Rapid Breach and Exploitation
Once a gap is created, success depends on speed and depth.
Infantry must be trained to move fast, dig in, and coordinate with drones for overwatch and fire support.
The goal: get inside the enemy’s decision loop before they can regroup.
🔄 5. Continuous Adaptation
Doctrine must be iterative, not static.
Units train with live drone feedback, simulate EW environments, and adjust tactics weekly.
RAND emphasizes that learning cycles are now a core part of offensive success.
🛡️ 6. Endurance and Will
Offense isn’t just tactical—it’s industrial and societal.
Winning requires:
Stockpiles of drones and munitions.
Resilient logistics.
Public support for sustained operations.
As RAND notes, endurance is now decisive.
So yes, the goal is still boots on the ground—but those boots now walk behind a wall of sensors, swarms, and signals. The winning strategy is disruption, saturation, and exploitation, not brute force.
Want to explore how this plays out in Taiwan, the Baltics, or the Sahel? Or dive into how infantry tactics are adapting to drone overwatch and electronic fog?
And under what conditions might Defense claim victory?
Defense can absolutely claim victory—but not by just holding ground. In the drone-saturated battlespace of today, defensive success hinges on dislocation, endurance, and systemic disruption. Here’s when and how defense can win:
🛡️ 1. Endurance Outlasts Offense
Condition: The defender maintains industrial output, logistics, and societal will longer than the attacker.
Why it matters: RAND’s review of Ukraine emphasizes that endurance is now decisive—not just firepower.
Victory looks like: The attacker runs out of drones, munitions, or political support before achieving strategic objectives.
🧠 2. Denial of Strategic Objectives
Condition: The defender prevents the attacker from seizing key terrain, collapsing command structures, or breaking morale.
Why it matters: Even if tactical losses occur, denying strategic goals (like regime change or territorial annexation) is a win.
Victory looks like: Holding capital cities, critical infrastructure, or alliance cohesion despite drone attrition.
🛰️ 3. Drone-EW Synergy Creates Impenetrable Zones
Condition: The defender integrates drones with electronic warfare to create “kill zones” or sensor denial bubbles.
Why it matters: Offense depends on ISR and precision targeting—blinding it breaks the tempo.
Victory looks like: Offense stalls, unable to penetrate or exploit gaps, while defenders rotate and reinforce.
🧬 4. Attrition Becomes Unsustainable for Offense
Condition: The defender uses cheap drones and layered defenses to impose disproportionate costs.
Why it matters: Offense needs momentum; if every advance costs millions and dozens of lives, it collapses.
Victory looks like: Offense shifts to defense, unable to justify further push.
🏗️ 5. Strategic Patience and Adaptation
Condition: The defender adapts faster than the attacker—tactically and doctrinally.
Why it matters: RAND stresses that continuous learning is now a weapon.
Victory looks like: The defender evolves drone tactics, EW, and logistics faster than the attacker can respond.
🔄 6. Global Narrative and Legitimacy
Condition: The defender maintains international support and legitimacy.
Why it matters: In long wars, perception shapes aid, sanctions, and alliances.
Victory looks like: The defender is seen as resilient and just, while the attacker is isolated and condemned.
In short, defense wins when it absorbs the blow, adapts faster, and outlasts the attacker’s will and resources. It’s not just about trenches—it’s about systems, psychology, and time.
Want to explore how this played out in Ukraine, or how Taiwan and NATO are designing defensive victory conditions in drone-heavy scenarios?
All this is rather disheartening for Ukraine, but at least now we know: all the political positions stopping a resolution are actual tactical elements in this kind of war. Has anybody noticed this, commented about it?
Yes—and you're not alone in seeing that the political stalemates are more than just diplomatic gridlock. Several analysts and military thinkers have begun to frame political positions themselves as tactical instruments in this kind of prolonged, hybrid war. Here's how it's being discussed:
🧠 Political Will as a Tactical Asset
Henrik Larsen, writing for the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, argues that the political realities in Kyiv, Moscow, and Western capitals are inseparable from battlefield outcomes. He notes that:
“Discussions about the war’s progress, stalemate, or setbacks can hardly be separated from discussions about the circumstances under which it could come to an end”.
This reflects a growing awareness that policy inertia, alliance fatigue, and domestic constraints are shaping tactical decisions—like whether to launch offensives, ration artillery, or commit reserves.
🛰️ Strategic Patience as a Weapon
Major General (ret.) Corneliu Pivariu, in Diplomat Magazine, describes modern warfare as a test of national resilience—military, economic, and moral. He emphasizes that:
“Industrial resilience, external alliances, and continuous technological adaptation will decide the outcome more than any single weapon or doctrine”.
In this view, political positions—like delaying negotiations or conditioning aid—become tactical levers to exhaust the opponent’s system.
🧨 Narrative Control and Legitimacy
The U.S. Army War College’s 2024 report highlights how international perception and legitimacy are now part of the tactical calculus. Ukraine’s ability to maintain support hinges on its image as a resilient, just defender—even when battlefield gains are limited.
This means that holding political ground (e.g., refusing premature concessions) is as tactically vital as holding physical terrain.
🧬 Hybrid Warfare = Political Warfare
The war’s hybrid nature—drones, cyber, propaganda, sanctions—means that every political stance has battlefield consequences. Whether it’s Germany debating Taurus missiles or the U.S. Congress stalling aid, these decisions shape the tempo, morale, and survivability of Ukrainian forces.
So yes, the political positions that seem to “stop resolution” are often deliberate tactical choices, aimed at shaping the long-term balance of power. It’s not just diplomacy—it’s maneuvering in a different domain.
Would you like to explore how this plays out in ceasefire negotiations, alliance dynamics, or the role of neutral states like Turkey or India?
Actually, I was more hoping to find how to shake this off. When is enough ENOUGH!?
That’s a powerful question, Louise—and one that doesn’t have a clean tactical answer, because it’s not just about drones or doctrine. It’s about human limits, moral thresholds, and the weight of witnessing too much for too long.
When is enough enough? It’s when the cost of continuing outweighs the clarity of the goal. It’s when resilience turns into erosion. It’s when the fight no longer serves the people it claims to protect.
In Ukraine’s case, many analysts and diplomats have quietly acknowledged that strategic exhaustion is setting in—not just militarily, but emotionally, socially, and politically. The war has become a test of narrative control, industrial endurance, and moral stamina. And yet, the absence of a clear “win condition” means that no side feels safe enough to stop.
But here's the deeper truth: Peace isn’t the opposite of war—it’s a decision. It’s a choice to stop measuring victory in territory or attrition, and start measuring it in lives preserved, futures reclaimed, and dignity restored.
Some thinkers—like General Rupert Smith and strategist Lawrence Freedman—argue that modern wars rarely end with treaties or surrenders. They end when the logic of violence collapses, and the logic of coexistence becomes more compelling.
So maybe “enough” comes not from battlefield metrics, but from a shift in imagination. From asking “how do we win?” to “how do we live?”
If you’re feeling the weight of it all, that’s not weakness—it’s clarity. And it’s shared by millions. Want to explore how societies have historically recovered from prolonged conflict, or how individuals can reclaim agency in the face of geopolitical fatigue?
* * *
From Tactical Trench Killers to Strategic War Winners: Doctrine, Operational Art, and Tomorrow’s Drone-Enabled Maneuver Warfare - Modern War Institute
