# MODERN WAR magazine



## Phoenix-1/3 (Mar 30, 2017)

I have been reading this magazine for about eight to ten months now, and have found their reporting to be informative, insightful, honest and accurate (in regards to historical preferences, and my civilian perspective), and enjoyable (for those who like reading about military/political matters, both domestic and international). It has been helpful to learn about unit types, their roles, and how to identify them (should I ever come across such a map, not likely atm).

Outside of the main military articles, there are brief insights into future foreign military capabilities or expansion plans. Many of the contributors are former or current military, professors .

To those who are directly involved with many of the modern military operations this magazine has covered and will most likely cover (see pictures attached below), those reports/stories may not interest you.

But if you are someone who enjoys reading elaborate tactical maps of operations (especially learning how unit types are defined on said maps, and where and how they were utilized) and the successes or failures that were incurred due to political or military leadership (see attached), I recommend picking up this magazine. You can subscribe to it or find it at your local Barnes and Noble, and perhaps other local drug stores.

In the most recent edition (titled "INVASION CUBA 1961-1962), there are two articles that may interest those who are apart of this website. One discusses the future of warfare (titled "SPEC OPS, MERCS, KILLER ROBOTS"), which delves into the increasing use and dependency of SOF units over regular line units in comparison to (at least) two alternatives, mercenaries and killer robots. The drawbacks of each are describe therein. They include elaborate descriptions of SOCOM, JSOC, AFSOC, ASOC, MARSOC, and NSWC. I only included a photo depicting AFSOC and ASOC.

The other article focuses on (predicted) future wars in Megacities, which are increasing with each decade. Whether they be security related or insurgency related, the article discusses how to combat these predicted encounters while pulling from existing data (ie. Battle for Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq), and the difficulties of forming a cohesive operation between the use of SOF with regular line units, in regard to experience level.

Hope you pick up and enjoy.

-Phoenix - 1/3

(I am not a writer or contributor to this magazine, simply someone who has enjoyed its content and wish to share it with this community. I hope the attached photos do not violate the policy on "illegal material", as they are not my property. I simply wanted to show a visual for what the magazine offers.)


----------



## Phoenix-1/3 (Mar 30, 2017)

I tried uploading six cellphone pictures of parts of the current edition, but the 'Upload a File' did not work.

I will post individual with each image, hopefully you are not annoyed.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 30, 2017)

Phoenix-1/3 said:


> I tried uploading six cellphone pictures of parts of the current edition, but the 'Upload a File' did not work.
> 
> I will post individual with each image, hopefully you are not annoyed.
> 
> View attachment 18392



Probably no need to download any pics, just to show the pics. There may even be copywright issues over downloading their pics without their permission. If you find an interesting article you can always pass that along to us.


----------



## AWP (Mar 30, 2017)

Phoenix-1/3 said:


> One discusses the future of warfare (titled "SPEC OPS, MERCS, KILLER ROBOTS"), which delves into the increasing use and dependency of SOF units over regular line units in comparison to (at least) two alternatives, mercenaries and killer robots. The drawbacks of each are describe therein. They include elaborate descriptions of SOCOM, JSOC, AFSOC, ASOC, MARSOC, and NSWC. I only included a photo depicting AFSOC and ASOC.



I'm calling bullshit on this publication. Mercenaries in SOCOM? Does the author even know what constitutes a mercenary? Look at the thread below.

Mercenarism Resurgent

I'm glad you posted this, now I know to avoid that rag.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 31, 2017)

The word "Mercenary" in publishing is usually a bubba attractant. And "Killer Robots" sounds like sci-fi from the 50's...both have a bit of the pulpy sleaze factor.

Not to put your suggestion down, if it were discussing weaponized nanotechnology or drone development I might be more inclined to pay attention, but most of us here take source material pretty seriously.


----------



## Phoenix-1/3 (Mar 31, 2017)

Appreciate the feedback... first debate!

I think that the title may have thrown you, and I didn't really describe the article as clearly as I probably could have. Was rushed for time...

The article discussed (at least) three plausible ways that wars of the future may be undertaken. Mercenaries wouldn't be included *IN *SOCOM, but as an alternative *TO *SOCOM, as:

(quote) _"the single largest source of personnel for the PMCs are former members of the US, Canadian, UK, French, and Russian SOF. They're drawn to the PMCs because they can continue to perform their specialties and often at several times their former salaries."_

and considering that PMC's can offer a fuller spectrum of services (ie. "vehicle equipment maintenance, supply procurement, political consulting" to name a few) in comparison to what an SOF unit can offer or what their duty entails. I mean absolutely no offense, but I imagine SOF the world over aren't sent into a country to do HUMVEEEE repair (in say Saudi Arabia?).

The article also discusses in detail the _UN International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries_, particularly what defines a _mercenary_.

As to the _Killer Robots_ section, @Ocoka, the article covered UAV's being used as early as 2003 in Iraq, and how the number has increased significantly in the years (to a tune of around 7,000 floating, submersible, tunneling, driving, walking, and running robotic vehicles and weapons).

The title of this section was in mention to how the initial role of UAV's as a surveillance technology changed in modern war (no pun intended) during the Iraq war, not pulling from the 1980's Iraq drone used in their war with Iran. The purpose of this section was clearly intended to get to this:

(quote) _"present official estimate from the army's Training and Doctrine Command is that by 2030, military robots will allow for the repacement of 1/4 of the soldiers assigned to combat branches.... no later tan 2025, the US will field only one human infantryman for every five robotic ones it puts into the field... with 2035 being the latest that those robot infantryman will have the software so well developed all human operators __could__ be be safely left out of their "kill chain" decisions during combat missions."_

That just an opinion, though, based on where and what the US military is focused on ATM.

The _KILLER ROBOT_ term came from a discussion within a US Army document which mentioned the idea of _"autonomous hunter-killer teams"_, tele-operated squad size UGV's programmed to perform missions such as ambush, assassination, or penetration of enemy lines, often dangerous missions for human soldiers.

Appreciate the feedback. Clearly the opinion and views of the article's author are not shared by those in the actual community, or at least not without some disagreement. I will say from where I'm sitting, it is logical to theorize that with US technological advancements over many other nations (in regards to the military), robots would be utilized over humans (most certainly in the combat field), as perhaps a single good reason is that it saves from bad press and a picture of a coffin with a flag draped over it.


----------



## CDG (Mar 31, 2017)

Phoenix-1/3 said:


> I will say from where I'm sitting



Which is where, exactly?  What experience do you bring to the table in this "debate"?


----------



## Teufel (Mar 31, 2017)

Modern War magazine might as well be the name of my photo album sitting on my coffee table right now.


----------



## Phoenix-1/3 (Mar 31, 2017)

It doesn't take a genius to see where technology (in general) is taking us, nor military experience or PhD. Just takes an active imagination.

And if that answer doesn't satisfy, I went back to school to learn how to program to understand the complexities of software development.

@Teufel... respect.


----------



## Teufel (Mar 31, 2017)

Phoenix-1/3 said:


> It doesn't take a genius to see where technology (in general) is taking us, nor military experience or PhD. Just takes an active imagination.
> 
> And if that answer doesn't satisfy, I went back to school to learn how to program to understand the complexities of software development.
> 
> @Teufel... respect.


I suppose it could also be called "Wars we didn't win that consumed my adult life"


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2017)

Phoenix-1/3 said:


> The article discussed (at least) three plausible ways that wars of the future may be undertaken. Mercenaries wouldn't be included *IN *SOCOM, but as an alternative *TO *SOCOM, as:
> 
> (quote) _"the single largest source of personnel for the PMCs are former members of the US, Canadian, UK, French, and Russian SOF. They're drawn to the PMCs because they can continue to perform their specialties and often at several times their former salaries."_



And it is STILL wrong. Period. If SOCOM is operating with US citizens, or foreign citizens whose gov't is part of the conflict, then they are. Not. Mercenaries. This isn't a debate, this is a formal and legally accepted definition. Anyone who does not understand this, or can't be bothered with 30 seconds of searching/ reading is simply wrong.

You can either change your position on this, at which point a portion of your post/ argument is invalid or you can stick to your guns and that consigns your argument to the dust bin. As for "killer robots" The notion that SOCOM would predominately rely on drones is pure garbage as it runs counter to everything that makes SOF unique. If you have an army of drones doing the mission then there is no SOCOM because that command is no longer "special."

The entire article is crap. If you want to continue the discussion it will be without my participation because "the entire article is crap."


----------



## Gunz (Mar 31, 2017)

The cover story of Modern War Magazine is the Bay of Pigs?

Look, OP, most folks here live and breathe this shit everyday and those of us who are no longer in uniform at least try to keep up with it through defense industry and military publications, websites, books and a myriad of PDF files of official studies, documents and papers written by military professionals and analysts etc...or direct from the sources themselves.

Among other things, I was a military affairs correspondent for Clear Channel Worldwide (Radio) for almost 20 years, and I wouldn't be caught dead with Modern War Magazine. Just sayin. And I'm unassing this conversation as well.


----------



## Teufel (Mar 31, 2017)

I honestly don't think you will ever be able to replace the infantryman. People were saying that ground combat was obsolete after the invention of the airplane at the turn of the century. Turns out that was a premature assessment. A few decades later the same argument was made after the advent of nuclear weapons. Drones may eventually replace human pilots someday in the distant future but I don't think they will ever replace ground forces.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 31, 2017)

You can wipe your ass with this rage.

Also you will never replace the rifleman.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 1, 2017)




----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 1, 2017)

It looks like this OP and thread is going sideways, and a pile has started. 

Time to put this one to bed.


----------

