Generated by Codex with GPT-5

This summary covers The Economist’s May 31st, 2026 Essay article listed in the contents as Modern war and published under the headline The crucible of transparency.

War in the age of exposure

The article argues that modern war is being reshaped by a new, incomplete but powerful form of battlefield visibility. Soldiers, vehicles, aircraft, missile launchers and command posts are harder to hide than before because cheap sensors, satellites, drones, software networks and precision weapons are knitting the battlefield together. The result is not omniscience. Fog, deception, jamming and geography still matter. But armies now fight under more eyes, and those eyes can often be connected quickly to weapons.

Ukraine is the most vivid example. Drones have helped turn parts of the front into deep lethal zones where movement by vehicle can be suicidal and infantry must move slowly, at night or under cover. Yet the article is careful not to reduce the whole change to drones alone. The decisive system combines sensors, communications, targeting processes, trained operators and weapons. Drones matter because they collapse many of those functions into one cheap, adaptable package, and because they can be produced and revised at the tempo of consumer electronics rather than traditional arms manufacturing.

This makes the battlefield both more remote and more intimate. A pilot may sit far from the front, but the target can experience the weapon as a personal pursuer. Drones also blur the line between combat support and killing: similar machines can deliver food, evacuate casualties and hunt soldiers. In Ukraine, that combination has helped create a grinding attritional war in which both sides adapt rapidly but neither has found an easy path back to decisive maneuver.

The defender’s advantage is real but not absolute

The essay pushes against two simple conclusions. One is that drones have made maneuver warfare obsolete. The other is that advanced armies can dismiss Ukraine’s experience as a special case. The truth is more uncomfortable. Technology has made it easier for defenders to see and strike attackers, but every advantage invites countermeasures. Jamming, fiber-optic drone control, lasers, camouflage, deception and new tactics all change the balance again.

The article’s useful concept is the search for temporary “pockets of superiority.” Instead of assuming that an army can dominate an entire theater, commanders may need to create small windows in which enemy sensors, drones and shooters are suppressed just long enough for armored forces or infantry to move. That requires preparation, intelligence, electronic warfare, training and doctrine. It also requires armies to practice against realistic opposition rather than rehearse scripted victories.

Air power is part of the same problem. Western armies still assume that air superiority will unlock freedom of action on the ground. The article suggests that this is less true than it used to be. Low-altitude airspace is filling with cheap drones and short-range air defenses, creating a dangerous layer beneath the domain of advanced jets. Israel’s fighting in Lebanon is used as an example: even with air dominance and superior intelligence, ground troops still had to clear villages, take casualties and confront drones at close range.

That does not mean tanks, aircraft and ships are useless. Old weapons can adapt, and high-end systems still matter for deep strikes, air campaigns and deterrence. But the article warns that many militaries are still spending as if yesterday’s platforms can simply be upgraded into tomorrow’s answers. The more likely need is a serious mix of old and new: traditional forces surrounded by uncrewed systems, cheap sensors, counter-drone tools and command networks built for rapid adaptation.

Targeting is not strategy

The war over Iran gives the article its second major case study. America and Israel have shown extraordinary capacity to find and hit targets, yet Iran has still retained enough missiles, drones and launchers to keep fighting and to threaten the Strait of Hormuz. The lesson is not that precision weapons failed. It is that destroying many targets is not the same as achieving a political goal.

This is the essay’s sharpest strategic warning. Modern militaries can become obsessed with faster “sensor-to-shooter” cycles, larger target lists and artificial-intelligence systems that promise to process battlefield data beyond human scale. Those tools may be valuable, especially when mobile targets must be struck before they disappear. But they can also encourage a familiar illusion: that a sufficiently powerful blow will settle the war by itself.

History gives little reason to trust that fantasy. The article connects today’s targeting culture to older faiths in air power and technological overmatch. Advanced weapons can punish, disrupt and destroy, but they do not automatically compel surrender, build political order or solve the original problem that caused the war. When leaders mistake target counts for strategy, they risk turning operational efficiency into endless bombardment.

A harsher moral and nuclear landscape

The article also argues that technology is changing how war is seen. Remote killing was once described as sanitized because operators watched screens rather than battlefields. Now the screen can make violence more graphic, shareable and performative. Drone footage and official social-media clips can turn killing into public spectacle. That matters because the laws and norms of war are already under pressure.

The essay points to a growing willingness by political leaders and military figures to speak in punitive terms, threaten broad categories of civilian infrastructure and treat legal restraint as weakness. The author does not claim that every ugly strike is unlawful; the rules of war are often more permissive than the public assumes. The concern is broader: democracies are becoming more comfortable with rhetoric and imagery that erode the habits of restraint they may one day need for their own protection.

Finally, the article turns to nuclear risk. The post-1945 decline in great-power war may be less secure than many assumed, and nuclear deterrence only works because the possibility of use remains present. Ukraine, Iran, India and Pakistan all illustrate different versions of escalation management. A Taiwan war would be more dangerous still, because America and China could find themselves attacking each other’s command networks, sensors and decision systems at speed. Those same systems may also be tied to nuclear control, making miscalculation especially perilous.

The takeaway is stark. New technology is making war more visible, more precise and more automated, but not more controllable. It may help weaker states resist stronger ones and make wars of choice look foolish in retrospect. Yet leaders keep believing that the next campaign will be swift, decisive and technologically mastered. The article’s central warning is that transparency changes the battlefield; it does not repeal politics, friction, adaptation or the risk of catastrophe.