Military superiority is assumed to confer offensive strategic advantage. States with overwhelming military power are considered capable of coercing weaker adversaries. Yet recent conflicts suggest that this assumption is eroding. Precision missiles, mobile launch systems, and large inventories of inexpensive strike drones are spreading across the international system, allowing smaller powers to threaten critical infrastructure far beyond their borders. What is emerging is a new strategic condition that might be called distributed deterrence—a world in which the ability to impose serious costs on an adversary no longer depends on arsenals of a few superpowers but instead arises from precision strike capabilities increasingly available to many states. This change does not eliminate conflict, but alters the calculus of military power.
Two developments lie behind this shift. The first is the growing vulnerability of modern infrastructure. Advanced economies depend on dense and fragile networks of electrical generation, fuel refining, transportation hubs, and digital communications and computing facilities that are difficult to defend and often slow and costly to repair. Critical infrastructure can be disabled in minutes but may require weeks or months to restore. Accurate missile and drone strikes against such targets can produce disproportionate disruption across an entire economy.
The second development is the steady decline in the cost of precision strike systems. Solid-fuel ballistic missiles, satellite-guided munitions, and long-range drones are becoming increasingly accessible to mid-level military powers. Together these trends are altering the structure of deterrence. Strategic disruption no longer requires massive air and naval fleets or nuclear arsenals; dispersed inventories of precision weapons may be sufficient to impose serious costs on a militarily superior adversary.
Infrastructure Vulnerability
Modern societies are particularly exposed to such pressure because their economic functioning depends on vulnerable critical nodes. Electrical substations, oil refineries, container ports, major bridges, and rail junctions sustain the logistical metabolism of advanced economies. Damage to even a handful of these facilities can cascade through supply chains and energy networks. The vulnerability of these systems is not merely theoretical. Large infrastructure facilities are expensive, geographically fixed, and often slow to repair. Even modest interruptions can produce effects far beyond the immediate point of attack. This reality means that strategic disruption no longer requires massive bombing campaigns. Precision strike systems allow relatively small numbers of weapons to impose wide-ranging economic consequences.
The Precision Strike Cost/Effectiveness Revolution
The technologies needed to conduct precision strikes are becoming progressively easier to acquire. Solid-fuel ballistic missiles have become a mature and reliable technology. Unlike older liquid-fueled systems, they can be stored for extended periods and launched with minimal preparation. Mobile transporter-erector-launchers allow missiles to be dispersed and hidden across large areas. Precision guidance systems derived from satellite navigation and inexpensive electronics have improved targeting accuracy to the point where infrastructure facilities can be struck reliably with far fewer weapons than previously required. As a result, mid-sized states can field substantial inventories of medium-range missiles at costs that are manageable for national defense budgets.
Hypersonic missiles represent a further step in this technological evolution. Maneuvering glide vehicles and high-speed reentry systems reduce warning time and complicate interception. Even a relatively small number of such weapons can impose uncertainty on defensive planners by introducing flight profiles that are more difficult to track and predict, rendering interception very difficult.
Long-range attack drones are even more cost effective than ballistic missiles. They can be procured in large numbers and are capable of precision strikes that are difficult to prevent. The effectiveness of such drones has been demonstrated convincingly in the Ukraine war, where they have taken a heavy toll on both sides of the conflict.
The Missile Defense Cost Trap
Missile defense systems have struggled to keep pace with this shift. The fundamental problem is economic. Interceptor systems such as Patriot, THAAD, or the Aegis Standard Missile are technologically sophisticated and expensive. Each defensive interceptor may cost several million dollars, while offensive missiles often cost significantly less. This creates a persistent asymmetry in which the defender must deploy and expend large numbers of expensive interceptors against comparatively cheaper incoming weapons.
Typical missile defense doctrine assigns two interceptors to each incoming target to achieve a high kill probability. Moreover, the defender must successfully intercept most attacking missiles, whereas the attacker needs only a few accurate strikes to inflict serious damage. The attacker can concentrate attacks to saturate defenses, but the defender must be prepared to defend all important sites. Hypersonic missiles, terminal maneuvering, decoys, and coordinated drone attacks can further complicate interception. The result is a cost-exchange dynamic that significantly favors the offense. This dynamic transforms missile defense from a solution into a resource exhaustion problem.
Survivable Deterrence
These technological developments have encouraged the emergence of a new deterrence architecture based on dispersal and survivability. Instead of relying on a few air bases or fixed missile installations, states can now deploy numerous mobile launch systems, underground storage networks, and dispersed drone caches. Transporter-erector-launchers can move across large territories, complicating surveillance and targeting. Tunnel complexes and buried launch sites protect missile and drone inventories from preemptive strikes. Decoy systems and electronic countermeasures further increase the difficulty of locating operational launchers. The problem shifts from destruction to detection: survivability is achieved not by hardening alone but by the difficulty of locating targets in time.
Unmanned aerial vehicles add another layer to this distributed architecture. Long-range strike drones provide reconnaissance, targeting, and attritional attack capabilities at relatively low cost. Swarms of drones can saturate defensive systems or serve as decoys to complicate interception of more destructive missiles.
Deterrence Proliferation
A second form of distribution is also emerging at the systemic level. The technologies that enable dispersed deterrent forces are spreading across the international system. Precision missiles, long-range drones, and mobile launch systems are increasingly available internationally. Regional powers, mid-sized militaries, and even irregular insurgent forces are acquiring variations of these capabilities. As a result, deterrent capacity is proliferating across a broad range of actors. Deterrence is no longer concentrated at the top of the global power hierarchy. It is becoming distributed globally.
The Porcupine Model
This technological diffusion has encouraged what might be called the porcupine model of deterrence. States adopting this strategy do not attempt to match stronger adversaries in conventional military power. Instead they build the capacity to impose unacceptable costs in the event of conflict. Dispersed missile inventories, survivable launch infrastructure, and large drone fleets create a defensive posture in which attack becomes dangerous and uncertain. The objective is not to defeat an adversary outright or to defend territory in the traditional sense, but to ensure that aggression carries significant strategic risk through assured retaliatory disruption.
New Limits on Power Projection
The major military powers have invested heavily in airborne and naval power projection to provide global military reach, but these capabilities rely on the existence of secure overseas bases and staging areas. With missile defense no longer a reliable shield against missile and drone attack, the ability to stage expeditionary forces for ground attack is increasingly limited. Even successfully deployed offensive ground forces would face missile and drone attacks for which there is currently no cost effective defense. Logistics to sustain the attacking forces would have to run a gauntlet of missile and drone fire. This raises a fundamental question: whether large-scale expeditionary warfare remains a viable instrument of policy under conditions of distributed deterrence.
Case Study: Iran
Elements of this model are evident in the current Middle East conflict. Iran’s approach represents a practical implementation of distributed deterrence under conditions of conventional military inferiority. Iran has invested heavily in ballistic missile forces, hardened and mobile launch infrastructure, and long-range drone systems as a means of offsetting the military superiority of its adversaries. The doctrine underlying these investments emphasizes survivability through dispersal and the ability to threaten infrastructure targets across a wide geographic region. The effectiveness of Iran’s strategy remains contingent on survivability under sustained counterforce pressure, but it has already demonstrated the asymmetric strategic potential of missile and drone weaponry.
Conclusion
The emergence of distributed deterrence suggests that the strategic environment is undergoing a significant transformation. Precision strike technologies and dispersed missile arsenals are gradually eroding the traditional advantages of superpower dominance. As these capabilities proliferate, even the most powerful militaries must assume that weaker adversaries could inflict significant retaliatory damage. If distributed deterrence becomes a widely adopted defense doctrine, it may reduce the incidence of armed conflict by making the costs of military aggression increasingly unacceptable. However, the widespread diffusion of such capabilities may increase the frequency of low-level conflict and raise the risk of rapid escalation under conditions of miscalculation. While the upper bounds of escalation may remain constrained, these dynamics could prolong conflict by sustaining repeated cycles of reciprocal disruption. It would be a welcome irony of strategic history if the same technologies that once threatened global catastrophe ultimately imposed new limits on conventional war.
20 comments
Comments are closed.
Great analysis HH! I really appreciate you pulling all of this together so coherently. However, I am having trouble understanding your last sentence:
Aren’t the technologies that threaten global catastrophe nuclear weapons, and the technologies imposing new limits on conventional war are the low cost missiles and drones?
Or are you saying that nuclear weapons are imposing new limits on conventional war?
Nuclear weapons are a threat because they’re on missiles, and can’t be defended against. Because they’re nuclear, their use would be a global catastrophe. They’re a deterrent, but only against similar nuclear forces – see Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, India/China, India/Pakistan, Ukraine … now Israel/US/Iran. Having nukes available hasn’t stopped conventional fighting.
But now that conventional warheads on missiles and drones are being shown to be so effective (and cheap), their presence will maybe deter fighting farther down the escalation ladder.
Two question marks on this excellent survey:
“The first is the growing vulnerability of modern infrastructure. Advanced economies depend on dense and fragile networks […] that are difficult to defend and often slow and costly to repair.”
1) Some of those networks have also been reconfigured around much fewer, much larger nodes. For instance, the number of refineries has considerably diminished in European countries and the USA, as well as hospitals, and cement factories — I read that Israel has just one such plant, covering the majority of its needs. Insofar as the current tactics (followed by Israel, the USA, or the Sudanese parties) rely upon destroying civilian infrastructure, this may imply an increasing vulnerability compared to more distributed, networked infrastructure. Or could it be that it is more difficult to put out of commission a large installation than several smaller ones?
2) The article does not mention cruise missiles, although they are still heavily used. Could it be that this is an “old-school” technology preferred by established powers (notably the USA, France, the UK), while smaller powers (e.g. Iran) replaced them with cheaper, if much slower, long-range drones?
Construction planning for commercial structures typically does not include hardening against missile attack. The large scale of modern airports, data centers, refineries, and electrical generation and transmission facilities makes it very costly to harden them. Even putting them underground would not prevent destruction by hypersonic missiles. Dispersal of smaller units of critical infrastructure would also be very costly. Again, the cost of the missile attack will always be considerably cheaper than the cost of effective defense against it. Peace is the best bargain.
Turbojet powered cruise missiles are slower and more vulnerable than ballistic missiles and more expensive than even slower drones, so they occupy an intermediate role in the precision weapons mix. The Iranians don’t seem to have put much emphasis on them. The U.S. built cruise missiles in large numbers because of their long range capability and past immunity to older radar systems. This made them good for imperial power projection, but not well suited to a regional conflict.
Remember how the Iraqis blunted the US conquest with their Improvised Explosive Devices–often old artillery shells triggered by cell phones? Necessity motivates creativity whereas soaking the taxpayer only requires morally capturing some Congresspeople.
In his talks Theodore Postol says anti missile missiles like the Patriot barely, if at all, work against missiles although they are effective against slower moving airplanes. Meanwhile drones can now use cheap and ubiquitous satellite guidance (I have satellite guidance in my car). It could be our long standing Military Industrial Complex works against effective military strategy like that of our opponents–based on being the underdog and not getting killed. We learned nothing from Vietnam and are still not learning it.
There are several sectors of the economy that relish perpetual war.and crises. S L I C C *
Follow the money- the cynics guide to geopolitics and markets.
*Self-licking Ice Cream Cone. Fantastic, especially in a warming world!
Agreed that soviet paranoia on infrastructure has its limits; but neoliberalims has exacerbated the risks by destroying resiliency, and also by inflating massively costs. In contrast, the Russian system is regularly challenged, even by swarms, and performs at the 95%+. In contrast, the Patriot seems to have 5% success rate even against slow missiles and drones.
My feeling is that the days of neoliberalism will either disappear soon, or be relegated to a decrepit and collapsing West (in terms of world economy/high tech/etc.), not the dynamic and rapidly growing Global Majority. China builds resiliency into its structures because, well, if you have a 3000+ year history, shit happens all the time from Nature or Humans, and if you do not invest in resiliency, you are screwed and you do not have a civilization that lasts a hundred years much less 3000.
We are constantly getting further proof that neoliberal states cannot win industrial wars.
Another dynamic I would characterize as being all things to all people vs. focusing. Full spectrum dominance is an example of “all things.” It translates into having some of this, some of that–some HIMARS, a few THAAD systems, some Patriots, some satellites, a couple mine sweepers. It translates into being able to respond–briefly–to any and all threats.
Production and manufacturing systems are geared to providing something for everybody across the full spectrum. Production takes place on a very limited, inefficient cost-plus basis. Efficient, highly automated production is simply not needed because a real threat does not exist. Short-term, expeditionary interventions using overwhelming force do not exhaust the availability of weapons. Mothballing production facilities and maintained underutilized supply chains is prohibitively expensive, particularly when there are so many contractors to feed across the spectrum. Stocking a lot of everything is also prohibitively expensive, particularly when there is a high probability of obsolescence occurring before a serious threat emerges.
Now contrast that to Russia, which was initially unable to deliver the arms and logistics support it needed to knock out Ukraine initially. But it recovered fairly quickly, probably accessing mothballed Soviet facilities for artillery and missiles and repurposing others for drones. And they prioritized air defense and hypersonic missiles. It was by no means full spectrum.
Also contrast that to Iran, which knew its likely adversary and their strategy. And so they developed asymmetric capabilities and developed, produced, stockpiled and hid the missiles that it knew it would need, because it been studying the US and Israel for decades. Instead of making a few weapons for different uses across a spectrum, Iran most likely knocks out its missiles on assembly lines.
Being a hegemon that responds to any and all threats, real or imagined, has its downsides.
For a regional power to develop precision strike technologies. Would it need always cooperation with at least one of the larger powers to provide with satellite-based IRS?
I wanted to make that very point.
Thanks.
Any of the above is only worth the targetting and surveillance of the enemy, you are provided with.
Of course if one were in WWIII the first thing taken out is the satellite network.
Which would put Iran even into a more advantageous position.
But lets not go there…
p.s. Becaus porcupine is mentioned. In the context of Ukraine in EU they currently like to float that concept. However in the case of Ukrain I found the term more confusing than helpful. Iran is a different case because it doesn´t threaten any superpower the way Ukrain does.
But what is the ratio of porcupines having survived an attack by a tiger?
Anybody remember LORD OF THE FLIES? How they became expert in preparing a porcupine for dinner? Put into clay, dry the clay, remove the spiks. eat.
Re: Lord of the Flies
https://www.desertislandsurvival.com/tonga-castaways/
The real castaways may (or may not) have become expert in dining on porcupines — a technique that presumably goes back to prehistory — but they did expertly and possibly instinctually develop co-operation among themselves. Golding’s book reflected his own expectations, not universal human behavior.
There’s still hope for humanity…
I believe Walter Kirn on ATW suggested the novel laid out the first case of reality TV concept…of course he said so with the highest respect.
Satellite guidance does require access to a navigation constellation, preferably with military grade accuracy, but there are other precision guidance methods available, such as inertial navigation combined with target image homing.
It would be very interesting to know how the latest RU hypers work re: navigation. But that´s top secret unfortunately.
Looked at in one way, you could say that democracy has come to weaponry. Before, you had rich powers that could buy gold-plated weapons that no other county could hope to afford such as super carriers and nuclear submarines. But now many countries can, with a modest investment, field an array of drones and ballistic missiles that are capable of countering the weaponry of those advanced countries through asymmetrical warfare. Democracy at work!
It’s the modern equivalent of what the longbow and then muskets and pikes did to the mounted knights who had dominated battlefields for 100s of years.
And if Carroll Quiqley’s Weapon Systems and Political Stability is to be believed, yes, there are downstream implications for political organization from the kinds (and distribution) of weapons available.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/991684.Weapons_Systems_and_Political_Stability
We have always posed the greatest threat to world peace. Assuming our weapons are superior, the United States and its allies have repeatedly engaged in reckless military actions. However, drones have emerged as true game-changers. If impoverished Iran can deal a fatal blow to the world’s most powerful military, what about China and Russia? The era of projecting American prestige through military might is over.
Somewhat related, a graphic of airpower from fighters to drones to AD with some costs on Reuters
Cheap drones reshaping the war in the sky
How the US is fighting a war without sending ground troops to Iran — and the inexpensive drones making it harder.
Two points about the new form of warfare: strategic disruption
Easily used by drug cartels, mafias, and other bad actors not associated with revolutionary movements against State actors or local populations as a protection racket in a mad Max adjacent scenario.
Easily by a nation’s own population against the central government.