This article raises a number of critical issues that lie at the heart of this journal’s enduring themes- Future Wars. Over the past decade, our series called ‘Contours’ has explored the evolving nature of warfare which includes the obsolescence of linear battlefields, the emergence of new domains such as space, cyber, and mindspace; proliferation of robotics, unmanned systems, and man-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) across the tactical battlespace. We have also examined the transformation of manoeuvre warfare in this new context.

As these trends redefine the very nature of conflict, it is time to initiate a deeper discourse on the future of battlespace. This article serves as the preamble to that renewed exploration.

Across the global strategic community, one question continues to dominate military discussions – how will future wars be fought? It’s no longer just about force-on-force engagements or wielding the technological edge. Instead, we are witnessing a complete transformation in the very nature and structure of warfare. The architecture of conflict is evolving rapidly, shaped by technology, perception, and emerging domains that were barely on the radar just two decades ago.

Traditionally, the theatre of war was confined to land, sea, and air—clear, physical domains where force-on-force engagements played out in visible and measurable terms. However, this triad is no longer sufficient to frame modern conflict. Two new domains, cyberspace and outer space, have fully emerged as operational environments. Satellites, digital networks, and data servers now form an integral part of frontline assets. These are immensely valuable and yet very vulnerable. Attacks on these systems can paralyse communication, surveillance, and command networks, severely degrading a military’s ability to respond or retaliate.

But it is ‘mindspace’, the most abstract and least understood domain, that may prove the most disruptive. This is the psychological battlespace – the terrain of perceptions, beliefs, morale, and public sentiment. Here, wars are increasingly won or lost before the first missile is launched. Consider the erosion of morale in prolonged conflicts like Ukraine, or the shifting public opinion within Gaza as seen in recent protests by the Gazans against Hamas. These are not side effects of war – they are battlefronts in their own right. The ability to control narratives, shape perception, and influence behaviour is becoming as critical as controlling physical territory.

Parallel to these shifts is the explosive rise of disruptive technologies especially unmanned systems and robotic warfare. The battlefield today is already populated with drones, loitering munitions, and semi-autonomous machines that can deliver lethal effects without endangering a human operator. These systems are cheaper, faster, and more adaptable than conventional platforms. From Ukraine’s use of Turkish Bayraktar UAVs to the rise of kamikaze UAVs, warfighting has entered an era where humans and machines operate in tandem.

This collaboration is best understood through the concept of Man-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T).  Here, artificial intelligence-enabled platforms support human operators with enhanced situational awareness, rapid decision-making, and precision targeting. The human remains in the loop, but increasingly the loop is shrinking. (Article on MUMT in our Jan-Feb 25 issue refers)

At the heart of this transformation lies ISR&D—Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Degradation. While ISR has always been crucial to military success, the addition of “Degradation” marks a turning point. Modern conflict now demands not only observing the enemy but also actively dismantling their systems in real time. This includes disrupting networks, jamming communications, and physically destroying critical nodes. AI-driven ISR&D frameworks like the U.S. military’s JADC2 or China’s INEW exemplify this integration—where every sensor, platform, and operator is part of a unified, responsive, and predictive system. These networks form the nervous system of modern warfare, enabling real-time sensor-to-shooter links and empowering commanders with unprecedented control.

This evolution has also raised serious questions about the relevance of traditional platforms. When long-range precision weapons can neutralise targets from hundreds of kilometres away, what is the role of the tank or the fighter jet? While some argue that such platforms are nearing obsolescence, the truth is more nuanced. Heavy assets remain crucial for urban warfare, force projection, and territorial control. However, their effectiveness now depends entirely on how well they are connected within a multi-domain operational ecosystem. Standalone firepower is no longer enough; integration is key.

Even the very idea of manoeuver warfare is undergoing a redefinition. In the past, manoeuver referred to tactical movements on a battlefield- outflanking, encirclement, breakthrough. Today, it encompasses multi-domain manoeuvre – disrupting the enemy’s ability to function across physical, cyber, and cognitive spaces. A cyberattack that blinds enemy radars, or a narrative campaign that discredits their leadership, can be just as decisive as a physical strike. In this new paradigm, manoeuver becomes about dislocating the adversary’s capacity to understand, respond, or adapt.

Perhaps the most profound transformation is emerging from the human dimension of conflict. Younger generations, especially Gen Z and late Millennials who see kinetic wars as outdated, unnecessary, even immoral. This shift is not just cultural, but deeply strategic. If a society no longer supports military intervention, or if volunteer armies begin to shrink due to lack of motivation, a nation’s ability to wage war is compromised from within.

Thus, the battlefield of the mind – the domain of morale, ideology, and national will- demands urgent attention. In this context, mindspace is not a metaphor – it is a critical domain for success of a mission. A nation must secure its own cognitive space as firmly as it secures its borders. Ideological resilience, information hygiene, and populace’s understanding of national security are becoming essential components of defence.

So where does it Lead to…

The cumulative impact of emerging domains, advancing technologies, and shifting societal attitudes is not merely tinkering with the existing fabric of warfare—it is weaving a new one altogether. Warfare is no longer a linear confrontation of armies across a defined front. It is a diffused, networked and fluid phenomenon, often unfolding simultaneously across geography, CEMA (Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities) and public consciousness.

As nations grapple with this transformation, the most visible shift is in the nature of conflict itself. Modern wars are no longer declared with dramatic speeches or marked by tanks rolling across borders. They begin quietly in computer servers, in satellites in outer space, on social media platforms, and inside the minds of populations. This gradual diffusion has made it harder to even define what constitutes an act of war. A power grid failure, a manipulated election, or a viral disinformation campaign may not look like war, but they can cripple a nation as effectively or more than conventional bombardment.

The conduct of war, thus, is moving from the realm of brute kinetic force to that of decision dominance. Victory now belongs to the side that can see more, decide faster, and act with precision before the adversary even realises that he/she is under threat. This implies a complete rethinking of military structures, doctrines, and leadership models.

A rigid hierarchy waiting for orders from the top will be outpaced by a distributed, AI-enabled network that empowers smaller tactical units/subunits with strategic-level insight.

Another outcome of this transformation is the blurring of civil and military spheres. With cyber infrastructure, media networks, and digital economies now integral to national defence, the entire society becomes part of the conflict zone. Civilian institutions, corporations, and even individuals become both targets and warriors. Consequently, nations must develop not just robust armed forces, but resilient societies, capable of withstanding cognitive and technological assaults. National security in this sense is no longer just the military’s domain – it is a whole-of-nation undertaking.

What does this mean for strategy? It means that the old paradigms of deterrence and escalation are now unstable. A cyberattack may provoke a conventional response; a satellite hack might trigger an economic embargo; an AI-generated fake video could unleash ethnic violence. Strategy must evolve to absorb uncertainty, operate in ambiguity, and be prepared for escalation across non-traditional thresholds – dynamic doctrines as we have repeatedly suggested.

This evolution will also influence force structures. Militaries will need to combine the kinetic with the cognitive, the visible with the invisible. UAVs will fly alongside manned aircraft, AI bots will assist ground forces, and cloud-based data platforms will become as essential as gunpowder once was. Forces will need to train for scenarios where narrative control and public sentiment may matter as much or more than territorial gains.

The ethical dimension of this transformation cannot be ignored. In a battlespace where AI makes targeting decisions, where deepfakes can distort reality, and where psychological manipulation is a weapon, the line between combatant and non-combatant grows increasingly thin. This calls for new rules of engagement, possibly new UN Conventions for the digital and cognitive realms. And there lies the paradox- while laws of war evolve slowly, the tools of war evolve at breakneck speed.

India, like other major military powers, must come to terms with this reality. The push toward theatre commands, integrated ISR networks, and indigenous tech development are necessary- but not sufficient. What is needed is a conceptual leap, a doctrinal reimagination, where the primary goal is no longer just tactical success on the battlefield, but strategic coherence across all domains – physical, cyber, space, and cognitive.

Ultimately, the future of warfare will not be determined by who has the biggest army, but by who can orchestrate the most synchronised response across these varied and overlapping domains. As the grammar of war is rewritten, militaries must learn the new language quickly… or risk being lost in translation.