The escalation of wars in the 21st century

Escalation is often understood as a simple increase in violence, but it is actually a more complex phenomenon: a crisis escalates when it intensifies, expands to other geographical scenarios or domains (land, naval, aerospace, or cyber), or affects increasingly sensitive targets, thus becoming more difficult to control. Today, this risk is greater because war increasingly depends on a set of technologies that are changing its logic: the use of precision and long-range weapons, the proliferation of drones – and, above all, the possibility of using them in swarms –, artificial intelligence, cyberspace, electronic warfare, satellites, and, in some cases, hypersonic weapons. But also because many of these capabilities are more accessible and spread beyond major powers. Not all have the same weight, but they share a common background effect: they accelerate events, increase ambiguity, and make it more likely that a limited action will be perceived as a more serious step than perhaps intended.The first problem is speed. Precision capabilities –the combination of guided weapons, sensors, command and control networks, and navigation tools that allow for locating, tracking, and attacking targets with great accuracy– can produce profound effects in a very short time. The novelty is that the time between observation, decision, and action has been radically shortened, between the sensors that detect, the command centers that process information, and the vectors that execute the attack. Technology compresses decision cycles and favors premature reactions or those based on an incomplete reading of the situation. A well-coordinated attack can not only destroy physical targets: it can degrade command and control, disrupt communications, degrade radar coverage, or hinder the detection and tracking of targets. To all this must be added AI, which accelerates data fusion, target prioritization, and the pace of decision-making, as well as hypersonic weapons, which, due to their speed, maneuverability, and shorter warning time, can further reduce the margin for interpreting signals and calibrating responses. The strategic problem is evident: when time shortens, the risk of reacting not so much to what is known as to what is feared increases.

The second problem is the cheapening and dissemination of precision vectors. Capabilities that until recently required large budgets, advanced industries, and highly sophisticated armed forces are today within reach of many more actors, and at much lower costs. From drones to missiles, the proliferation of these vectors allows for saturating defenses, confusing the adversary, or striking critical points. And this alters the relationship between attacker and defender: very expensive and sophisticated systems can be pressured by much cheaper, numerous, and difficult-to-neutralize means.The war in Ukraine has made this clearly evident, both through the massive use of cheap drones at the front and through long-range operations against critical infrastructure. The large Iranian salvos of drones and missiles against Israel have also shown to what extent simultaneity and mass can suddenly raise the risk of a regional crisis. The lesson is clear: the ability to inflict damage, saturate defenses, or strategically pressure the adversary is no longer the exclusive domain of great powers. This technological diffusion expands the number of actors capable of causing serious incidents and accelerating escalations with consequences that are difficult to contain.The third problem is ambiguity. In cyberspace, in space, or in the electromagnetic environment, it is not always easy to know who acted, with what exact intention, or with what real scope. An interference in communications, a cyberattack, the reversible degradation of a space service, or an electronic warfare action may seem like limited movements. However, if they affect a radar, a satellite, a data link, or any other critical capability, they may be perceived as an attempt to blind, disorganize, or paralyze the adversary's response capability. In terms of escalation, this is fundamental, because the political meaning of an action can become as important as the material damage it causes.In short, new military technologies do not make escalation inevitable, but they do make it more probable and difficult to control. They reduce the time to decide, expand the number of actors capable of causing serious damage, and make the meaning of many hostile actions more ambiguous. The danger is not only that states want to escalate conflicts, but that a crisis can escalate almost unintentionally, driven by speed, saturation, and uncertainty. This is the paradox of modern warfare: the more precise, connected, and accessible the means of combat, the more difficult it can be to prevent a crisis from spiraling out of control.