Escalation is usually 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 areas 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 change 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 underlying 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 the precise location, tracking, and engagement of targets– 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 target detection and tracking. 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 times, can further reduce the margin for interpreting signals and calibrating responses. The strategic problem is evident: as time shortens, the risk of reacting not so much to what is known as to what is feared increases.