I think the type of tech imbalance that matters will vary quite widely based on the type of conflict. Full-scale conflicts between large countries are probably out—deterrence and MAD still apply. For interceding in civil wars, or small-scale conflicts, it seems likely that the personal/targetted (surveillance, info-systems, automated and assisted weapons, area exclusion mechanisms (mines that are selective and temporary enough to be usable), etc. are likely to be the more important technology. This includes satellite and high-altitude surveillance, but probably not space or aerial combat.
I’m not sure the gap can be measured in years, though. For this kind of tech, there’s enough black- and grey-market, and active support by various superpowers, that the gap is primarily money, not research or production capacity.
I suspect such conflicts will continue to be decided more by the participants’ determination and willingness to kill and die for their respective causes, and by amount of support from the local non-combatants (ability to ever extract any value at all from the area, aka “hearts and minds”) than by actual technology availability.
Edit: for guerrilla and “police action” conflicts, the key technical advantage will be specificity and information. For small-scale control of a populace, it would go a long way to kill only the leaders of a fight, allowing the followers (aka “workers”) to go home safely so they don’t miss a day of tax-paying.
I think the type of tech imbalance that matters will vary quite widely based on the type of conflict. Full-scale conflicts between large countries are probably out—deterrence and MAD still apply. For interceding in civil wars, or small-scale conflicts, it seems likely that the personal/targetted (surveillance, info-systems, automated and assisted weapons, area exclusion mechanisms (mines that are selective and temporary enough to be usable), etc. are likely to be the more important technology. This includes satellite and high-altitude surveillance, but probably not space or aerial combat.
I’m not sure the gap can be measured in years, though. For this kind of tech, there’s enough black- and grey-market, and active support by various superpowers, that the gap is primarily money, not research or production capacity.
I suspect such conflicts will continue to be decided more by the participants’ determination and willingness to kill and die for their respective causes, and by amount of support from the local non-combatants (ability to ever extract any value at all from the area, aka “hearts and minds”) than by actual technology availability.
Edit: for guerrilla and “police action” conflicts, the key technical advantage will be specificity and information. For small-scale control of a populace, it would go a long way to kill only the leaders of a fight, allowing the followers (aka “workers”) to go home safely so they don’t miss a day of tax-paying.