Has technology made strategy obsolete? It has been said that "improvements in the technology for waging war have made strategy increasingly irrelevant." This is not so; strategy is actually becoming more important as more sophisticated military technology develops. First of all, the way in which strategy and technology relate to each other must be clearly defined. There have been many different views on what, in fact, constitutes a strategy. If we were to compare Sun Tzu's concepts of strategy and contrast them with Clausewitz's, it would be clear that the two defined strategy very differently. Sun Tzu considered strategy to be a much broader issue than the Clausewitzes. He believed that an overall strategy using political alliances, disinformation, intelligence, and strategic planning was the key to what he believed was the pinnacle of military victory; win the war without ever having to fight. Clausewitz had a much narrower view of strategy, which would more correctly be called tactics. Clausewitz believed in the supremacy of direct military conflict as the only arena in which states could resolve their differences and satisfy their ambitions. He then focused on how best to win the war, believing that war was inevitable. It is clear therefore that while both were writing on the topic of war, their attention was on different levels of warfare, Sun Tzu's focus was on strategy, or grand strategy, while Clausewitz's focus was on the tactical level, or strategy operational. Technology is a completely different genre than the closely related topics of tactics and strategy. Technology is the tool with which war is fought. It can consist of not only mechanical tools, but also nuclear, chemical and biological tools. Technology is an ever-evolving and constantly improving element of warfare that throughout history has continually improved the efficiency with which humanity can kill one another. Technology Strategy Tactics The key to understanding this issue is to understand how the three elements—technology, tactics, and strategy—are linked to each other and, more specifically, how changes in one area will lead to changes in the other. Technology is the core of the entire process. A requirement is identified and a weapon, or weapon system, is created to meet that requirement. Once this was done, the military leader... middle of paper... launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or "Star Wars" plan which finally destroyed the economically weaker USSR. Currently, the US military is moving towards the development of a strategic anti-missile system; Recent successful tests of this new technology raise the specter of a return to the winnable war scenario. These new technologies, like any technology, were developed to permanently and directly eliminate the threat generated by the initial development of nuclear strike capability. The question that now arises is: whether this technology will once again change the strategic focus from the economic to the military arena? Technology has not made the strategy obsolete. Some military technological advances, which are continually reshaping the tactical realm, have managed, with the scope of their impact, to reach beyond that area to change the Grand Strategy by which nations plan for their success. As we see, the strategy changed to counter the threat posed until a countertechnology was developed. The interaction between tactics, technology and strategy is cyclical and symbiotic in nature, as each element is driven by changes in the other.