Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military

  • Serhat Burmaoglu
  • Ozcan SaritasEmail author
  • Haydar Yalcin
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)


Scientific and Technological (S&T) developments have been influencing military concepts and practice, particularly following the inception of the scientific revolution in the late sixteenth century. Defense has traditionally been one of the key drivers of S&T advancements due to large amount of funding it received particularly by national governments. A number of technologies have been developed for defense, found their civilian applications, and vice versa. Wherever the boost for change comes from, the nature of warfare has changed radically both due to S&T advancements and changing socioeconomic and geopolitical contexts. Despite of the barriers due to strict organizational culture, armies have adapted themselves into changing characteristics of warfare through new concepts and instruments. Among S&T developments, recent advancements in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) bring enormous opportunities as well as challenges for defense. One of the recent phenomena emerged with the rapid development of ICTs is the Internet of Things (IoTs), which affects every aspect of life with a growing number of devices communicating with each other. While the possibilities introduced by the IoT have been providing immense benefits, the increasing number of connections makes the system ever more complex and vulnerable because of the difficulty of securing huge networks. The chapter discusses how IoT will affect the military affairs and proposes future scenarios for exploring alternative trajectories.


Internet of things Digitalization S&T development 



The contributions by Professor Ozcan Saritas in this study were prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics and supported within the framework of the subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’. The contributions by Asst. Professor Haydar Yalcin in this study was supported by Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey Postdoctoral Research Programme (TUBITAK BIDEP 2219) [1059B191700840].


  1. Arreguín-Toft I (2001) How the weak win wars: a theory of asymmetric conflict. Int Secur 26(1):93–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton K (2009) That ‘internet of things’ thing. RFiD J 22(7):97–114Google Scholar
  3. Aydogdu A, Burmaoglu S, Saritas O, Cakir S (2017) A nanotechnology roadmapping study for the Turkish defense industry. Foresight 19(4):354–375. Scholar
  4. Bandyopadhyay S, Balamuralidhar P, Pal A (2013) Interoperation among IoT standards. J ICT Stand 1(2):253–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burmaoglu S, Saritas O (2017) Changing characteristics of warfare and the future of Military R&D. Technol Forecast Soc Change 116:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daim TU, Chiavetta D, Porter AL, Saritas O (eds) (2016) Anticipating future innovation pathways through large data analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Ding C, Wu X, Lv Z (2009) Design and implementation of the Zigbee-based body sensor network system. In: WiCom’09, 5th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing. IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  8. Eagleman D (2015) The brain: the story of you. Pantheon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Foot P (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxf Rev 5:1. Accessed 09 Jun 2017
  10. Grange DL (2000) Asymmetric warfare: old method, new concern. Natl Strategy Forum Rev. WinterGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammes TX (2005) War evolves into the fourth generation. Contemp Secur Policy 26(2):189–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Health System Communication Office (2015.) Accessed 18 Mar 2016
  13. Hoffman FG (2006) Complex irregular warfare: the next revolution in military affairs. Orbis 50:395–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iriarte M (2016) MUM-T operations on the US Army’s UAS roadmap. Military Embedded Systems. Accessed 08 Jun 2016
  15. Kaldor M (2010) Inconclusive wars: is Clausewitz still relevant in these global times? Glob Policy 1(3):271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lind W, Nightengale K, Schmitt J, Sutton J, Wilson GI (1989) The changing face of war: into the fourth generation. Marine Corps Gazette, October 22–26Google Scholar
  17. Lucas GR Jr (2010) Postmodern war. J Milit Ethics 9(4):289–298. Scholar
  18. Mantyika J, Chui M, Dobbs R, Bisson P, Marrs A (2013) Disruptive technologies: advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. McKinsey Global Institute Report, MayGoogle Scholar
  19. Miles I, Saritas O, Sokolov A (2016) Foresight for science, technology and innovation. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rathmell A (1997) Cyber-terrorism: the shape of future conflict? RUSI J 142(5):40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saritas O, Burmaoglu S (2016) Future of sustainable military operations under emerging energy and security considerations. Technol Forecast Soc Change 102:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Creveld M (2010) Technology and war: from 2000 BC to the present. Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar
  23. von Clausewitz GC (1968) On war, translated by Colonel JJ Graham. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. von Eschenbach T (2016) Unmanned aircraft systems-manned-unmanned teaming. Accessed 08 Jun 2016
  25. Yang JS, Lee HJ, Park MW, Eom JH (2015) Security threats on National Defense ICT based on IoT. Adv Sci Technol Lett 97:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serhat Burmaoglu
    • 1
  • Ozcan Saritas
    • 2
    Email author
  • Haydar Yalcin
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesIzmir Katip Celebi UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.National Research University, Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesIzmir Katip Celebi UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations