As the U.S. Marine Corps confronts the complexities of modern warfare and the challenges presented by the Indo-Pacific theater, a dilemma emerges: How can the service maintain operational effectiveness without succumbing to the allure of overly complex, technologically dependent solutions? In pursuing military superiority, there is a growing risk of creating a Star Wars force—sophisticated, high-tech, but potentially brittle and ill-suited for the rugged, unpredictable environments Marines will likely encounter on the battlefield. While enticing, this vision of a future force may overlook the practical realities of warfare in the contested and diverse terrain of the Indo-Pacific.
Instead, the Marine Corps must embrace a paradigm rooted in another Hollywood movie: Mad Max. Embodying the first principles of simplicity, sustainability, and survivability required to survive on the post-apocalyptic battlefields of Mad Max will be critical to the service’s continued experimentation with Force Design and preparations to face a modern adversary. Expeditionary advanced base operations and associated stand-in forces in the Indo-Pacific must prioritize these principles to ensure operational resilience and mission success in the face of future threats.
The Pitfalls of Technological Overreach
Rapid advancements in technology promise increased capability but also introduce new challenges. Moore’s law, which observes the doubling of transistors on microchips approximately every two years, highlights the growing gap between technological sophistication and the means to operate and sustain military technologies and systems over time. While beneficial in some respects, this trend unconsciously creates a liability for Marines. Complex modern warfighting tools can become a liability in the contested jungles, mountains, and isolated islands of the Pacific.
As technology becomes more complex, it can outpace Marines’ ability to use and maintain their tools. The more complicated the tools become, the more specialized knowledge and infrastructure are required to support them—which would be particularly problematic in a conflict in the Indo-Pacific, where supply lines would be long and Marines may be isolated and under constant threat. Marines must remain flexible and capable in such environments; complex tools might hinder rather than help.
One example familiar to most Marines is the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). The technological offspring of the counterinsurgency fights of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is an impressive feat of engineering designed to provide superior protection and mobility compared to its predecessors. Because of its complexity, however, it requires specialized maintenance that the average Marine cannot perform in the field.1 The JLTV’s dependence on computer-driven maintenance, specialized mechanics, and niche parts often available only through a well-established supply chain, renders the vehicle vulnerable in the austere environments in which stand-in forces operate.
In contrast, locally sourced vehicles, such as the Toyota HiLux, have proven highly effective in similar environments because of their ease of maintenance and reliability. The HiLux—which has its own tongue-in-cheek social media following because of its prevalence in global combat zones—has demonstrated utility in environments ranging from the deserts of the Middle East to the jungles of Southeast Asia.2 Its simplicity allows for easy repairs in the field, often with locally available parts and tools, making it an ideal example of technology well-suited for operations in contested or isolated regions.
Last year’s Hamas terror attacks in southern Israel are another example of the pitfalls of technological overreach. They demonstrated the vulnerabilities of “technomaximalism,” where Israel’s technologically advanced defenses failed to prevent a devastating attack. Simple, low-tech, audacious tactics bested complex systems.3 A bias toward technology and a failure of imagination contributed to the attack. The Hamas attacks underscore the importance of avoiding overly technological answers to tactical and operational problems. In environments in which low-tech solutions can exploit the weaknesses of high-tech systems, relying on complex technology can become a liability.
The Importance of Simple Tools
The conflict in Ukraine also highlights the dilemmas of overreliance on cutting-edge technological solutions to battlefield challenges. While modern, high-tech weapon systems play a role in the conflict, more simple and reliable tools are proving decisive. Surprising to many, the Russia-Ukraine war has not been defined by cyber warfare, electronic warfare, nuclear weapons, or even precision-guided munitions and main battle tanks.4 Instead, first-person-view drones notwithstanding, the conflict has been characterized as much by Stalingrad-style urban warfare and combined-arms assaults as by World War I–era trench warfare.5
The weapons making the most difference on the battlefield are land mines, hand grenades, tube artillery, and armored personnel carriers—tools that largely work regardless of weather or the sophistication of the force. These simple tools are not just effective; they are also resilient and capable of functioning in harsh conditions in which more advanced systems might fail. Even shotguns have found new life as antidrone weapons—a perfect example of an old and reliable technology repurposed to address modern threats.6 This reality reinforces the notion that simplicity, reliability, and adaptability are essential attributes for the Marine Corps as it orients on contemporary threats.
Similarly, the debate about the F-35 versus legacy 4th-generation fighters highlights the pitfalls of moving from purpose-built systems to all-encompassing platforms. The F-35, while technologically advanced, lacks the specialized effectiveness of its predecessors in certain roles. Its multifunctionality is theoretically advantageous, but it often leads to compromises in performance, making it less effective in some mission areas compared with its more specialized counterparts.7 As the Marine Corps considers future acquisitions to arm stand-in forces, it must avoid the trap of pursuing technological solutions that promise to do everything but fail to excel at anything. Instead, the service should focus on developing and deploying tools that are purpose-built for their intended roles and environments.
The Marine Corps must return to the basics by emphasizing tools and tactics that are tried and tested yet adaptable enough to be employed in a variety of scenarios. This is not a rejection of technology, but rather a careful consideration of where and how technology should be integrated into stand-in forces.
Mad Max: A Technorealist Approach to Modernization
A technorealist’s appeal for first principles is not a Luddite’s call for simpler days, but rather a way to guide Marine Corps acquisitions and modernization in light of recent conflicts around the globe. Modern warfare demands a balanced approach, one that integrates advanced systems when they offer a clear advantage but remains rooted in the fundamental principles that have long defined military success.
Simplicity
Simplicity in design and use is paramount. Every Marine, regardless of rank or specialization, should be able to understand and use their equipment, and this must extend to Marine Corps technology. It will ensure forces remain effective even absent specialized personnel, reducing dependence on complex systems that require extensive training and support.
Radars, vehicles, and generators must be operable by any Marine, not just specialized technicians. Simple technology is easily replicated, maintained, and often more effective for its purpose-built task. Simplicity also will enable greater flexibility in the field, allowing Marines to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. Again, simple systems often are resilient and capable of functioning in harsh conditions in which more complex technologies might struggle.
Avoiding the “Jack of all trades” syndrome—tools that try to do everything often end up doing nothing well—is crucial. The tendency to develop multifunctional systems can lead to compromises in performance, resulting in tools that are less effective in their primary roles. Instead, prioritizing simplicity and purpose-built solutions will enhance operational effectiveness, ensuring Marines are equipped with tools that meet the specific challenges they will face.
Sustainability
Sustainability in contested and isolated environments is equally critical. Complex systems such as the JLTV mitigate some modern battlefield realities but require specialized maintenance that cannot be performed in the field. In a contested environment in which supply lines are disrupted and maintenance capabilities are limited, this could prove disastrous. The inability to repair or maintain critical systems in the field can lead to mission failure, as Marines are left without the tools they need to operate.
In contrast, the HiLux, with its simplicity, reliability, and ease of repair, represents a class of sustainable equipment ideal for operations in austere environments. The widespread use of simple weapon systems and vehicles in various conflicts around the world attests to this, particularly in environments in which logistical support is limited and combatants are not trained to maintain complex tools of war.
Marine Corps equipment must be sustainable not just in terms of maintenance and repair, but also in terms of the logistical support required to keep it operational in the field. The service must prioritize tools and systems that can be maintained with locally available resources and personnel and reduce dependence on long, vulnerable supply chains. By focusing on sustainability, Marines can remain effective in challenging environments.
Survivability
Survivability is the final critical attribute for any military system the Marine Corps intends to adopt. Equipment must be able to withstand the rigors of combat and continue to function even when damaged. The M113 armored personnel carrier, for example, has proven its worth in Ukraine because of its simplicity, armor protection, and ease of repair. Despite being an older design, it continues to be one of the most useful and effective vehicles in the conflict because it can survive harsh conditions, challenging terrain, and Russian shrapnel.8
To further enhance survivability, Marines must be trained to operate using simple, analog methods first, then incorporate advanced technology to augment those skills.
Any Clime and Place
The Marine Corps stands at a critical juncture, tasked with adapting to new threats in the Indo-Pacific. The allure of high-tech solutions must be tempered by the realities of modern combat, as seen in conflicts ranging from the steppes of Ukraine to the deserts of southern Israel, as well as the logistical hurdles present in the austere environment of the Indo-Pacific littorals. By embracing Mad Max imperatives, the Marine Corps can modernize expeditionary advanced base operations and stand-in forces while maintaining operational effectiveness and continuity once the shooting starts.
Rather than a rejection of technology, this is a call for a balanced approach that integrates advanced systems when they offer a clear advantage while remaining rooted in the fundamental principles that have long defined military success. Just as Mad Max navigated a post-apocalyptic world with ingenuity and resourcefulness, so, too, must Marine Corps forces be prepared to operate in contested and isolated environments. If embraced, this balanced approach will enhance operational capabilities and uphold the Marine Corps’ legacy of expeditionary readiness and mission success in any clime and place. Focusing on simplicity, sustainability, and survivability will ensure Marines are prepared to meet the challenges of modern warfare, regardless of the environment or threat.
1. Todd South, “Report: Problems Plague Military’s Newest Tactical Vehicles,” Stars and Stripes, 6 March 2019.
2. “Toyotas of War.”
3. PBS, “Failure at the Fence,” Frontline, 19 December 2023 and 23 January 2024.
4. Alexander Klimburg and Michael Schmitt, “Why Cyber Dogs Have Mostly Failed to Bark,” War on the Rocks, 14 March 2022.
5. Justin Bronk, Jack Watling, and Nick Reynolds, Stormbreak: Fighting through Russian Defences in Ukraine’s 2023 Offensive (London, UK: Royal United Services Institute, 2023).
6. David Hambling, “Shotguns Are Russia’s Last Defense Against Drones,” Forbes, 9 May 2024.
7. Dan Grazier, “F-35: The Part-time Fighter Jet,” Project on Government Oversight, 19 January 2023.
8. Vikram Mittal, “Newest American Aid Package Includes 200 M113s for Ukraine,” Forbes, 13 June 2024.
