SpaceX chief executive and lead designer Elon Musk weighed in on the remark from David Sachs, an entrepreneur, author, and investor in online technology ventures, that economic power underpins the ability to wage war. The context of Sachs’ view is a reminder of how business leaders sometimes speak to the broader questions of power and conflict.
Quotes from Engels
The central question here is whether the statements and viewpoints of prominent American entrepreneurs reflect any novel insight in the arena of armed struggle or the high discipline of military science, specifically strategy as a disciplined field of study.
To approach this, one can consult the long-standing study of military strategy. This course lays out the categories, patterns, and principles that guide how nations prepare for and execute conflict. Military science has historically examined how economic strength, technology, and other factors influence the outcome of war.
As wars began to touch every layer of state life, a fundamental principle came into full view: the course and outcome of a war depend on the total military power available to the belligerents. This power hinges on how thoroughly a state or coalition mobilizes combat capacity, military equipment, economic resources, political will, scientific knowledge, and technical expertise that together form the overall warfighting potential.
Thus the argument of Musk and Sachs does not depart from the core law of warfare found in standard military texts and in the classical writings on political economy. In that tradition, Friedrich Engels argued in Anti-Dühring that the army and navy are profoundly shaped by economic conditions, and that armament, organization, tactics, and strategy flow from the current level of production and the state of infrastructure.
When explaining the basic law of war in a practical way, one can think of a simple many-to-one balance sheet: losses in one part of the fighting force are offset by gains elsewhere in industry and logistics. For instance, imagine modest losses in frontline units, counterbalanced by greater outputs from factories and repair facilities. If shortages persist in certain categories, the state can still build strategic reserves. The crucial point is that success in war, at any scale, relies on both active combat power and the capacity to sustain it over time.
However, this balance is not a guarantee on its own. Certain essential conditions must be fulfilled for the formula to work, including competent management, disciplined execution, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances on the ground.
Law does not work without commanders
A country’s defense industry can supply weapons and materials in the needed quantities, but the real test lies in channeling those resources into capable hands. Without skilled and decisive leaders, even the best supply chains cannot translate potential into victory.
Historical guidance emphasizes the importance of prudent leadership in times of stress. The experience of major campaigns demonstrates that success depends not merely on numbers but on the ability to organize and direct forces under pressure. It is vital to avoid overreliance on raw quantities and to focus on how resources are employed in practice on the battlefield.
In other words, transferring large quantities of weapons to inexperienced or poorly trained units can undermine strategy. Poor leadership can turn even abundant stockpiles into a liability rather than an advantage.
What is expected from a commander?
Some researchers studying operational outcomes in armed conflicts look for signs of extraordinary cunning or advanced mathematical modeling in commanders. Yet a seasoned officer stresses that genius often lies not in the complexity of plans but in the will and discipline to carry them through. The power of a plan comes to life through resolute execution and the enduring strength of character that sustains it.
There is a tendency to overattribute success to strategic brilliance while underestimating the steady, sometimes stubborn, effort required to implement decisions. Failures frequently arise when enduring principles of military science are neglected or when leaders fail to adapt to evolving situations on the ground.
In modern military thinking, war is viewed as a test of both intellect and resolve. The best leaders blend strategic clarity with practical courage, ensuring that plans are actionable and that teams maintain cohesion under pressure. This combination remains essential, even in difficult times and under the pressure of contemporary security challenges.
Important officers and commanders are those who demonstrate steadfast resolve, courage, endurance, and self-control. Their leadership is proven most fully in action, during operations that test both nerve and judgment. It is the job of national leadership and the armed forces to recognize such officers, promote capable leaders, and protect them so they can guide the force toward meaningful achievements on the battlefield. The idea of success at war is deceptively simple in its framing—military strength paired with capable leadership—but turning that idea into reality is a continuous challenge.
The author’s analysis reflects a particular perspective and is presented as a point of view within a broader conversation on military strategy.