Technological determism advocates that technology controls the development of society, and that this process is unstoppable. It is closely related to the school of realism.
Even if you disagree with technological determism, this book is valuable to understand how many strategists, politicians, scientists and generals do think.
Specifically they look to precision-guided munitions as the key weapons of future combat, and space as its primary battleground. They make compelling arguments for each, particularly regarding the obsolescence of the primary weapons of today's Pax Americana: the tank, the strategic bomber, and the aircraft carrier. Furthermore, the completely debunk the myth of nuclear supremacy on the modern battlefield.
The problems with this book that I alluded to are twofold. First, the editing is appalling; there are numerous typos and misprints (for example, referring to a torpedo that can travel at 400 knots). While the knowledgeable reader can usually infer what the authors' intent is, editorial errors always make for a frustrating reading experience.
The second concern cuts to the heart of the book. While the authors do a superb job of defining the future battlefield, they offer very little in terms of how we get there from where we currently stand. The weapons systems they describe will almost certainly come to pass, but they neither make suggestions as to the allocation of R&D dollars, nor offer any sense of what research should receive priority. In the absence of such commentary, their bold assertions frequently seem more like dogma than scholarship. Moreover, they ignore potential doctrinal changes that might extend the service life of current weapons systems while increasing their effectiveness.
At its best, `The Future of War' is a visionary look into the future of armed conflict. The authors correctly grasp the dawning senility of the weapons currently deployed, and paint a bold picture of what the future battlefield will look like. Unfortunately, while brilliantly describing the future, they completely ignore the near to middle term. As a result, `The Future of War' while well worth reading, can only be treated as half of an equation. One must read the works of authors like Leonhard and MacGregor to truly appreciate the shape of the modern battlefield.