From Epic Fury to the future: Korea advised to look beyond weapons exports
Chun In-bum
The opening hours of Operation Epic Fury may ultimately be remembered not for the number of targets struck, but for what they revealed about the changing nature of modern war.
According to reports, U.S. and Israeli forces were able to identify, prioritize and engage a vast number of targets across Iran within an extraordinarily compressed timeline. The significance was not simply the use of advanced aircraft, precision-guided munitions or long-range strike capabilities. Modern militaries have possessed such platforms for decades. The more important development was the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), data fusion, cloud computing and decision-support systems into the operational process.
For more than a century, military power was measured primarily in ships, tanks, aircraft and missiles. Epic Fury suggests that military advantage in the 21st century may increasingly be measured by something less visible: software, data and the speed of decision-making.
This should be of particular interest to Korea. While Korean defense exports continue to achieve remarkable success around the world, the lessons emerging from recent conflicts suggest that the future of defense competition may be shifting from hardware superiority toward software-defined warfare.
The real revolution is not AI itself.
The popular narrative surrounding AI warfare often focuses on autonomous weapons and machines replacing humans. Yet the most important lesson from recent conflicts is not that AI is making decisions instead of commanders. Rather, AI is enabling commanders to make decisions faster and with greater situational awareness.
The aircraft used over Iran were not revolutionary. The F-35, B-2 and precision-guided weapons were already part of existing inventories. What changed was the ability to integrate information from satellites, signals intelligence, open-source information, surveillance systems and operational databases into a common operational picture.
The decisive advantage increasingly lies in compressing the sensor-to-decision-to-shooter cycle.
In previous eras, commanders sought superiority through firepower. Today, they increasingly seek superiority through information processing. The side that can observe, understand, decide and act faster gains a disproportionate advantage.
This represents a transition from platform-centric warfare to system-centric warfare.
As a result, the center of gravity within the defense industry is beginning to shift.
Historically, defense companies built products. They manufactured aircraft, ships, armored vehicles, missiles and artillery systems. Those capabilities remain essential and will continue to matter. However, the value chain is gradually moving upward toward software, data architecture, artificial intelligence and system integration.
One of the most remarkable developments in recent years has been the rise of companies that do not manufacture traditional weapons at all. Instead, they provide the digital infrastructure that enables military organizations to process information and make decisions.
Palantir is perhaps the most widely known example. It does not build tanks or fighter aircraft. It builds data integration and decision-support systems. Its value lies in helping organizations connect disparate sources of information and generate actionable insights in real time.
This raises a necessary question: What is Korea's equivalent of Palantir? Does it have one?
Korea possesses globally competitive shipbuilders, missile manufacturers, aerospace firms and defense electronics companies. Korean firms have demonstrated that they can compete successfully against established Western suppliers. The K9 self-propelled howitzer, K2 tank, FA-50 light combat aircraft, Cheongung air defense system and Redback infantry fighting vehicle have all earned international recognition.
Yet it is far less clear whether Korea possesses a company positioned to become a global leader in military software, operational AI, defense cloud architecture or large-scale data integration.
Korea has excellent technology companies. It has world-class semiconductor manufacturers, telecommunications firms and AI researchers. However, there remains a significant gap between possessing advanced commercial technology and building a defense-focused software ecosystem capable of supporting future military operations.
This distinction matters because future customers may increasingly purchase not just weapons but complete operational capabilities.
Countries will still buy tanks. They will still buy aircraft. They will still buy missiles.
But increasingly they may also seek battle management systems, AI-enabled command-and-control networks, autonomous teaming architectures, digital twins, predictive logistics systems and integrated operational software.
In other words, they will purchase military ecosystems rather than individual platforms.
This is precisely why Canada's recently announced Defence Industrial Strategy deserves attention. The strategy recognizes that defense industry competitiveness can no longer be measured solely by manufacturing output. National security increasingly depends upon the ability to integrate industry, technology, research institutions and government into a coherent innovation ecosystem.
The strategic question is no longer simply, "What can we build?" The question we should ask is, "How quickly can we innovate, adapt, and integrate?"
That question should resonate strongly in Korea.
Korea has already demonstrated extraordinary success in defense manufacturing. It has emerged as one of the world's leading arms exporters and has proven capable of producing high-quality systems with competitive prices and delivery schedules.
However, the next phase of competition may be less about manufacturing efficiency and more about software dominance.
Korea should not abandon its strengths in hardware. The challenge is to build upon those strengths by creating a complementary software ecosystem.
Korean defense firms should be investing aggressively in military AI, cloud-based command systems, autonomous operations, data analytics, digital engineering and software-defined capabilities. Government policy should encourage closer collaboration between traditional defense contractors, technology startups, universities and AI developers.
Equally important, military operators must be involved from the beginning. The most successful defense software is not developed in isolation. It emerges from continuous interaction between engineers and military operators. Future military advantage will depend on how effectively those communities work together.
The lessons of Epic Fury point toward a larger truth.
The future will not belong to the side with the most advanced platforms, nor to the side with the most sophisticated algorithms.
Instead, victory will belong to those who can most effectively combine human judgment, operational experience, software, data and machine speed into a coherent system.
For Korea, this represents both a warning and an opportunity.
The warning is that hardware alone may no longer guarantee long-term competitiveness.
The opportunity is that Korea possesses many of the ingredients required to become a leader in the next generation of defense technology.
The critical question is whether Korea can move beyond being merely an exporter of excellent weapons and become an exporter of military capability itself.
The nations that master software-defined defense will shape the future battlefield. Those that focus only on platforms may eventually discover that they are building excellent weapons for a world that has already changed.
Retired Lt. Gen. Chun In-bum is the former commander of the Republic of Korea Army Special Warfare Command.