Ignoring the lessons of recent wars can be deadly. Overlearning them can be fatal, too. Consider the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Both have shown that drones are transforming warfare, and the Pentagon is adjusting its capabilities for the future fight. But it’s a mistake to conclude that drones are making other weapons irrelevant. A less-appreciated lesson of these conflicts is that modern combat demands a mix of cheap, autonomous systems and more sophisticated capabilities. A global superpower will need a balanced arsenal to prevail in the wars to come.

History offers a warning about drawing the wrong conclusions from the battlefield. Before World War I, many European strategists ignored evidence — from the US Civil War, the Russo-Japanese War and other conflicts — that industrial-age warfare would be grinding and attritional. They were stunned by the stalemate and slaughter of the Western front. But then, too many observers in the Western democracies overlearned the lessons of that conflict, leaving them flat-footed as advances in armor, airpower and communications unleashed the German blitzkrieg in World War II.

The current conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East aren’t world wars, but they have jolted the global economy and transformed important regions. They’ve also inaugurated an era in which drones have become ubiquitous.

In Ukraine, both sides are using drones by the millions. Uncrewed systems have enabled pervasive surveillance over the front lines; they are mainstays of strategic strike campaigns that Ukraine and Russia have used to batter each other’s economies. Iran, meanwhile, has employed suicide drones to target civilian tankers and US bases in the Persian Gulf region. The Pentagon has flipped the script by using kamikaze drones reverse-engineered from Iranian designs. And as the array of drone missions expands, the economics of combat shift: Plentiful, uncrewed systems that cost as little as tens of thousands of dollars each can be used to disable large ships, damage vital bases, or otherwise inflict an asymmetric price.

These changes aren’t lost on US strategists. The Biden administration launched the Replicator Initiative, meant to field aerial and naval drones for a potential clash with China. The Trump administration has committed to achieving “drone dominance” and creating a new Autonomous Warfare Command. The US Army is exercising with Ukrainian units that have pioneered drone warfare. Frontline US partners and allies, such as Taiwan and the Baltic states, are emphasizing drones and counter-drone systems as vital tools of self-defense.

Some analysts believe the Pentagon should go all-in on the drone revolution. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has argued that tanks are now “useless” and the Army should “buy a drone instead.”Retired general David Petraeus contends that drone swarms will render many existing capabilities obsolete. The idea of redesigning the US military around drones is seductive: It seems to promise greater capability at lower cost. But a more careful appraisal of recent conflicts indicates that this would be a mistake.

Yes, the Russians have used drones to saturate Ukrainian air defenses, but they have done the greatest damage by pairing drones with higher-end weapons — namely, ballistic missiles — that pack a greater punch.

In the opening stages of the Iran War, America and Israel used drones to overwhelm Iranian air defenses, while employing cruise missiles and other long-range strike capabilities — all synchronized with exquisite intelligence — to pummel Iranian leaders and other targets.

War with Iran has also confirmed the value of top-dollar power-projection platforms, such as the B-2 bombers and F-35 attack aircraft that devastated Tehran’s nuclear program last June. Not least, recent conflicts demonstrate how essential it is to have adequate numbers of advanced defensive systems, such as THAAD and Patriot, as well as SM-3 and SM-6 missiles. These capabilities are hardly obsolete; they have helped Washington shoot down perhaps 90% of Iranian missiles. The problem is that the Pentagon just doesn’t have nearly enough of them to shield US forces and friends around the world.

The US needs more than cheap, asymmetric capabilities to meet its global commitments and defeat determined adversaries. Just consider the likely contours of a future fight against China in the Western Pacific.

As part of its “Hellscape” concept, the US military is preparing to use swarms of aerial, sea and subsea drones to stymie a Chinese assault on Taiwan. Taipei envisions using large numbers of drones to thin out Chinese forces.

But Washington can’t defeat China without deep stocks of long-range strike capabilities that can promptly hit high-value targets, such as Chinese ships or air defense radars, from hundreds of miles away. It can’t stay in the fight without copious air and missile defense capabilities to protect its ships and bases in the Western Pacific. To check aggression by a great-power rival, Washington will need autonomous systems and higher-end precision weapons — and it will need to produce both at scale.

There are promising signs. The Pentagon has paired its drone dominance program with framework agreements — yet to be funded by Congress — to dramatically expand production of cruise missiles, missile defense interceptors and other advanced capabilities. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has rightly said that the US needs “bolts of lightning” as well as “steady wind and rain.”It’s essential that Congress consistently fund both aspects of American rearmament. The drone revolution is upon us, but America will need a mix of capabilities to navigate the dangerous years ahead.