CycloWizard
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 12,348
- 1
- 81
The current focus of military spending is the development of technologies that serve two primary purposes:
1. Deter anyone from wanting to fight us
2. Make sure we have the upper hand against anyone stupid enough to fight us
Both of these theoretically serve to decrease the number of troops needed and the number of casualties that result from any conflict. However, the direction taken since WWII (and even well before it) has been towards development of technology useful in head-to-head fighting. Only recently has it shifted towards more versatile technology. Once this aim is furthered, the number of troops needed in a situation like Iraq will be diminished. This is important because it's fairly obvious that no one wants a stand-up fight against us - we're just too technologically superior for them to have a chance. This is exactly why Iraq buried its planes in the sand rather than actually try to use them against us. Our greatest asset has also become our greatest drawback because it is not readily adopted to new tactics.
1. Deter anyone from wanting to fight us
2. Make sure we have the upper hand against anyone stupid enough to fight us
Both of these theoretically serve to decrease the number of troops needed and the number of casualties that result from any conflict. However, the direction taken since WWII (and even well before it) has been towards development of technology useful in head-to-head fighting. Only recently has it shifted towards more versatile technology. Once this aim is furthered, the number of troops needed in a situation like Iraq will be diminished. This is important because it's fairly obvious that no one wants a stand-up fight against us - we're just too technologically superior for them to have a chance. This is exactly why Iraq buried its planes in the sand rather than actually try to use them against us. Our greatest asset has also become our greatest drawback because it is not readily adopted to new tactics.