Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
I agree with previous posters that eschewing technology becomes almost an article of faith. Nations don’t lose wars because they have incorporated new technologies. Nations lose wars because they have poor strategy, poor doctrine, poor leadership (there are no poor soldiers—only poor leaders), logistics that aren’t equal to the task, or don’t know how to make the most of the technology they possess. To the degree that reliance on new technology supplants leadership, doctrine, and motivation, it is possible to become over-reliant on technology. However, a military that goes down this path has deeper problems than new gadgets.
Webstral
|
Pretty much what I was trying to say. Also over-reliance in technology actualy increases the amount of conflicts a nation is willing to fight.
Increases in technology has reduced casualties, reduced risk and has therefore made governments MORE willing to deploy a military option, believing (mistakenly as history has recently proved) that such technology will enable a quick and bloodless victory.
This lures nations into conflicts where they believe the tech advantage will secure victory in a shot space of time but as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have proved, the enemy just develops tactics and stratagies that lower or negate the tech advantage and leaves the more modern nations in a conflict they have not really anticiapted or prepared for.
Hell the Iraq war strategy was nothing more than "blow the bastards to hell with our superior air force, blitzkrieg to Baghdad with our superior armour and enjoy the sun while the Iraqi people shower us in flowers and thank us for ridding them of Saddam"
The resulting mess is mostly due to lack of any real strategy for dealing with an insurgency or rebuilding post-war, we expected to go in, kill the bad guys and go home.