#10
|
||||
|
||||
Yes. In this case it's replacing a very expensive, technologically very complex manned plane with a much cheaper, less complex unmanned one. So your point is what?
Using something newer isn't automatically bad. Or is nothing short of lining up hordes of troops and having them toss rocks at enemies going to please you? No western country can afford to field a massive "low tech" (50-70s level) army. Hell, the current Libya thing is showing just how poorly Europe is prepared to handle even a short duration 'war' against a third-rate country. Several of the NATO participants are already running low on ammo (which the US is having to supply in the interim), and that's not even the best high-tech stuff such as cruise missiles, just the sort of bombs and missiles that were used as far back as Gulf War I. So any force multiplier, such as cheaper unmanned drones that don't cost friendly lives and a whopping amount of money if lost is a smart idea. The alternative is worse. If you have a better idea regarding using tech to solve manpower and cost problems (other than to not fight at all, which is an entirely different discussion), I'll be interested to hear it.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight you didn't plan your mission properly! Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (0 members and 8 guests) | |
|
|