enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Re: Combat without loss of life...
by kcmulville

Sparing our soldiers is a good thing. The possible evolution of war to a competition of mere technology isn’t.

What’s to stop a rich man from purchasing a prohibitive number of drones? For that matter, why not get into the drone business yourself, so you can create them as fast as possible? Technology can be bought. Technology can be hacked. It means that anyone (from nation-state to terrorist gang) can use war to enforce your interests without risking the penalty that war brings.

The biggest problem with a technological war is the strategic difference when one side has the technology and the other side doesn’t. It accelerates the desire for the weaker side to acquire the big trump card, nuclear war. Our drones work well in Afghanistan because the Taliban have no technology to stop it. So put yourself in the position of a Taliban warlord. How could you even the odds? Nuclear weapons suddenly look very attractive. Weapons of mass destruction aren’t so heinous anymore. Whereas before, you may have avoided WMDs because it was such a risk to acquire them. But if American battlefield technology is going to wipe you out anyway, it becomes a risk you’re willing to take. Strategically, the best option for us would be to eliminate the nuclear or chemical doomsday trump card, before deploying any other technology. That way, the enemies would have nowhere to go. Nice trick if we can do it.

View complete thread