F2d5thCav - Thanks for pointing out the human element and angle of the equation.
That brings up an even more fundamental point. Define 'winning'(?) The underpinning objective is changing with all this new technology. Winning is now becoming more of a..."who can break more of the other guy's stuff". Which, if translated, means..."he who has the biggest wallet wins". I can accept that, but if this is now the rules, then let's take ALL of the warriors out of the fight, and just have wars be a 'war of stuff'. And if we're going to go there, then why even go that far? In that world, who needs a military machine at all? If the name of the game is to spend the other guy into the poorhouse, then why not just send everyone to a casino? A caged death match of roulette to the last man (or woman) standing.
That brings up an even more fundamental point. Define 'winning'(?) The underpinning objective is changing with all this new technology. Winning is now becoming more of a..."who can break more of the other guy's stuff". Which, if translated, means..."he who has the biggest wallet wins". I can accept that, but if this is now the rules, then let's take ALL of the warriors out of the fight, and just have wars be a 'war of stuff'. And if we're going to go there, then why even go that far? In that world, who needs a military machine at all? If the name of the game is to spend the other guy into the poorhouse, then why not just send everyone to a casino? A caged death match of roulette to the last man (or woman) standing.