When you look at what Germany had at the outbreak of World War 2 they were the high tech nation at the time. They had U-boats, Panzer Divisions and the mighty Luftwaffe launching a Blitzkrieg.

 

The most effective weapons against Germany was the low tech weapons produced in higher numbers. Small cheap Corvettes were produced in high numbers to go after the U-boats and won. Small and cheap Sherman Tanks were produced in high numbers to go after the Tiger Tanks and Panther Tanks and won. One Sherman up against one Tiger was useless but the Sherman's had a higher production rate that they were effective in the end.

 

A potential global war between a high tech nation like the USA and a low tech nation like China could see better numbers on the larger low tech nation. Similar to the situation with Germany vs the Red Army in World War 2, You are fighting an enemy that keeps on coming at you, even if you have the better equipment.

 

When the high tech equipment is over run in an offensive, then the military will be forced to engage in conflict on the ground, and may not be fully prepared for that with a very resourceful enemy not dependent on high tech equipment.

 

Of course I am speaking hypothetically and would prefer not to see this happen someday.....The Vietnam War and Afghanistan were two conflicts that lasted longer then World War 2, with a low tech enemy that never stopped. This is the reality of Modern Warfare, High Tech weapons never stopped them after over 10 years of fighting. Drones were used in Afghanistan and the Taliban is still there.

Of course I am speaking hypothetically and would prefer not to see this happen someday.....The Vietnam War and Afghanistan were two conflicts that lasted longer then World War 2, with a low tech enemy that never stopped. This is the reality of Modern Warfare, High Tech weapons never stopped them after over 10 years of fighting. Drones were used in Afghanistan and the Taliban is still there.

Valid point, Matthew. The believe in equipment rendering anything about war better or even more humane is naive, sometimes just selfish. You start wars with a motivation and you stop them when the motivation of the opponent stops. Between those stages, the tools change, nothing more.

 

If the equipment allows for easy operations and with 'just sending a drone', you may even see the ethical levels decreasing when it comes to the notion to pull the trigger.

 

One shouldn't look at the parties beginning and running a war, but for the ones successfully avoiding it for decades and way longer. That's where to learn about solving conflicts.

 

1961, Eisenhower warning his people about the attempts of the military–industrial complex to take over. I doubt that this warning was understood even well after that date. And, as of now, we may have to accept that it was as wise and noble as can be, even more so when coming from a former General.