The "elephant in the room" is the grand bet western nations (led by the US) are making by investing in advanced and sophisticated weapons.
Historically, you did need good weapons and vehicles/horses/planes but there has always been a balancing effect caused by how much of them you have, how many troops can operate them and how well defended they are.
Aircraft carriers are a good example,they compliment existing capability by acting as floating military bases that can take the battle to the enemy's homeland. But that's the thing,they compliment,they don't replace.
Even if the F35 delivered as promised,is it better to have 10 F35 , 50 F18 or even better -- 1000+ armed drones?
They're making Navy boats smarter and more powerful as well,requiring fewer sailors. I am not against smarter technology and advanced capabilities. But it just doesn't seem wise to replace man count and existing capabilities when the new tech hasn't been battle tested against a worthy adversary.
I wouldn't want to rely on a few powerful counter measures,but rather a large number of "good enough" defensive and offensive technology.
But that's why I called it "the elephant in the room",this could work and actually counter-act other future super powers. Or history would repeat itself and the opponents will win with sheer troop count and "good enough" weaponry.
The US spends 20% of gdp on the military,yet it is quite obvious the greatest threat is internal strife and divisions typically exasperated by economical divisions. Not to mention, severe lack of physhical fitness for military-age men and women. Military leaders already consider this a national security threat. I have a feeling this might be one of the reasons they're relying on technology so much. They don't think they can mobilize and train enough soldiers in the event of yet another world war. It would be much easier to have them operate drones and wear head gear with HUD (just like in the games) that costs a fortune. They might just be playing to the nation's strength. But still,maybe if they spent 10% instead of 20% in defense (even russia and china don't spend close to 10%) ,and use that 10% for internal socio-economic stability and just maybe enact mandatory military service,that might be wiser than relying fully on technology that hasn't been battle tested against the intended scenario and adversary.
Will economic strength and advanced weaponry be enough? Maybe,but many empires with all that and more have fallen for various reasons. Economy aside,the cancerous defense-contractor industry that is the cause behind why so much of the GDP goes into defense is one of chief internal security threats. The whole industry is structured around politics so that politicians in specific districts approve spending in exchange for jobs+economy in their district. Many articles and blogs on that specific issue(e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tra...)
Historically, you did need good weapons and vehicles/horses/planes but there has always been a balancing effect caused by how much of them you have, how many troops can operate them and how well defended they are.
Aircraft carriers are a good example,they compliment existing capability by acting as floating military bases that can take the battle to the enemy's homeland. But that's the thing,they compliment,they don't replace.
Even if the F35 delivered as promised,is it better to have 10 F35 , 50 F18 or even better -- 1000+ armed drones?
They're making Navy boats smarter and more powerful as well,requiring fewer sailors. I am not against smarter technology and advanced capabilities. But it just doesn't seem wise to replace man count and existing capabilities when the new tech hasn't been battle tested against a worthy adversary.
I wouldn't want to rely on a few powerful counter measures,but rather a large number of "good enough" defensive and offensive technology.
But that's why I called it "the elephant in the room",this could work and actually counter-act other future super powers. Or history would repeat itself and the opponents will win with sheer troop count and "good enough" weaponry.
The US spends 20% of gdp on the military,yet it is quite obvious the greatest threat is internal strife and divisions typically exasperated by economical divisions. Not to mention, severe lack of physhical fitness for military-age men and women. Military leaders already consider this a national security threat. I have a feeling this might be one of the reasons they're relying on technology so much. They don't think they can mobilize and train enough soldiers in the event of yet another world war. It would be much easier to have them operate drones and wear head gear with HUD (just like in the games) that costs a fortune. They might just be playing to the nation's strength. But still,maybe if they spent 10% instead of 20% in defense (even russia and china don't spend close to 10%) ,and use that 10% for internal socio-economic stability and just maybe enact mandatory military service,that might be wiser than relying fully on technology that hasn't been battle tested against the intended scenario and adversary.
Will economic strength and advanced weaponry be enough? Maybe,but many empires with all that and more have fallen for various reasons. Economy aside,the cancerous defense-contractor industry that is the cause behind why so much of the GDP goes into defense is one of chief internal security threats. The whole industry is structured around politics so that politicians in specific districts approve spending in exchange for jobs+economy in their district. Many articles and blogs on that specific issue(e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tra...)