3 ms·

Since you said "for the world", I'll just point the obvious counter-argument - given how politically unpalatable large troop losses have become since Vietnam, l

Since you said "for the world", I'll just point the obvious counter-argument - given how politically unpalatable large troop losses have become since Vietnam, less asymmetry in favor of the U.S. military might well make the kind of military adventures the world generally detests substantially less likely. Of course, given what we now know regarding the depth and quality of post-invasion planning for Iraq, it's questionable whether there would be any meaningful difference. Then there's the other counter-argument with respect to Russia and China - and it's the same argument that was used against Reagan's SDI (when a few still thought some of it might work) and any meaningful ABM system. Namely, that inducing too much asymmetry in specific areas provides incentives for the potential opponents to engage in much riskier behavior, develop asymmetrical first strike measures, etc. Less relevant now than it was 30-40 years ago, but not without any merit (recall the recent Russian announcements regarding their new missile programs).

austincheney 8y ago
> Of course, given what we now know regarding the depth and quality of post-invasion planning for Iraq, it's questionable whether there would be any meaningful difference. Increasing warfare precision is always beneficial. It isn't about the belligerents in the conflict, but the civilians in the crossfire and potentials for collateral damage. If technology advances coupled with training reduce rules of engagement violations the people on the ground are the biggest winners.
- keldaris 8y ago
  While I mostly agree with you, there is one caveat to that position. Increased warfare precision also affects the rules of engagement directly - strikes that may have been considered impermissible due to high collateral damage may become feasible as the expected damage goes down to more palatable levels. It's probably impossible to quantify that effect with any meaningful accuracy and I'm strongly inclined to think precision warfare is still a net win, but it's not quite an unmitigated benefit with no side effects.

austincheney 8y ago

> Of course, given what we now know regarding the depth and quality of post-invasion planning for Iraq, it's questionable whether there would be any meaningful difference. Increasing warfare precision is always beneficial. It isn't about the belligerents in the conflict, but the civilians in the crossfire and potentials for collateral damage. If technology advances coupled with training reduce rules of engagement violations the people on the ground are the biggest winners.

keldaris 8y ago
While I mostly agree with you, there is one caveat to that position. Increased warfare precision also affects the rules of engagement directly - strikes that may have been considered impermissible due to high collateral damage may become feasible as the expected damage goes down to more palatable levels. It's probably impossible to quantify that effect with any meaningful accuracy and I'm strongly inclined to think precision warfare is still a net win, but it's not quite an unmitigated benefit with no side effects.