3 ms·
People have been bragging about the accuracy of weapons for the last half century or so, and they haven't been wrong. The weapons do hit what you aim them at.
by nitwit005 5y ago
People have been bragging about the accuracy of weapons for the last half century or so, and they haven't been wrong. The weapons do hit what you aim them at.
You may notice though, that war hasn't ended up being people lobbing a bunch of smart weapons at each other, and militaries still seem to be digging holes and building walls.
- lifeisstillgood 5y agoSo I came back to this after a while. I agree with you but was wondering why. And I think it is target selection. We can now and have had the ability for decades to drop a bomb in through a chosen window. The problem is always which window and what if the window is mobile? For this you need up to the minute intelligence and that is either insiders, or boots on the ground. If you have penetrated their networks well enough to have up to the minute intel, it's a totally different game anyway. And if you have active frontline soldiers there then it's close air support. I suspect this is the issue of asymmetric warfare (where one side massively out-tech and out-weapons the other but the terrain (mountains / cities) nullifies the effect or symmetric warfare (where frankly we seem to be preparing for now ) - and effectively we make close air support into artillery (or vice versa) lobbing smart bombs directed by frontline soldiers. The problem is of course the other side will too - so we just have the artillery of WWI - only even more accurate and responsive to front line needs.