There seems to be an assumption here that the enemy will always have a platform-centric approach to war. What if both sides have an anti-platform-centric appro

There seems to be an assumption here that the enemy will always have a platform-centric approach to war. What if both sides have an anti-platform-centric approach? Do they shoot at each others portable MANPAD's? A hybrid approach seems necessary, tanks and ships and planes have specific uses when the opponent is not platform-centric and Stinger's and Javelin's and Neptune's can be used against platforms. Something not mentioned in the article is that unmanned platforms are likely to take over. Why put a person inside any of these craft when they can be remotely controlled? Autonomous weapons (killer robots) don't seem likely to be able to distinguish combatants from non-combatants for some time to come, so remote control seems more likely. Also, tanks, planes and ships can't do a lot to win battles in urban terrain. At best they can obliterate infrastructure. Still, it is obvious that smart weapons are making a big difference in Ukraine. You would think that the major powers that invented smart weapons and have stockpiled them would not have been surprised when they turn out to make a difference. I think the major surprise here is the sudden increased perception that a war between peer powers is not a thing of the past. I would guess that all the major powers are not ready today to fight each other in earnest for more than months or half a year in a non-nuclear war. China and Russia would not be able to get critical parts, and the USA would have to ramp up new manufacturing capability very quickly (it imports ingredients for high explosives from China?) Note that this would be extremely expensive for all countries, it would turn a large part of useful and beneficial production capacity into building an unproductive war economy. Citizens everywhere would suffer, even if none of the new weapons were ever used.