> Roughly, if you have much more people than guns, these people, however brave, don't have any more guns to man, and making them fight with spears is pointless.

> Roughly, if you have much more people than guns, these people, however brave, don't have any more guns to man, and making them fight with spears is pointless. Russia has thrown tons of ill-equipped troops at a more technologically advanced Ukraine. Clearly, it isn't pointess. Infantrymen storm machine gun positions quite often. Technologically they're at a disadvantage. But the hill still needs taken. That isnt' "pointless." > A small group with an advanced coercion tech subduing a larger group that lack it is just a very common scenario, sadly. Modern technology though becomes more and more affordable and scalable, potentially empowering the oppressed: say, off-the-shelf "big toy" drones made some difference in the Ukraine war. As that technology becomes more scalable and affordable, large nations are able to adopt it at a larger scale. The higher your population, the more potential users of that technology. Again, the point is clear: technology + small population, in general, loses to technology + large population. The point the article made is flawed. You still need manpower. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan. Billions in tech. Failures.