Recently there has been an explosion of advancements in military science, everything from self-hardening armor to nano-fiber muscles. If soldiers could be enhanced in such ways--superior strength, endurance, information exchange--how do you think these advancements would affect how war is done? how battles are carried out?
2007-11-10 16:26:26 · 7 answers · asked by Shamash232 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Definitely.
The effectiveness of the individual soldier means you need fewer soldiers to control a particular area. Today a soldier can consistently "reach out and touch you" at ranges of 500-600 meters, distances that were not consistent in the past.
With high tech recon equipment, it is not necessary to send out scouts and put a guy on point when moving into a new area as you will already know where the enemy is before you get there.
With body armor, if an enemy is not armed with equal or better resources, he will shoot and the soldier will not go down.
Will improved intra-squad communications and constant contact with higher echelons, the soldier can better coordinate his actions.
A soldier of today with what he has would be more than a match of a squad in World War II. In the future, you can expect equal changes in his effectiveness..
It is not bombs that win wars, it is boots on the ground.
2007-11-10 17:07:19 · answer #1 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War is becoming to impersonal. You kill the enemy without ever seeing them. At least initially. then comes the hard part, actually going into the area and being shot at.
Soldiers in WWII actually stopped fighting on Christmas and had dinner together on some battle fields. You won't see that happening in the future. Most veterans of that era never talked about their experiences; they were too horrific. We are seeing it again in the present, but instead of being stoic, they are committing suicide. You may have read that 25% of the homeless are veterans.
War is a terrible thing; too hard to imagine unless you were there. John Lennon was right, "Give peace a chance."
2007-11-10 16:39:57 · answer #2 · answered by Huba 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
oh, it will improve our effectiveness many times over. however, as one of the most lethal forces on the planet today, we find ourselves dumbfounded by guys with homemade explosives and a scoped rifle hiding in a building. All the technology in the world can only go so far in the type of way we're fighting right now, and, as i imagine, all future wars. theres only so much technology can help you against an enemy you cant see. the advances need to come in the form of doctrine more than technology, in my opinion.
2007-11-11 00:05:42 · answer #3 · answered by Justin J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will just make the ground soldier safer. But as the wars we are currently waging have shown us, technology is no substitue for boots on the ground. Now if this technology makes the boots on the ground safer, then I say go for it. If not, then it is probably just a waste of money.
2007-11-10 16:38:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just imagine..... I'm sure you'll come up with your own answers ;)
If you think about what modern technology has done for armies since WWII and compare them to the present day army... that'll give u some idea. People do have their limits and it often all comes down to who is smartest.
2007-11-10 16:31:25 · answer #5 · answered by iceydicer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
More science fiction, works well in the lab on a very small scale will be generations before you see it in reality, if ever.
2007-11-10 22:01:50 · answer #6 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
more video game type combat (more pressing of buttons), dehumanizing of solders.
2007-11-10 16:37:26 · answer #7 · answered by Gengi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋