An undeniably truth is that military operations result in destruction and require sustainability. The use of expensive sophisticated high tech equipment runs counter to that undeniable truth. An "old" black humor joke was that such a war would only last 15 minutes since much of the equipment would cease to function due to an inability to maintain it since many of the technicians would be dead and replacement parts would be unavailable. Furthermore, there is the issue of cost. Wipe-out one of our aircraft carriers and our Nation will be bankrupt.
We may have technological superiority over terrorists, but if hostilities were to break-out with opponents that have a degree of technology (such as North Korea or Iran) we may only get 15 minutes of shock and awe, but continued action may not be sustainable. If not sustainable, Vietnam would serve as an example that technological superiority cannot guarantee victory. But then again, these countries could ultimately prove to be as "hollow" as Iraq was to a traditional attack. Would China protect North Korea? I don't know.
Here are my casual thoughts concerning the design and deployment of military equipment:
- rapidly reproduced
- easily maintained