[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]

As I have said before in modern warfare, casualties are not caused by bullets. Bullets are almost totally irrelevant. Attrition is caused by High Explosives at the operational level, in most cases divisional level artillery assets or strategic bombing. This was highly destructive in WW2, in 2007 its destructive power is truly awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

Then it seems likely that local militias or a large defense corporation would mirror that sentiment with technology to prevent against such things. Do you think that if an AC area adopted that type of approach it could very well defend itself from outside invaders?

[/ QUOTE ]

So far the only way to deal with this is to have an army so large that you still have some guys left after the opfor has fired all his shells. Some respected military analysts overlook any finer considerations of tactics and strategy and break warfare down literally into who can deliver the most HE to point A or B and how many guys can they have left after this has been done. Retrospective analysis of WW2 in this way proves very convincing.

The Paradigm of war hasnt changed much since WW2, weapons platforms still do the same things, they just do it better.

However we are just entering a shift in paradigm with the introduction of ultra accurate electronic based weapons. This is moving war away from the who can have the most guys left after we have blown the [censored] out of each other paradigm and into an as yet not fully conceptualised paradigm.

This might have implications for AC as it definitely has implications for the State. One of the key roles of the State is to provide lots and lots of cannon fodder to soak up the High Explosives. It is an interesting question as to how the State will evolve when the acquisition of violence no longer requires it to provide this function.