Posted on Apr 8, 2015
Is the military overly reliant on technology, especially in the face of low-intensity conflicts?
3.59K
41
10
7
7
0
Currently the DOD spends more than any other country (and the next 16 or 17 combined) on our military, with large portions of that going to the procurement of new technology (or first we spend billions and then cancel it i.e. Crusader). Even in the face of low-tech enemies we continue to try to advance our technology to some point that we think exists in which we will ultimately gain the advantage. Even in the face of a massive war with Russia or China haven't the lessons of the last two wars shown that limited technology can severely handicap a modern military? I present this article about the OV-10 Bronco as evidence of a low-tech, cheap, reliable, platform that could have saved lives and money in the last two wars. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-ov-10-bronco-was-never-allowed-to-meet-its [login to see]
Posted in these groups: 
Technology
Technology
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
The technology, while useful to us, is sadly more useful in lining the pockets of politicians and their friends. This would be why our budget is so high.
We should be spending more of that money on intelligent and direct training of our soldiers and continuing to improve their ability to operate quickly, efficiently, and on the fly when necessary.
While ramping down the forces, I feel that it is better to reduce the spending on tanks, planes, new uniforms, etc and preserve the spending on the force itself. If we have an upswing in activity in a war zone we can always re-administer funds to those defense projects.
We should be spending more of that money on intelligent and direct training of our soldiers and continuing to improve their ability to operate quickly, efficiently, and on the fly when necessary.
While ramping down the forces, I feel that it is better to reduce the spending on tanks, planes, new uniforms, etc and preserve the spending on the force itself. If we have an upswing in activity in a war zone we can always re-administer funds to those defense projects.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Not necessarily. Technology is only useful insofar as there are creative minds and flexible leadership that's willing to use it. Low-intensity conflicts do not make other technological powers like Russia and China go away, and they have technology to throw at us too. We need to keep our technology.
The issue though is, is that you can't order people to think outside of the box. I assure you, if the Taliban at all, ever, had access to our level of technology and funding, they would instantly be challenging the whole world and shocking people while at it. Islamic fighters think about getting the most bang for their buck. They think, "how do I spend $5 to kill 5 Americans. What's the most bang I can get out of an IED that takes down an MRAP. Meanwhile, our leaders here are busy trying to justify mass producing tanks that already have a proven track record of being hugely superior to Russian tanks, and how to make a boondoggle like the F-35 worth it, when the Russians are still at least a decade if not more behind fielding stealth fighters themselves.
Instead, better thinking: what is the best way to spend money in creative ways to outwit people who are already thinking in terms of low-cost solutions.
But I digress- I'm not a general and I'm just on my keyboard.
The issue though is, is that you can't order people to think outside of the box. I assure you, if the Taliban at all, ever, had access to our level of technology and funding, they would instantly be challenging the whole world and shocking people while at it. Islamic fighters think about getting the most bang for their buck. They think, "how do I spend $5 to kill 5 Americans. What's the most bang I can get out of an IED that takes down an MRAP. Meanwhile, our leaders here are busy trying to justify mass producing tanks that already have a proven track record of being hugely superior to Russian tanks, and how to make a boondoggle like the F-35 worth it, when the Russians are still at least a decade if not more behind fielding stealth fighters themselves.
Instead, better thinking: what is the best way to spend money in creative ways to outwit people who are already thinking in terms of low-cost solutions.
But I digress- I'm not a general and I'm just on my keyboard.
(3)
(0)
SGT James Elphick
I think you hit the nail on the head there SPC Angel Guma . We need better, more creative thinking. I think all too often we try to shape the fight to the weapons we have instead of finding the best way to fight and adapting our weapons and capabilities to meet the challenge. I have found a blog, Foxtrot Alpha, that deals mostly with military aviation (where the article came from) and a guy who normally derides the F-35 was able to sit back and find logical and important tasks and uses for the F-35 that aren't being told to anyone. That really got me thinking. And one thing I have always tried to think about that way was MRAPs vs. IED's. That was a situation in which we essentially refused to adapt our tactics and instead relied on ever-increasing (and expensive) technological advances to try to overcome.
I hope that all makes sense, I keep getting distracted and I'm too lazy to read back through it
I hope that all makes sense, I keep getting distracted and I'm too lazy to read back through it
(1)
(0)
MSgt Manuel Diaz
Battery theft and reliability of, has been an issue. Needs back up plan For that reason. Ammo or batteries hmmmm
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Great discussion!!
It's a yes & no question though.
In conventional warfare, we need "just enough" technology to be better (overwhelmingly preferred) than our opponent(s). This gives the "impression" of overspending. We don't need all the tech we have to defeat the opponents we currently have. It's a qualitative versus quantitative argument. Going against a Russia, or China (who are quantity based) require a quality > quantity approach. We just don't have the manpower to deal with a large country with citizen soldiers (conscripts).
However the VAST majority of our missions & operations are not conventional. When you look at things like Humanitarian Aid, as an example, more tech is better. Having the ability to move an Aircraft Carrier Group to a location and then use the full force of that tech just pays.
When we look at Training, Education, and even Doctrine development, the ability to communicate pays dividends. Being able to spread the word quickly is an amazing advantage.
Technology can never replace warfighting, but it can sure supplement it in great ways.
It's a yes & no question though.
In conventional warfare, we need "just enough" technology to be better (overwhelmingly preferred) than our opponent(s). This gives the "impression" of overspending. We don't need all the tech we have to defeat the opponents we currently have. It's a qualitative versus quantitative argument. Going against a Russia, or China (who are quantity based) require a quality > quantity approach. We just don't have the manpower to deal with a large country with citizen soldiers (conscripts).
However the VAST majority of our missions & operations are not conventional. When you look at things like Humanitarian Aid, as an example, more tech is better. Having the ability to move an Aircraft Carrier Group to a location and then use the full force of that tech just pays.
When we look at Training, Education, and even Doctrine development, the ability to communicate pays dividends. Being able to spread the word quickly is an amazing advantage.
Technology can never replace warfighting, but it can sure supplement it in great ways.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google