From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!psgrain!hippo!ucthpx!uctvax.uct.ac.za!swrdir01 Wed Sep 23 16:54:25 EDT 1992
Article 6976 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:6976 rec.arts.sf.misc:3227
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!psgrain!hippo!ucthpx!uctvax.uct.ac.za!swrdir01
>From: swrdir01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (DirkSwart)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.173634.202837@uctvax.uct.ac.za>
Date: 18 Sep 92 15:36:34 GMT
References: <4SEP199212055495@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov>  <1992Sep11.204643.249@uwm.edu>
Organization: University of Cape Town
Lines: 29


> There won't be any more wars in the 21st Century.  Everybody and their
> sister will have the Bomb.  Secondly: the world will be united in a Federation
> by then.  Actually, it already is a loosely organized confederation right now.

There will always be wars. They may vary from quasi-global conflict to
tribal squabbles, but they'll be there.

Most groups fighting will not have the bomb, and the smaller they are the
less likely they are to have it and use it. Even if their enemy does
not retaliate in kind there is a good chance that somebody out there with
the bomb will pick up the baton.

Future wars may increase only marginally in tech level - 
technology costs. Part of the point in war is not to kill, but
to do it as economically as possible. If you wound the enemy with a
20c bullet and he spends $20 000 on a casevac, you're up.

The point of
small pro armies is that they have the tech and are _trained to use it_.
The infantryman is still the most important piece in a 
non-conventional scenario and a group that see themselves as losing
a conventional battle are not going to initiate it. They will
stick with unconventional warfare and here the skill of the man
on the ground counts as much as his tech level.


D Swart
SWRDIR01@uctvax.uct.ac.za


