But the fact is military technology has reached a point of diminishing returns.
- When several countries have (or can quickly build) nuclear arsenals that are powerful enough to completely wipe out any enemy, new tank armor or aircraft missiles just don't matter to the outcome of WWIII anymore.
- In smaller conflicts Afghanistan-style advanced military technology can reduce casualties, but such conflicts are won by the side that wants to win most badly. 40 times more Vietnamese than Americans died in Vietnam, the Vietnamese won anyway. Technology isn't the deciding factor.
Most new military technology is a waste of money. Consider the F-22, a crazily expensive successor for the F-15. Does it have more capabilities? Yes. Are these extra capabilities used? Between cruise missiles and attack drones, no. But an ageing fleet of 750 F-15s has to be replaced by only 180 F-22s, and the skies haven't shrunk.
Remember Libya? The USAF considered sending a squadron of F-22s, but eventually decided against it. Simply because the F-22 is more expensive to operate than the F-15 and F-16, but adds nothing that would have been of use over Libya.
---------- Post added 2013-03-14 at 07:18 AM ----------
- Third world enemy aircraft are effectively intercepted using AWACS and long range missiles, the missile platform matters very little anymore.
- Air defense zones are penetrated using cruise missiles and drones. Manned aircraft are kept safe.