As a USMC OIF combat vet, it's interesting to see the scientific benefits holistically, but then to realize that unless your enemy wears a uniform and ammasses against you, you are bound to be able to use almost none of these technologies, which is why me and my fellow Marines ended up doing the dirty old style grunt work which was actually closer to policing than it was to warfighting (most of the time).
The point is, generals tend to; A) fight the last war, and B) over-value scientifice/technology solutions.
That's not to negate their importance even for knuckle-draggers, for example, the ability to call in a helo for supporting fire has saved more infantrymen on the ground than you could imagine. I just think it's important to keep technological advances in perspective, (especially in an age where overdependence could create a massive shift in a battlespace if say large radius EMP's were deployed).
OEF here. We used our advanced scientific resources to create mine rollers that cost incredible amounts of money. They were defeated by 30 cent worth of wire that allowed the pressure plates to moved 12 feet in front of the explosives.
>Marines ended up doing the dirty old style grunt work which was actually closer to policing than it was to warfighting
As an observer from afar it strikes me that science/technology has actually been bad for warfighting as a skilled trade. Back in the 1800's for instance the British had a large corps of experienced experts in foreign language and culture and were able to out-fox many of the locals. Nowadays the Taliban seemed to have out-foxed them pretty badly, and the fact that air support was available quickly on hand removed some of the incentive to "get it right" on the ground.
So you use other technologies against that non-militant combatant. Modern wiretapping, wall building , and anti-missile weapons for example , create a totally different war for Israel.
On the other hand, in today's world when technology, and among it military , and dual-use technology is so cheap , it's seems impossible to make a dedicated distributed enemy
Quit, so some even call this "the end of victories".
The point is, generals tend to; A) fight the last war, and B) over-value scientifice/technology solutions.
That's not to negate their importance even for knuckle-draggers, for example, the ability to call in a helo for supporting fire has saved more infantrymen on the ground than you could imagine. I just think it's important to keep technological advances in perspective, (especially in an age where overdependence could create a massive shift in a battlespace if say large radius EMP's were deployed).