I beg to differ. The SAF has not outdone itself in technology,
but rather, it has underpreformed in producing personnel that can
make the best out of that technology.
Technological bashing in this case here, seems to me more of a case
of "bad workmen blaming their tools". Unable to grasp the future of
war, many will ultimately end up blaming "weird technology" rather
then making full use of it. Consider history, could you be lumped
together with the jokers who said that the tank would never replace
horse calvary?
Battlefield robots demostrate extreme potential, and it would be
foolish to discount their development. The SAF, having realized
this, is attempting to get a headstart in the region in developing
this aspect of technology. Before anyone here should raise any
question, one needs to realize that battlefield robots have already
been in service for years and have radically altered the face of
war as we know it. Consider the cruise missile, smart bomb, or just
any sort of smart munition that is in essence the utilization of
robotics to wage war.
While I may not like his style, it does behoove us to think
seriously about the implications of technology on future warfare,
rather then toss out everything unfamiliar and stick with our false
security blankies of familiar "conventional" stuff, lest we fall
several steps behind in the loop of arms development. Especially on
the brink of a informational revolution in warfare, nations which
manage to make the most of it will end up the best.
In the opening hours of warfare, sentimental attatchment to old
ideas tend to be radically altered, if not torn apart. We have no
crystal ball, but I dare say that somehow we have to get more
intelligence then our enemy, share it faster, make sense out of it,
and then act on it before they can make their next move, or even
respond to ours. What does this sound like?
Network Centric Warfare.
