War is all about Technology.

== Rebuttals == 1. Pro asked me to name AT LEAST one factor more important than weapons tech. So the fact that I named more than one, or a "combination of factors" as Pro put it, should not be an issue. If it's not clear already, here is a list of 6 things that can, at times, be more decisive than weapons tech: Strategy, leadership, logistics, training, will, and discipline. 2. Pro believes that successfully implementing technology is "more or less" the same as war being all about tech. To this we must agree to disagree. I submit that nothing could be further from the truth. Successfully implementing tech involves everything I am arguing for - decision making, strategy, training, discipline, etc... Having the best machine gun in the world doesn't matter if your logistics can't resupply ammo and your gunners have no training. My opponent cannot incorporate these factors "more or less" into their position while simultaneously saying they only count as 1% force multipliers. 3. Implementing technology is a human endeavor: To make this point, my opponent makes several claims about military doctrine, Army professionals, and that the US Army's definition of war. Yet, there are no source citations to substantiate these claims. I wonder if my opponent has actually read any Army doctrine? Consider the following examples: US Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) #1 says: "Although some will argue that technology will simplify future military operations, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that warfare remains a fundamentally human endeavor." [1] Pro says an Army professional simply must ensure that "a machine does its job." Yet, Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) #1 defines the Army Profession with five characteristics: trust, military expertise, honorable service, esprit de corps, and stewardship. ADRP 1 further breaks down "military expertise" into 4 portions: military-technical, moral-ethical, political-cultural, and leader-human. Rather than dominating 99% of war, it seems that technical expertise only comprises 25% of one characteristic in the Army's doctrine. [2] I have never seen Army doctrine exclusively adopt Clausewitz's definition of war, so I am unsure where Pro gets that idea from. However, Army doctrine does define how it will fight future wars. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1 says the Army needs "a recognition of the limits of technology and an emphasis on the human, cultural, and political continuities of armed conflict . . . the effect of technologies on land are often not as great as in other domains due to geography, the interaction with adaptive enemies, the presence of non combatants, and other complexities associated with war's continuities." [3] Contrary to what PRO says, it seems that Army doctrine overwhelmingly supports the idea that war involves much more than technology alone. 4. When discussing military specialty codes, Pro says that soldiers devote "the majority of their training" to understanding weapon systems. But.... Pro simultaneously says that training is only counts for 1% of victory. I submit, once again, that tech is virtually useless without training, discipline, and leadership. I have worked quite a bit with soldiers who have the "11B" specialty code (Infantry), and I can personally attest to the fact that they spend a great deal of time on things other than weapon systems. These include: physical fitness, field craft, language training, tactics, team building, etc... 5. IEDs: Pro believes that just because an IED is simple proves that tech is more important than other factors. However, Pro has still not explained how an IED can be effective without a strategy, logistics system, or training. I would like to ask Pro in accordance with their 99% - 1% ratio: If your supply routes, strategy, and training were only 1% effective, would you be able to even get a 99% effective IED onto the battlefield? Not likely..... If I was a commander I would love to fight an enemy with a 1% effective logistics system! 6. Monongahela River - Of course the French had weapons (so did the British), but Pro asked me to name a victory without USING weapons. The French did not use their weapons, so this meets the criteria of Pro's challenge. The deeper question is, what would compel a force to surrender without using any weapons (leadership, morale, strategy, logistics....?) 7. Human factors can defeat technology: Yes, I do dispute that wool blankets and burkhas are "technology," because they are not specifically designed as weapons tech. They only serve a military function because of the tactics and techniques with which they are employed. But, according to Pro, tactics don't matter. Pro misses the deeper point here - if war is "all about" technology, then it follows that the side with the best tech should win. A primitive force should never be able to defeat a sophisticated force, yet we see this happen in history time and time again. Other factors must be involved if forces with vastly inferior tech achieve victory. 8. Nuke vs. 30,000 delta force with pitchforks - I'll take the guys with pitchforks every time in this scenario. First, my opponent has assumed that he has a single nuke with no training, terrible logistics, poor leadership, and a stupid strategy. If he has no training, how can he operate the system? If the logistics are terrible, will it even fly? The very nature of having a "stupid strategy" means his effectiveness will be minimal. All this aside, I can still win in two ways: First, I can disperse my forces in groups of 1,000 all across the country. He may fire the nuke, and it may actually hit its target.... but it will only destroy 1,000 men. I have 29,000 left and my opponent is now defenseless. Next, I can co-locate my forces. I surround Pro's missile silo within the blast radius and wait. To destroy my force Pro must also destroy himself. But the central point Pro is trying to make here is that a superior technology should defeat a superior but primitively equipped force. So to this we must ask - why then did the U.S. not nuke Al Qadea strongholds in Iraq? Why do nuclear powers fight ground wars at all? Why not just push a button and nuke the enemy? It's because, contrary to Pro's suggestion, such technology does not guarantee victory. Quite the contrary - it would probably make victory even more difficult. This is because there are humanitarian, strategic, and political factors to consider which render nuclear weapons impractical. As a final note, Pro did not offer rebuttals to the defense of my historical examples, so we must assume they stand as valid. Also, Pro continues to offer random quotes as arguments. These are Appeal to Authority fallacies, and I ask they be ignored. I could offer a bunch of quotes from smart dead people too, but they would not count as valid arguments. Looking forward to the final round. [1] http://armypubs.army.mil... [2] http://armypubs.army.mil... [3] http://www.tradoc.army.mil...