War is all about Technology.

War is all about TechnologyCON misses the larger argument for which Fuller and I are arguing for.I contend again that technology is the single greatest determining factor for generating battlefield wins. CON must provide at least one tangible factor (leadership, strategy, logistics, morale, etc, etc) that is more proven to be more vital, significant, or important in gaining victory than weapons tech. This is the 99% (weapons) vs 1% (exceptions) that Fuller’s book talks about.To ultimately prove my point however, and as an intellectual challenge to CON or any prospective debate judge, name me ONE army who didn’t win a war or complete a battle without using weapons.War is an “act of violence,” aka Force.The reason CON cannot name an army who ever won a battle without using technology is very simple; “War is an act of violence intended to complete our will,” meaning in layman’s terms; war is an attempt to impose your will (and political goals) on your opponent through the use of Force. Whereas Force can only be bred through the preponderance of actual physical forces; meaning the delivery of ordnance and concrete weapon systems. Everything else that is not physically related -meaning leadership, strategy and tactics, doctrine, morale, courage, and logistics- by definition is actually a force multiplier; the 1% that makes the whole possible (Fuller).I therefore reassert to CON, based on the understanding of war theory; that “war depends on quality of arms, quantity of arms, and intelligent implementation of arms more so than any other factor.”Principles of Weapons Tech.Man has never killed a pride of lions or a pack of wolves by using just his bare hands, from day one the warrior had to pick up either a club or fetch a stone to overcome nature. Should an unarmed Karate Master or the strongest man in the world fight a man with the gun, the outcome -99% of the time- is in favor with the man with a gun. A warrior without a weapon, by definition, is defenseless. However, one must not mistake the complexity of technology for lethality or battlefield efficiency. I have already asserted in my opening round that war also depends on the “intelligent (or smart) implementation of arms;” an assault rifle will obviously be overcome by the sword and club if the warrior wielding the tech is foolish enough to point the rifle at himself. This is why you cannot mathematically determine to perfection (as CON would assert) a battlefield win simply by gauging technology by its complexity or its quantity – one must be clever and smart enough to use it. The simplicity of technology, when applied appropriately in a sophisticated manner, does have an indispensable of quality of its own.To prove my point that “simplicity” of tech does in fact count as “quality,” and that technology is benefited by its clever and appropriate use, I direct CON to US- Coalition IED deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan:Iraq – 2,547 US and 63% of all coalition deaths [1][2]Afghanistan – 2776 US and 66% of all coalition casualties [3][2]This one little weapon is responsible for killing 65% of all the troops! And nobody can deny that these numbers are not due to weapons tech. The effectiveness of the IED is not due to morale, courage, flanking, leadership, logistics, maneuver, or appeals to Allah; this is simple to use technology at work and it is being put into incredibly good use by the opposing side. High-tech matters not if the weapon system at hand is not being used correctly or is not efficient enough to get results; but if one were to remove the IED for the Al Qaeda armory for instance, we save 65% of all coalition deaths. It’s that simple.CON's Examples RefutedAs I stated earlier to CON, name me one army who ever fought and won a battle without using weapons? Because this cannot be done, I can easily point in any historical example of CON’s choosing to where technology played the decisive part. Battle of Isandlwana: Native Zulu warriors with spears destroyed a British force armed with rifles and artillery.-CON fails to mention insufficient ammunition distribution on part of the British, failure to deploy rocket artillery, and failure to deploy a fortified camp defense. -CON fails to mention Zulu use of camouflage and effectiveness of shield and spear at close range.The Arab Revolt (WWI): T.E. Lawrence and his low-tech Arab army defeated the comparatively high-tech Turks.-CON fails to mention the vulnerability of the Hejaz Railway, and superior technological contributions of British military assets, including the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.The Korean War: Technologically inferior North Korean and Chinese armies fought a high-tech UN coalition to a stalemate.-CON fails to mention the US reluctance to deploy Nukes (as per General MacArthur’s request).The Vietnam War: The Viet Cong and NVA had vastly inferior military tech compared to the US, yet they still won.-CON fails to mention the success of the AK-47 over the M16.-CON fails to mention the US’s strategic failure to use its weapons offensively (limited war).-CON fails to mention the impact of Cu Chi tunnels, booby traps, homemade grenades, mines, superior map-making, and exposure to mass media. -CON fails to mention the success of Linebacker I and Linebacker II (heavy and smart deployment of US air assets) The Soviet-Afghan War: Same thing - low tech mujahideen hiding in caves defeating the high-tech, nuclear capable Soviet Union-CON fails to mention the impact of US imported Stinger missiles. Operation Enduring Freedom: Same thing - low tech insurgents stubbornly holding their own against a very high-tech U.S. military-CON fails to mention the impact of Soviet RPGs, IEDS, katyusha rockets, cell-phones, Toyota trucks, mass media, internet banking, and suicide vests equipped with plastic explosives.Operation Iraqi Freedom: Same as above-Con fails to mention the same tech examples from above. ---The biggest problem of course, in CON’s analysis of the above examples, is the inability to appreciate the effectivness of simple machines (confusing complexity for quality), the failure to scrutinize precisely how technology was used, and a failure to recall that the definition of war demands the use of Force by weapons.Role of Armaments upon History Like CON, I could go on all day with listing historical examples. But to shorten things up and legitimize my arguments to just a point of historical contention, I’ll only name one.Battle of Waterloo: Napoleon’s Old Guard –who had never before retreated- are routed by superior firepower (including rifles and grapeshot) by Wellington’s forces. The most successful strategist and tactician in military history is defeated by weapons tech.I look forward to the next round. Sources:1) http://apps.washingtonpost.com...2) http://en.wikipedia.org...3) http://icasualties.org...