War is all about Technology.

Ok, lots to talk about here. PRO cannot claim "the intelligent implementation of arms" as part of their position, because it supports my position. The Fuller quote in Round 1 says nothing about implementing weapons. It says that 99% of victory depends on DISCOVERING the right tools or weapons. Implementing technology is a human endeavor. Effectively employing an IED, machine gun, or battleship involves human decision making, strategy, leadership, logistics, training, and discipline. This is my entire argument, and it directly conflicts with Pro's position. Next, my opponent is trying to shift the goalposts on me. In Round 1, Pro challenged me to identify one factor that's more important than technology. Now Pro insists I must identify a battle won without using any weapons at all! This is obviously futile because a battle without fighting is not, by definition, a battle. However, there are many examples in history of armies gaining "victory" without firing a shot. I will just give one example for brevity: Monongahela River, 1754 - A large French and Canadian force moved against a British outpost commanded by Capt. William Trent. The French surrounded the outpost and Trent quickly surrendered without a fight. Trent withdrew and the French occupied the location. [1] This is all beside the point though. I am not saying that technology doesn't matter - clearly soldiers need weapons to win battles. I'm arguing that sometimes technology is not the most important factor. Essentially - war is not "all about" technology. A final contention before I begin rebuttals - Quoting J.F.C. Fuller and Clausewitz is not an argument. Making a claim with other people's words is called an Appeal to Authority, and it's a logical fallacy. == Rebuttals == Pro used IEDs as an example of simple technology's effectiveness. There are multiple problems with this. Simple technology is sometimes effective, but it's just a means to an end. There are many more important factors at play: Without logistics, insurgents cannot transport IEDs. Without training and supplies, they cannot build them. Without leadership, there's no direction on how to employ them. Without morale, there's no motivation to fight in the first place. The technology is not decisive all by itself - it needs human factors to make it effective. My opponent says: "High-tech matters not if the weapon system at hand is not being used correctly." I completely agree. That's why strategy, training, discipline, leadership, etc... matters so much more than the technology itself. Pro attempts to refute each of my historical examples. Responding to each would take too long, so I'll just address the major ones: Battle of Isandlwana: Pro says I "forgot" to mention poor ammo distribution and failure to employ a proper defense. I didn't mention these things because they have nothing to do with technology - they are logistical, leadership, and discipline problems (things that don't matter according to Pro). Korean War: Reluctance to use nukes.... isn't that a leadership issue (decision making)? Vietnam War: Pro blames defeat on a STRATEGIC failure to use weapons offensively.... but didn't my opponent say strategy only counts as a 1% "force multiplier"? Also, it's a little simplistic to say America lost Vietnam because the AK-47 is better than the M-16.... Afghanistan: I'm very aware of the Taliban's use of RPGs, Toyota trucks, and cell phones. I was not suggesting that the Taliban lack technology, only that it's generally inferior compared to America's. If war is "all about" technology, then the side with the best tech should win. Unless, of course, there are other factors at play (strategy, leadership, will...) that allow a more primitive force to defeat a more sophisticated one. == Arguments == The fundamental flaw with Pro's claim is it's universal nature. Pro believes technology has dominated warfare "since day one." I completely agree that technology is important. I admit that sometimes tech may even be decisive. Perhaps Napoleon's Old Guard really was routed exclusively by superior British rifles. But the key word here is "sometimes." There are many other instances where technology was defeated by human factors. For example, the Taliban routinely avoid detection from thermal optics by hiding under wool blankets or disguising themselves as women under burkhas. Their tactics and techniques frequently defeat our technology. My argument, again, is not that technology doesn't matter. It does. But strategy, leadership, logistics, morale, discipline, and training matter too - a lot. It's extremely inaccurate to say that all these things combined only account for 1% of battlefield effectiveness. History proves otherwise. This is common sense. I'll give a simple example and end here. Consider an army who has superior technology in every aspect - better rifles, artillery, aircraft, radios, etc... But now let's assume that army has a terrible logistics system, no training, bad leadership, and a stupid strategy. Will they be victorious? Decide for yourselves - I challenge my opponent to answer that question in the next round. War is not "all about" technology. There are many examples throughout history where strategy, leadership, logistics, and training were more important factors in victory than weapons tech alone. Unless my opponent can refute this, their argument falls short. [1] William M. Fowler Jr., Empires at War (New York: Walker Publishing, 2005), 37