War is all about Technology.

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.But not one of those factors by themselves have proven to be more important and more crucial to winning a war or deciding the fate of a nation than technology. I assert again from Round 1; “CON must prove that there is at least one tangible exception more important in wartime and in gaining battlefield victory than weapons tech.”And I cannot be accused of shifting goal-posts if CON’s arguments continue to rely on a combination of factors. CON must name at least one.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.I’m still waiting for that one factor.PRO cannot claim "the intelligent implementation of arms" as part of their position, because it supports my position. If CON’s one factor is that “successfully implementing technology” is more important than the technical aspects of technology itself, then I fail to see how this does not more or less support my position that “war is all about technology;” seeing as how the total of human efforts, training, and ambition in the defense community would then still be geared towards understanding and operating said technology. CON’s arguments must rely on the assumption then that all non-technical aspects to war, such as politics, diplomacy, geography, access to mineral resources, human intelligence, institutional excellence, and leadership are secondary to the procurement, research, and design of actual weapon systems. Otherwise all that human capital that goes into making technology work is wasted along with the fact there would not be any weapons in military's arensel to use or operate. Therefore, CON has essentially agreed with PRO that the harnessing of technology would still be the military's first priority.I assert again, war continues to be all about technology. Implementing technology is a human endeavor. CON continues to misunderstand how operating technology is directly related to the technology itself, and therefore cannot be used to refute my argument. In military spheres today, every military member has a specialty code, where the vast majority of said specialty codes designates an area of technical expertise. These areas include; tank gunner, sniper, demolition specialist, pilot, navigator, missile operator, astronaut, researcher, and so on. Every one of these specialist then in turn, denotes the majority of their training and vast majority or their time to understanding and using said weapon systems. Their jobs however, do not exist without said weapon systems, and they cannot possibly function on the battlefield without having received some technical knowledge and training. Everything an Army professional does in away, has thus become centered on ensuring a machine does its job, and not the other way around. The human endeavor continues to be only the force-multiplier to the equation of actual force, where simplifying technology and advancing its quality actually removes the need for technical experts and training altogether. All non-technical aspects to military affairs are thus nothing then to the existence of weapons tech.Effectively employing an IED … involves human decision making, strategy, leadership, logistics, training, and discipline. This is my entire argument, and it directly conflicts with Pro's position.The whole point of an IED is that it is a simple machine and doesn’t take a 4-star general to make it work, just about anyone can build one in their garage with enough gasoline and a couple of bullets. I fail to see where an IED requires a lot of strategy, leadership, logistics, training, and discipline to make it work. This proves then, that the quailty of weapon systems are far more essentinal than any human factor.- clearly soldiers need weapons to win battles. Then this only serves to further my cause because anyone can name a battle that did not require sophisticated tactics, strategy, or extreme displays of valor, but no one can name a battle fought without weapons.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.Does CON mean to tell PRO that the fort in question was not surrounded by men armed with muskets and artillery?The fundamental flaw with Pro's claim is it's universal nature. On the contrary, this is my arguments greatest strength and proves my claim that war has always been about technology. History shows that weapons and tech have always been intertwined with the warrior since day one; leadership, training, strategy, and tactics cannot make this claim. In fact, it is far more accurate to say that tactics and strategy have historically lagged behind technology, a fine example of this are the idiotic human wave charges across no man’s land during World War I, to the static and strange Maginot line defenses employed against combined arms and mobile Panzer divisions during World War II.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.Does CON rmean to dispute here that wool blankets and burkhas are not by themselves tools or legit forms of simple technology at work? The whole point of being simple of course, is that they don’t require a whole lot of tactical expertise or a west point grad to make them work.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.I fail to see what the problem is here. I have adopted Clausewitz definition of war (which also comprises as the US Army’s definition) to prove through actual war theory that weapon systems count as force, and everything else must be seen as a force multiplier. Whereas Fuller’s quote should provide some historical basis for what I’ve been arguing.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.I accept CON’s challenge. For my side I shall have only myself with no military training to the controls of one LGM-30 Minuteman-III Nuclear ICBM. PRO can have 30,000 Delta Force operators and a combination of Spartans and Old Guard Fusiliers, led by none other than Alexander the Great himself. The only catch is, CON’s forces must be armed only with pitch forks. I’ll leave it to the voters on who actually wins this. 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.No it doesn’t. "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon Bonaparte'Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.' – General Douglas MacArthur"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." – Dr. Robert J. Oppenheimer “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” - Albert Einstein“The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.” - John F. Kennedy.