High Tech vs. Low tech

[Michael_Denmark]

The military technology evolves every month.

Many nations/organisations even the small ones use high tech in their military elements.

The human being got a 7000 year long written history of organized violence, named warfare, and has probably conducted this very essential human activity since the first human/human or human/animal conflict began.

Now, through these seven thousands years of written history of warfare, high tech has beaten low tech and low tech has beaten high tech, for various reasons related to the specific time period. And from time to time the very distance between high and low tech has been both short and long. So in that sense the distance has been a fluid dynamic.


Today, in our time, in ROBO time (or at least the initial period of ROBO time) we see a huge distance between high and low tech in some of the present human organized violence activities.


So in short:

Do you think high tech has the advantage in present days warfare?

[SiN|ScarFace]

Yes. We are able to see and kill people in the dark, from long range with precision with little or no risk of retaliation from the target.

Warfare has become more and more of a stand off ranged fight throughout history. The days of night being the break time and bad weather stopping fights are over and if you are not able to match this capability with technology you are at a serious disadvantage.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

I am waiting for a way to spoof NVG's because the US seems so dependant on night vision that it would seriously impact the fighting abilities of the troops.
EMP is another way I can see our tech-dependant troops getting caught unprepared to fight w/o a PDA and a sat-phone.

Edit: nice timing on getting the second post, thinking I was first, and having it relate to the first post.

[El_Vikingo]

No, watch any movie where humans fight off aliens, we always win, even though they got the space ships!

Anyway, by high tech you mean electronic gadets or the latest protection?

[M.0.D]

i'm all for low-tech, because it is more indipendent.. one EMP on an high-tech fighting unit and they are nearly useless

that is not saying that latest material and techniques are bad, just i do not like to have to depend on electronic systems

[::Major_Baker::]

yes, high tech genarlly has an advantage, but low tech is not ineffective, and Iraq has showed us.

High tech can only get you so far. When fighting a conventional army, it gives you a huge advantage. When fighting a hit-n-run insurgency, its effectiveness is decreased.

[Michael_Denmark]

Originally Posted by El_Vikingo

No, watch any movie where humans fight off aliens, we always win, even though they got the space ships!

Anyway, by high tech you mean electronic gadets or the latest protection?

Yes.

Everything from nano-sized chips able to detect specific types of explosives in specific types of ranges related to specific types of environments to today’s magnetic amour (still prototype level) and to low level thinking weapon platforms of all kinds (fully autonomous systems), including computer decision making in war, where the human decision factor is being ignored from development stage 01.

[daranz]

Advanced technology certainly gives you an advantage over the enemy, just like numbers, location, etc. However, history has proven many times that it comes down to how good the people are at fighting. We won't see machines capable of waging wars independently for many years, so for now, it comes down to human-developed strategies, and human skills. Fancy technology won't help you if you don't know how to employ your forces in combat.

[Michael_Denmark]

Originally Posted by ::Major_Baker::

yes, high tech genarlly has an advantage, but low tech is not ineffective, and Iraq has showed us.

High tech can only get you so far. When fighting a conventional army, it gives you a huge advantage. When fighting a hit-n-run insurgency, its effectiveness is decreased.

So just to understand you correct, low tech can under the right circumstances beat high tech on today’s battlefield?

And in addition to that question, do you think that low-tech winning fights/battles vs. high tech actually will an effect on the short future development of high tech?

[SiN|ScarFace]

Technological advancements in war tools has and always will progress. It gets filtered down from the people who create to the people who buy it or copy it eventually. As for EMP and stuff, that too is high tech so to counter tech you gotta develop other tech. You don't stop a tank with a rock you use a mine or explosive device which has more in common with the tank than a rock. When armed groups fight armed groups, the one with better equipment has an advantage.