[strategofr]

Interesting.

[Cruz]

ping for later

[Sonny M]

bump.

[RedRover]

General Charles Krulak has described the landscape of future urban operations as a "three block war."

Interesting description. As I think nearly everyone agrees, wars in the future are less likely to be fought between nations than within (usually crumbling) nations. In this regard, the historical literature on sieges and urban assaults is more relevant than ever.

[Hypervigilant]

Ping.

[PUGACHEV]

The article seems to make a lot of sense: we've become civilized to the point that we no longer have the stomach to tolerate mass casualties, not our own, nor, ironically, those of our enemy. But over-socialized or not, we'll still need to fight wars, and win them too

Perhaps the answer is fight wars differently: to fight with an un-human precision, not blow-up more but less. No matter how unsophisticated an enemy might be, they still have a command structure, or at least some form of organization. If we destroy an enemy's ability to act in a organized manner, to make plans and execute them, we defeat them more certainly than if we destroy their cities and all of their infa-strusture. If only we had perfect knowledge of who and where the leaders are, of who issues commands, and of who within an urban population were carrying them out, we could fight an win a war with precision, and within our tolerance for casualties.

Maybe the answer is nanotechnology. If we had sensors the size of bumble bees, in numbers as large a bee swarm, we could be on any street, and in any room. The next step would be killing machines, perhaps no larger than the sensors, which could flutter into any place, day or night, and take out just one person; a swarm could take out a squad if needed -- no collateral damage, no explosions, and leaving scenes too boring for good photojournalism.

Maybe this is too much like science fiction, but I'd be glad to hear that it wasn't.

[The Drowning Witch]

GREAT READ. PING.

[Jackknife]

BTTT