[TChris]

The author of this article seems to misunderstand the very nature of war. Wars are won by breaking the enemy's will to fight. Quickly disabling some of his weapons is not the same thing.

The current war is chock full of examples. The terrorists fighting in Iraq don't have any high-tech stuff against which the ATL would be of much use. To our enemies there, having an overwhelming disadvantage in might, technology and manpower is still not reason enough to give up.

"Shock and awe" still wins wars where antiseptic surgical precision will not. Most conceivable fights in the future will still need boots on the ground.

The ATL will be a very nice tool in the arsenal, but I'm not holding my breath for any conflicts to be "over in minutes".

[Physicist]

The author of this article seems to misunderstand the very nature of war. Wars are won by breaking the enemy's will to fight.

Watching the men around you fall silently to the ground with dime-sized holes burned through their skulls from an unknown source might potentially be unnerving.

[R. Scott]

Most conceivable fights in the future will still need boots on the ground.

Yep. This will be great for clearing a path for our troops – but it won’t be a war winner all by itself.

[okie01]

"Shock and awe" still wins wars where antiseptic surgical precision will not. Most conceivable fights in the future will still need boots on the ground.

Still, a smoking hole in the ground can have a high persuasion quotient.