I don’t have a clue about military tech, and so I don’t dare to write anything on military tech. Nonetheless, this has yet to discourage me from looking at military aspect in my own sense. In my own sense, I feel that to win a war, a country doesn’t have to be dominated in military technology, but this holds true to certain extent only. For an example, you can’t expect a battalion of swordsmen charging against a battalion of riflemen, because it would be suicidal for the battalion of swordsmen to do so. But why did I say that military technology domination alone isn’t going to win a war? Well, as long the opposition doesn’t lose the war too quickly, a longer war will give ample time for a studious opposition to drag out the war and turn the tide in their favor. If I don’t get this wrong, Hitler gave the United States enough time to upgrade arm forces with horses into arm forces with average tanks and planes, and by the time the United States entered World War II Hitler was destined to be overwhelmed by all sides, even with Japan’s aggression against the allies. At the time, Germany was more advanced in military technology than most countries. Nonetheless, World War II wasn’t won in days but years, and so the allies had ample time to regroup and turn the tide in their favor.
When the United States attacked Saddam Hussein in March 19th of 2003, Iraq was overwhelmed by United States’ military technology, and so the war lasted only in weeks. The aftermath is rather messy, because I think it is still not being fully resolved even now which is the year of 2015. The Iraq traditional war was quickly won by the United States and few allies, but the non-traditional Iraq war has yet to be completed. Too many groups are forming up to fight for their own piece of victory in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and probably Ukraine; I’m not sure these groups have any weak connection in term of foe and friend to each other. Basically, I’m getting confused which group is fighting for what as we speak, and so I think the whole Middle East is very messy. Perhaps, I’m not smart enough to be informed about the current situation in the Middle East, but I think the situation has been dragging on too long. This won’t be good for any party which is involving in this Middle East conflict. Financially, it would be a big drain for a party to continually involve in the Middle East conflict. Nonetheless, some groups may have find the conflict profitable, because without this conflict these group probably wouldn’t even exist in the first place.
My sense tells me that military tech domination alone won’t go far unless the opposition is not organized and got no way of fighting back. Also, if a war drags on too long, it would drain the resources of any party which involves in a war. The resources could be in the form of money, oil, human, and whatever. Furthermore, if the opposition has enough units to overrun many well funded, trained, and superior military tech arm forces, the war could be dragged on much longer, giving the opposition a military edge to turn the tide in their favor. The next World War will also be involved with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and so any military tech domination would not matter as much. Of course, if a country could eliminate the opposition’s nuclear technology beforehand, the opposition would stand little chance in obtaining a victory. Before countries begin exchanging bullets and bombs, financial war would be waged first. A country that could withstand and come out ahead in financial war should have a military edge over a country that would lose in the financial war. After all, soldiers need to be fed, military technology needs to be researched and manufactured, and so forth. The longer the future World War would go on, the financial welfare of a country would become even more important and urgent.