Originally Posted by
typerated
Wrong. Totally utterly wrong!
let me quote ― Sun Tzu,
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
or perhaps Clausewitz
“War is nothing but a continuation of politics.”
or “To achieve victory we must mass our forces at the hub of all power and movement. The enemy’s "center of gravity”
No mention of killing the most - What a ridiculous thought!
Ok so all your AI asset takes out the other sides AI air capability and your tech on the ground takes out their tech on the ground..... end result you have won that war by out spending and out “teching” the opposition” But you haven’t won the war because all you have done is dominate the battle space without subduing the populace.
Afghanistan was “won” by dominating the airspace and destroying their heavier assets on the ground, but crucially they never In reality subdued the populace, those fighting melted away, and hence they “won” a war similar to the AI to AI you envisaged .
Now because you haven’t subdued the population you have to stick troops on the ground, but not in sufficient numbers to again totally subdue and dominate the population, this results in you having to build little defensive positions from which to operate while not actually controlling the Country you have supposedly taken.
It also leads to the scenarios where you build a base to protect a road that had no previous problems, but because the base is there the road now becomes a target to kill those protecting it... not exactly winning a war is it...
To win a war you need to destroy not just their tech, but also those on the ground actively participating in it, and that means killing them. Something that appears to have worked with some effect against ISIS.