Do you think that the U.S. Military is stronger or weaker with their new-High-Tech Weapons?

Some times new does not always mean better.

You are right, a phone line is more reliable than a satellite signal in some cases. But a phone line can not handle the mass of info needed for today's tech, and it susceptible to sabotage.

They have to weigh the pros with the cons.

Look at the B-51, the oldest bomber in service, most of the tech is old, but it is very reliable and tough, the military has been slow to replace the planes or the tech inside. So the pros of the plane have out weighted the cons.

Personally I think we have become too dependent on tech, we no longer want soldiers using common sense and skill, or at least the role is reduced with the advance of technology.

the only problem is advanced tech is most often effective against advanced enemies, but tends to be far less reliable with low tech enemies. as wwe can see on occasion in iraq.

The answer is a qualified, "yes."

The same is true with any technology. Technology gives you the ability to do things that you could not otherwise do. However, the same technology becomes a burden, requires maintenance, and has disadvantages.

The US military has, at present, the ability to completely decimate a conventional military force in short order. But, since Darwin was a soldier, the SMART military commanders have spent the last 15 years trying to think of ways to negate that US advantage. We don't have to worry about the stupid ones. They're the ones who are easy to kill.

The answer is in not fighting a conventional war.

If the US has tanks that can shoot 2000 meters, and yours can only shoot 1500, then choose a place for battle with limited visibility.

If the US has a firepower advantage, then don't give him targets. Hide your troops in civilian clothing amid the population, or just don't fight a stand-up fight. Use remote explosives and mines, instaed.

If the US has air superiority, then don't mass your troops out in the open. Huddle them around targets the US will be reluctant to bomb, like churches, schools, and hospitals.

If the US has armored vehicles, draw the US into a city, where their armored vehicles can be trapped and be made useless.

2,500 years ago, Sun Tsu said it was stupid to fight the enemy on his terms.

After four years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should realize that all the really stupid commanders on the other side are dead. Only the smart ones are alive. They know how to exploit their strengths and limit their own weaknesses.

No, it's not honorable or fair. So what? It's war. There are no points for playing nice, especially if you're massively outgunned, outmanned, and out-supplied.

Wow, you just figured out the Achilles heel of the US armed Forces!!

Satellites are extremely usefull, but do you really think they are absolutely vital?

So many are in orbit it would take a space attack of unachievable scale at this time, regardless.

EMP and Solar Flares are predictable and/or defensible. We build hardware to survive EMP, and can see Solar Flares. Sats. are built to survive these, and severe and widespread effects are not common. They happen so fast, no real strategic strategy could be used to take advantage of it. Tactically in short term they could cause problems.

High Tech weapons make us more potent to the enemy, and less lethal to civilians. Overall much more capable than even 5 years ago! The military is all about redundancy. Have a fall back if the primary fails, that is still effective.

Stronger. Considering how drastically the casualty rates drop in warzones as time goes on, I'd say that technology is making things a lot safer. Military personnel have safer equipment, superior surveillance to warn of danger, improved lifesaving techniques, and greater protection.

Military personnel are still trained in how to survive and fight with just the most basic of equipment, so I don't think technology has taken away from their abilities.

Congress never declared conflict and it wasn't our conflict first of all, we in simple terms supported south Vietnam. the warriors did not lose the conflict congress did because of the fact they lost sufferers. you need to income the adaptation between a conflict and an entire scale conflict declared via congress. perhaps you need to take some history or American government classes. Do you have any plans to connect the protection tension? perhaps you will desire to so which you will comprehend what its like whilst human beings think of you failed even inspite of the undeniable fact which you extremely gained. Politics are the blame for the themes that Vietnam Veterans face in todays society.

Probably better. Even though the U.S. is in Iraq and Afganistan where people are shooting at them, the total number of dead U.S. troops amounts to less than the number of children in the U.S. that drown each year. The number one cause of injury in the military is non combat. Either the Iraqis and Taliban can't hit anything or the U.S. equipment is that much better.

The US Military is stronger and the best fighting force in the world!!

Stronger

Military grade global positioning and communications systems are more advanced than what you can legally buy in the civilian market.

i think the military is above dish tv