The Instigator
Jingle_Bombs
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

War is all about Technology.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
sengejuri
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/25/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 721 times Debate No: 63906
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Jingle_Bombs

Pro

I am challenging CON to this debate.

"Tools, or weapons, if only the right ones can be discovered, form 99 percent of victory.... Strategy, command, leadership, courage, discipline, supply, organization, and all the moral and physical paraphernalia of war are nothing to a high superiority of weapons--at most they go to form the one per cent which makes the whole possible." - Maj. General J.F.C. Fuller. The Influence Of Armament On History From The Dawn Of Classical Warfare To The End Of The Second World War.

War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will (Clausewitz). I therefore argue that war is all about technology, and will assert in this debate that success in wars depends on quality of arms, quantity of arms, and intelligent implementation of arms more so than any other factor. CON must prove that there is at least one tangible exception more important in wartime and in gaining battlefield victory than weapons tech. This is a grand look at military history and the art of war from its earliest beginnings, and examples and theories are not limited to any one era. I assert that technology was the most important battlefield factor for the warrior since day one.

CON is free to make his arguments now or defer.
sengejuri

Con

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. Looking forward to it.

I will make some initial arguments and save rebuttals for the next round.

If success in war depends on technology, then we would expect to see a few trends. First, a war's outcome could be calculated mathematically by measuring each side's quality and quantity of technology. The winner would simply be the side with the most and best tech. Second, we would expect that soldiers in low-tech armies would instantly surrender when facing high tech armies. There would be no point in fighting if the side with the best technology always wins. However, history shows that both these trends are false. In reality we see low-tech armies fight and defeat high-tech superpowers all the time.

Pro challenged me to give an example of when something other than weapons tech decided victory. Fortunately, there are many examples.

Battle of Isandlwana: Native Zulu warriors with spears destroyed a British force armed with rifles and artillery. [1]

The Arab Revolt (WWI): T.E. Lawrence and his low-tech Arab army defeated the comparatively high-tech Turks.

The Korean War: Technologically inferior North Korean and Chinese armies fought a high-tech UN coalition to a stalemate.

The Vietnam War: The Viet Cong and NVA had vastly inferior military tech compared to the US, yet they still won.

The Soviet-Afghan War: Same thing - low tech mujahideen hiding in caves defeating the high-tech, nuclear capable Soviet Union

Operation Enduring Freedom: Same thing - low tech insurgents stubbornly holding their own against a very high-tech U.S. military

Operation Iraqi Freedom: Same as above

The examples could go on and on... Technology is important, but it is not the most important thing in warfare. Logistics, morale, strategy, discipline, and leadership are essential and often more decisive. For example, if a nation has a large, technologically superior air force but no logistics system to support it, then it's useless. Similarly, you could have a high-tech infantry force, but if you have bad leaders, low morale, and no discipline, then the technology doesn't count for much.

Looking forward to rebuttals.

[1] http://www.britishbattles.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Jingle_Bombs

Pro

War is all about Technology

CON misses the larger argument for which Fuller and I are arguing for.

I contend again that technology is the single greatest determining factor for generating battlefield wins. CON must provide at least one tangible factor (leadership, strategy, logistics, morale, etc, etc) that is more proven to be more vital, significant, or important in gaining victory than weapons tech. This is the 99% (weapons) vs 1% (exceptions) that Fuller’s book talks about.

To ultimately prove my point however, and as an intellectual challenge to CON or any prospective debate judge, name me ONE army who didn’t win a war or complete a battle without using weapons.

War is an “act of violence,” aka Force.

The reason CON cannot name an army who ever won a battle without using technology is very simple; “War is an act of violence intended to complete our will,” meaning in layman’s terms; war is an attempt to impose your will (and political goals) on your opponent through the use of Force. Whereas Force can only be bred through the preponderance of actual physical forces; meaning the delivery of ordnance and concrete weapon systems. Everything else that is not physically related -meaning leadership, strategy and tactics, doctrine, morale, courage, and logistics- by definition is actually a force multiplier; the 1% that makes the whole possible (Fuller).

I therefore reassert to CON, based on the understanding of war theory; that “war depends on quality of arms, quantity of arms, and intelligent implementation of arms more so than any other factor.”

Principles of Weapons Tech.

Man has never killed a pride of lions or a pack of wolves by using just his bare hands, from day one the warrior had to pick up either a club or fetch a stone to overcome nature. Should an unarmed Karate Master or the strongest man in the world fight a man with the gun, the outcome -99% of the time- is in favor with the man with a gun. A warrior without a weapon, by definition, is defenseless. However, one must not mistake the complexity of technology for lethality or battlefield efficiency. I have already asserted in my opening round that war also depends on the “intelligent (or smart) implementation of arms;” an assault rifle will obviously be overcome by the sword and club if the warrior wielding the tech is foolish enough to point the rifle at himself. This is why you cannot mathematically determine to perfection (as CON would assert) a battlefield win simply by gauging technology by its complexity or its quantity – one must be clever and smart enough to use it. The simplicity of technology, when applied appropriately in a sophisticated manner, does have an indispensable of quality of its own.

To prove my point that “simplicity” of tech does in fact count as “quality,” and that technology is benefited by its clever and appropriate use, I direct CON to US- Coalition IED deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Iraq – 2,547 US and 63% of all coalition deaths [1][2]
Afghanistan – 2776 US and 66% of all coalition casualties [3][2]

This one little weapon is responsible for killing 65% of all the troops! And nobody can deny that these numbers are not due to weapons tech. The effectiveness of the IED is not due to morale, courage, flanking, leadership, logistics, maneuver, or appeals to Allah; this is simple to use technology at work and it is being put into incredibly good use by the opposing side. High-tech matters not if the weapon system at hand is not being used correctly or is not efficient enough to get results; but if one were to remove the IED for the Al Qaeda armory for instance, we save 65% of all coalition deaths. It’s that simple.

CON's Examples Refuted

As I stated earlier to CON, name me one army who ever fought and won a battle without using weapons? Because this cannot be done, I can easily point in any historical example of CON’s choosing to where technology played the decisive part.

Battle of Isandlwana: Native Zulu warriors with spears destroyed a British force armed with rifles and artillery.

-CON fails to mention insufficient ammunition distribution on part of the British, failure to deploy rocket artillery, and failure to deploy a fortified camp defense.
-CON fails to mention Zulu use of camouflage and effectiveness of shield and spear at close range.

The Arab Revolt (WWI): T.E. Lawrence and his low-tech Arab army defeated the comparatively high-tech Turks.

-CON fails to mention the vulnerability of the Hejaz Railway, and superior technological contributions of British military assets, including the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

The Korean War: Technologically inferior North Korean and Chinese armies fought a high-tech UN coalition to a stalemate.

-CON fails to mention the US reluctance to deploy Nukes (as per General MacArthur’s request).

The Vietnam War: The Viet Cong and NVA had vastly inferior military tech compared to the US, yet they still won.

-CON fails to mention the success of the AK-47 over the M16.
-CON fails to mention the US’s strategic failure to use its weapons offensively (limited war).
-CON fails to mention the impact of Cu Chi tunnels, booby traps, homemade grenades, mines, superior map-making, and exposure to mass media.
-CON fails to mention the success of Linebacker I and Linebacker II (heavy and smart deployment of US air assets)

The Soviet-Afghan War: Same thing - low tech mujahideen hiding in caves defeating the high-tech, nuclear capable Soviet Union

-CON fails to mention the impact of US imported Stinger missiles.

Operation Enduring Freedom: Same thing - low tech insurgents stubbornly holding their own against a very high-tech U.S. military

-CON fails to mention the impact of Soviet RPGs, IEDS, katyusha rockets, cell-phones, Toyota trucks, mass media, internet banking, and suicide vests equipped with plastic explosives.

Operation Iraqi Freedom: Same as above

-Con fails to mention the same tech examples from above.

---

The biggest problem of course, in CON’s analysis of the above examples, is the inability to appreciate the effectivness of simple machines (confusing complexity for quality), the failure to scrutinize precisely how technology was used, and a failure to recall that the definition of war demands the use of Force by weapons.

Role of Armaments upon History

Like CON, I could go on all day with listing historical examples. But to shorten things up and legitimize my arguments to just a point of historical contention, I’ll only name one.

Battle of Waterloo: Napoleon’s Old Guard –who had never before retreated- are routed by superior firepower (including rifles and grapeshot) by Wellington’s forces. The most successful strategist and tactician in military history is defeated by weapons tech.

I look forward to the next round.

Sources:
1) http://apps.washingtonpost.com...
2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
3) http://icasualties.org...
sengejuri

Con

Ok, lots to talk about here.

PRO cannot claim "the intelligent implementation of arms" as part of their position, because it supports my position. The Fuller quote in Round 1 says nothing about implementing weapons. It says that 99% of victory depends on DISCOVERING the right tools or weapons. Implementing technology is a human endeavor. Effectively employing an IED, machine gun, or battleship involves human decision making, strategy, leadership, logistics, training, and discipline. This is my entire argument, and it directly conflicts with Pro's position.

Next, my opponent is trying to shift the goalposts on me. In Round 1, Pro challenged me to identify one factor that's more important than technology. Now Pro insists I must identify a battle won without using any weapons at all! This is obviously futile because a battle without fighting is not, by definition, a battle. However, there are many examples in history of armies gaining "victory" without firing a shot. I will just give one example for brevity:

Monongahela River, 1754 - A large French and Canadian force moved against a British outpost commanded by Capt. William Trent. The French surrounded the outpost and Trent quickly surrendered without a fight. Trent withdrew and the French occupied the location. [1]

This is all beside the point though. I am not saying that technology doesn't matter - clearly soldiers need weapons to win battles. I'm arguing that sometimes technology is not the most important factor. Essentially - war is not "all about" technology.

A final contention before I begin rebuttals - Quoting J.F.C. Fuller and Clausewitz is not an argument. Making a claim with other people's words is called an Appeal to Authority, and it's a logical fallacy.

== Rebuttals ==

Pro used IEDs as an example of simple technology's effectiveness. There are multiple problems with this. Simple technology is sometimes effective, but it's just a means to an end. There are many more important factors at play: Without logistics, insurgents cannot transport IEDs. Without training and supplies, they cannot build them. Without leadership, there's no direction on how to employ them. Without morale, there's no motivation to fight in the first place. The technology is not decisive all by itself - it needs human factors to make it effective.

My opponent says: "High-tech matters not if the weapon system at hand is not being used correctly." I completely agree. That's why strategy, training, discipline, leadership, etc... matters so much more than the technology itself.

Pro attempts to refute each of my historical examples. Responding to each would take too long, so I'll just address the major ones:

Battle of Isandlwana: Pro says I "forgot" to mention poor ammo distribution and failure to employ a proper defense. I didn't mention these things because they have nothing to do with technology - they are logistical, leadership, and discipline problems (things that don't matter according to Pro).

Korean War: Reluctance to use nukes.... isn't that a leadership issue (decision making)?

Vietnam War: Pro blames defeat on a STRATEGIC failure to use weapons offensively.... but didn't my opponent say strategy only counts as a 1% "force multiplier"? Also, it's a little simplistic to say America lost Vietnam because the AK-47 is better than the M-16....

Afghanistan: I'm very aware of the Taliban's use of RPGs, Toyota trucks, and cell phones. I was not suggesting that the Taliban lack technology, only that it's generally inferior compared to America's. If war is "all about" technology, then the side with the best tech should win. Unless, of course, there are other factors at play (strategy, leadership, will...) that allow a more primitive force to defeat a more sophisticated one.

== Arguments ==

The fundamental flaw with Pro's claim is it's universal nature. Pro believes technology has dominated warfare "since day one." I completely agree that technology is important. I admit that sometimes tech may even be decisive. Perhaps Napoleon's Old Guard really was routed exclusively by superior British rifles. But the key word here is "sometimes." There are many other instances where technology was defeated by human factors. For example, the Taliban routinely avoid detection from thermal optics by hiding under wool blankets or disguising themselves as women under burkhas. Their tactics and techniques frequently defeat our technology.

My argument, again, is not that technology doesn't matter. It does. But strategy, leadership, logistics, morale, discipline, and training matter too - a lot. It's extremely inaccurate to say that all these things combined only account for 1% of battlefield effectiveness. History proves otherwise.

This is common sense. I'll give a simple example and end here. Consider an army who has superior technology in every aspect - better rifles, artillery, aircraft, radios, etc... But now let's assume that army has a terrible logistics system, no training, bad leadership, and a stupid strategy. Will they be victorious? Decide for yourselves - I challenge my opponent to answer that question in the next round.

War is not "all about" technology. There are many examples throughout history where strategy, leadership, logistics, and training were more important factors in victory than weapons tech alone. Unless my opponent can refute this, their argument falls short.

[1] William M. Fowler Jr., Empires at War (New York: Walker Publishing, 2005), 37
Debate Round No. 2
Jingle_Bombs

Pro

War is not "all about" technology. There are many examples throughout history where strategy, leadership, logistics, and training were more important factors in victory than weapons tech alone. Unless my opponent can refute this, their argument falls short.

But not one of those factors by themselves have proven to be more important and more crucial to winning a war or deciding the fate of a nation than technology. I assert again from Round 1; “CON must prove that there is at least one tangible exception more important in wartime and in gaining battlefield victory than weapons tech.”

And I cannot be accused of shifting goal-posts if CON’s arguments continue to rely on a combination of factors. CON must name at least one.

Next, my opponent is trying to shift the goalposts on me. In Round 1, Pro challenged me to identify one factor that's more important than technology.

I’m still waiting for that one factor.

PRO cannot claim "the intelligent implementation of arms" as part of their position, because it supports my position.

If CON’s one factor is that “successfully implementing technology” is more important than the technical aspects of technology itself, then I fail to see how this does not more or less support my position that “war is all about technology;” seeing as how the total of human efforts, training, and ambition in the defense community would then still be geared towards understanding and operating said technology. CON’s arguments must rely on the assumption then that all non-technical aspects to war, such as politics, diplomacy, geography, access to mineral resources, human intelligence, institutional excellence, and leadership are secondary to the procurement, research, and design of actual weapon systems. Otherwise all that human capital that goes into making technology work is wasted along with the fact there would not be any weapons in military's arensel to use or operate. Therefore, CON has essentially agreed with PRO that the harnessing of technology would still be the military's first priority.

I assert again, war continues to be all about technology.

Implementing technology is a human endeavor.

CON continues to misunderstand how operating technology is directly related to the technology itself, and therefore cannot be used to refute my argument. In military spheres today, every military member has a specialty code, where the vast majority of said specialty codes designates an area of technical expertise. These areas include; tank gunner, sniper, demolition specialist, pilot, navigator, missile operator, astronaut, researcher, and so on. Every one of these specialist then in turn, denotes the majority of their training and vast majority or their time to understanding and using said weapon systems. Their jobs however, do not exist without said weapon systems, and they cannot possibly function on the battlefield without having received some technical knowledge and training. Everything an Army professional does in away, has thus become centered on ensuring a machine does its job, and not the other way around. The human endeavor continues to be only the force-multiplier to the equation of actual force, where simplifying technology and advancing its quality actually removes the need for technical experts and training altogether. All non-technical aspects to military affairs are thus nothing then to the existence of weapons tech.

Effectively employing an IED … involves human decision making, strategy, leadership, logistics, training, and discipline. This is my entire argument, and it directly conflicts with Pro's position.


The whole point of an IED is that it is a simple machine and doesn’t take a 4-star general to make it work, just about anyone can build one in their garage with enough gasoline and a couple of bullets. I fail to see where an IED requires a lot of strategy, leadership, logistics, training, and discipline to make it work. This proves then, that the quailty of weapon systems are far more essentinal than any human factor.

- clearly soldiers need weapons to win battles.

Then this only serves to further my cause because anyone can name a battle that did not require sophisticated tactics, strategy, or extreme displays of valor, but no one can name a battle fought without weapons.

Monongahela River, 1754 - A large French and Canadian force moved against a British outpost commanded by Capt. William Trent. The French surrounded the outpost and Trent quickly surrendered without a fight.

Does CON mean to tell PRO that the fort in question was not surrounded by men armed with muskets and artillery?

The fundamental flaw with Pro's claim is it's universal nature.

On the contrary, this is my arguments greatest strength and proves my claim that war has always been about technology. History shows that weapons and tech have always been intertwined with the warrior since day one; leadership, training, strategy, and tactics cannot make this claim. In fact, it is far more accurate to say that tactics and strategy have historically lagged behind technology, a fine example of this are the idiotic human wave charges across no man’s land during World War I, to the static and strange Maginot line defenses employed against combined arms and mobile Panzer divisions during World War II.

There are many other instances where technology was defeated by human factors. For example, the Taliban routinely avoid detection from thermal optics by hiding under wool blankets or disguising themselves as women under burkhas. Their tactics and techniques frequently defeat our technology.

Does CON rmean to dispute here that wool blankets and burkhas are not by themselves tools or legit forms of simple technology at work? The whole point of being simple of course, is that they don’t require a whole lot of tactical expertise or a west point grad to make them work.

A final contention before I begin rebuttals - Quoting J.F.C. Fuller and Clausewitz is not an argument. Making a claim with other people's words is called an Appeal to Authority, and it's a logical fallacy.

I fail to see what the problem is here. I have adopted Clausewitz definition of war (which also comprises as the US Army’s definition) to prove through actual war theory that weapon systems count as force, and everything else must be seen as a force multiplier. Whereas Fuller’s quote should provide some historical basis for what I’ve been arguing.

Consider an army who has superior technology in every aspect - better rifles, artillery, aircraft, radios, etc... But now let's assume that army has a terrible logistics system, no training, bad leadership, and a stupid strategy. Will they be victorious? Decide for yourselves - I challenge my opponent to answer that question in the next round.

I accept CON’s challenge. For my side I shall have only myself with no military training to the controls of one LGM-30 Minuteman-III Nuclear ICBM. PRO can have 30,000 Delta Force operators and a combination of Spartans and Old Guard Fusiliers, led by none other than Alexander the Great himself. The only catch is, CON’s forces must be armed only with pitch forks. I’ll leave it to the voters on who actually wins this.

My argument, again, is not that technology doesn't matter. It does. But strategy, leadership, logistics, morale, discipline, and training matter too - a lot. It's extremely inaccurate to say that all these things combined only account for 1% of battlefield effectiveness. History proves otherwise.

No it doesn’t.

"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon Bonaparte

'Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.' – General Douglas MacArthur

"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." – Dr. Robert J. Oppenheimer

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” - Albert Einstein

“The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.” - John F. Kennedy.
sengejuri

Con

== Rebuttals ==

1. Pro asked me to name AT LEAST one factor more important than weapons tech. So the fact that I named more than one, or a "combination of factors" as Pro put it, should not be an issue. If it's not clear already, here is a list of 6 things that can, at times, be more decisive than weapons tech: Strategy, leadership, logistics, training, will, and discipline.

2. Pro believes that successfully implementing technology is "more or less" the same as war being all about tech. To this we must agree to disagree. I submit that nothing could be further from the truth. Successfully implementing tech involves everything I am arguing for - decision making, strategy, training, discipline, etc... Having the best machine gun in the world doesn't matter if your logistics can't resupply ammo and your gunners have no training. My opponent cannot incorporate these factors "more or less" into their position while simultaneously saying they only count as 1% force multipliers.

3. Implementing technology is a human endeavor: To make this point, my opponent makes several claims about military doctrine, Army professionals, and that the US Army's definition of war. Yet, there are no source citations to substantiate these claims. I wonder if my opponent has actually read any Army doctrine? Consider the following examples:

US Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) #1 says: "Although some will argue that technology will simplify future military operations, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that warfare remains a fundamentally human endeavor." [1]

Pro says an Army professional simply must ensure that "a machine does its job." Yet, Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) #1 defines the Army Profession with five characteristics: trust, military expertise, honorable service, esprit de corps, and stewardship. ADRP 1 further breaks down "military expertise" into 4 portions: military-technical, moral-ethical, political-cultural, and leader-human. Rather than dominating 99% of war, it seems that technical expertise only comprises 25% of one characteristic in the Army's doctrine. [2]

I have never seen Army doctrine exclusively adopt Clausewitz's definition of war, so I am unsure where Pro gets that idea from. However, Army doctrine does define how it will fight future wars. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1 says the Army needs "a recognition of the limits of technology and an emphasis on the human, cultural, and political continuities of armed conflict . . . the effect of technologies on land are often not as great as in other domains due to geography, the interaction with adaptive enemies, the presence of non combatants, and other complexities associated with war's continuities." [3]

Contrary to what PRO says, it seems that Army doctrine overwhelmingly supports the idea that war involves much more than technology alone.

4. When discussing military specialty codes, Pro says that soldiers devote "the majority of their training" to understanding weapon systems. But.... Pro simultaneously says that training is only counts for 1% of victory. I submit, once again, that tech is virtually useless without training, discipline, and leadership. I have worked quite a bit with soldiers who have the "11B" specialty code (Infantry), and I can personally attest to the fact that they spend a great deal of time on things other than weapon systems. These include: physical fitness, field craft, language training, tactics, team building, etc...

5. IEDs: Pro believes that just because an IED is simple proves that tech is more important than other factors. However, Pro has still not explained how an IED can be effective without a strategy, logistics system, or training. I would like to ask Pro in accordance with their 99% - 1% ratio: If your supply routes, strategy, and training were only 1% effective, would you be able to even get a 99% effective IED onto the battlefield? Not likely..... If I was a commander I would love to fight an enemy with a 1% effective logistics system!

6. Monongahela River - Of course the French had weapons (so did the British), but Pro asked me to name a victory without USING weapons. The French did not use their weapons, so this meets the criteria of Pro's challenge. The deeper question is, what would compel a force to surrender without using any weapons (leadership, morale, strategy, logistics....?)

7. Human factors can defeat technology: Yes, I do dispute that wool blankets and burkhas are "technology," because they are not specifically designed as weapons tech. They only serve a military function because of the tactics and techniques with which they are employed. But, according to Pro, tactics don't matter. Pro misses the deeper point here - if war is "all about" technology, then it follows that the side with the best tech should win. A primitive force should never be able to defeat a sophisticated force, yet we see this happen in history time and time again. Other factors must be involved if forces with vastly inferior tech achieve victory.

8. Nuke vs. 30,000 delta force with pitchforks - I'll take the guys with pitchforks every time in this scenario. First, my opponent has assumed that he has a single nuke with no training, terrible logistics, poor leadership, and a stupid strategy. If he has no training, how can he operate the system? If the logistics are terrible, will it even fly? The very nature of having a "stupid strategy" means his effectiveness will be minimal. All this aside, I can still win in two ways: First, I can disperse my forces in groups of 1,000 all across the country. He may fire the nuke, and it may actually hit its target.... but it will only destroy 1,000 men. I have 29,000 left and my opponent is now defenseless. Next, I can co-locate my forces. I surround Pro's missile silo within the blast radius and wait. To destroy my force Pro must also destroy himself.

But the central point Pro is trying to make here is that a superior technology should defeat a superior but primitively equipped force. So to this we must ask - why then did the U.S. not nuke Al Qadea strongholds in Iraq? Why do nuclear powers fight ground wars at all? Why not just push a button and nuke the enemy? It's because, contrary to Pro's suggestion, such technology does not guarantee victory. Quite the contrary - it would probably make victory even more difficult. This is because there are humanitarian, strategic, and political factors to consider which render nuclear weapons impractical.

As a final note, Pro did not offer rebuttals to the defense of my historical examples, so we must assume they stand as valid.

Also, Pro continues to offer random quotes as arguments. These are Appeal to Authority fallacies, and I ask they be ignored. I could offer a bunch of quotes from smart dead people too, but they would not count as valid arguments.

Looking forward to the final round.

[1] http://armypubs.army.mil...

[2] http://armypubs.army.mil...

[3] http://www.tradoc.army.mil...
Debate Round No. 3
Jingle_Bombs

Pro

Jingle_Bombs forfeited this round.
sengejuri

Con

I ask that my opponent not be penalized for forfeiting - Pro listed their final argument in the comments which I accept as valid. We all get busy sometimes :)

Since this final round took an unorthodox turn, I will simply conclude and let this go to votes,

== Conclusion ==

Pro and I both agree that technology is important and that warriors have always used it to fight. Our fundamental disagreement is over technology's relative importance. Pro believes that technology has been the dominant factor on the battlefield since day one. I believe other factors such as strategy, leadership, logistics, training, will, and discipline can be equally if not more important at times. My arguments are summarized below:

Without strategy, technology does nothing. The very essence of strategy is effectively employing men and weapons toward a common objective. Indeed, using powerful tech with a bad strategy often causes more harm than good.

Leadership is the driving force behind strategy, motivation, and will. The Duke of Wellington summed this power up when he said the sight of Napoleon's hat on the battlefield was worth 40,000 men. Soldiers will starve, freeze, and even die for the sake of a good leader. Conversely, they will quickly quit in the presence of a bad one. Without the will to fight, wars cannot be won.

Logistics - without food, the army starves. Without ammo, the guns fall silent. Without fuel, the battleships rust in the harbor. No technology can operate for long without logistics.

Training, will, and discipline - All the technology in the world cannot save an army with poor training, no will to fight, and bad discipline. This is clearly seen with the modern Iraqi and Afghan armies. They have plenty of American made technology - helicopters, armored vehicles, weapons, computers, radios.... yet their training is insufficient, they have no discipline, and most would rather desert or take bribes than fight a hardened enemy. The results are plainly seen every day in the news.

**Personal note - I'd like to thank my opponent for a great debate, I really enjoyed it. You seem very interested and knowledgeable in military theory/history, which I appreciate. Please feel free to challenge me to a military related debate or discussion any time - I really enjoy the topic!
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Intriguing debate. I hope to vote on this tomorrow,IMF I forget please PM me.
Posted by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
On the British surrender at Monongahela River and weapons not being used:

And the elementary answer to this of course, is weapons tech. Under the threat of actual force and use of violence against them, the British were compelled into surrendering; much in the same way as a suspect will surrender to a police officer once threatened with a gun. The threat of force however, does not exist unless the opposing side is wielding weapons. For CON to argue that weapons were not used at Monongahela River or other historical instances where victories were won without "firing a shot," is woefully inaccurate. But to further my point, it would have been extremely comical had the French army surrounded the fort and demanded a surrender without being armed.
Posted by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
"Pro has still not explained how an IED can be effective without a strategy, logistics system, or training. "

IED"s are so easy to make, so cheap to produce, and so simple to use that they don"t require any of the above. Al Qaeda regularly posts IED recipes on the internet where the vast majority of the commodities to build one can be bought at your local marketplace. It doesn"t take a superb logistics system to walk to a store, and it certainly doesn"t require military training to read something from the internet or craft something that can easily be built from your garage.
Posted by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
"Nuke vs. 30,000 delta force with pitchforks."

The purpose of the above example was to demonstrate that superior firepower "even when employed by amateurs- will regularly trump the most battle-hardened troops in the world if they lack comparable technology. Though CON argues for the possibility of human error, what is not in dispute in the above scenario is the clear triumph of technology over leadership, strategy, tactics, morale, and logistics; CON"s veteran army, rather than through their own sheer tactical brilliance, must rely on the amateur missile operator defeating himself. CON with 30,000 troops armed only with pitchforks, has nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, and nowhere to run in the event of a successful nuclear attack. And I find it comical that CON could easily disperse his forces 1,000s of miles apart in time. Without any other tech, CON simply does not have the automotive capability to make his superior logistical system work, whereas PRO is actually benefitted by more than one nuke warhead due to Multiple Reentry Vehicles.
Posted by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
"As a final note, Pro did not offer rebuttals to the defense of my historical examples, so we must assume they stand as valid."

Make no mistake, CON"s historical examples are still held in a point of contention by PRO. After pointing out where technology played a decisive part in each of his examples in Round #2, I simply did not find it necessary to make this a lengthy discussion about history and battles, seeing as how this debate is primarily centered on the nature of war. I"ll leave it up to debate judges if my historical counters from that round still stand CON"s scrutiny.
Posted by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
"Contrary to what PRO says, it seems that Army doctrine overwhelmingly supports the idea that war involves much more than technology alone."

Some of Army doctrine may, but the nature of war does not. No historian can name one army that ever fought and won a battle without using weapons tech. Weapons have been with the warrior since day one. Weapons and technology "more than any other one factor- have changed the face of war in the most dramatic ways. History proves that weapons and technology are decisive, and there are countless examples that prove this, from Cortez meeting the Aztec, to the Blitzkrieg in 1939, and to Shock and Awe campaign by Coalition forces in 2003. Tactics and Strategy fail in comparison when paired up against superior firepower. And for that reason and more, we can agree that War is all about technology.
Posted by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
I unfortunately was swamped with work this week and was unable to finish my arguments for the final round. I did manage a few rebuttals though and will be posting those in the comments above. I would like to thank CON for a splendid debate and I thank him for his contributions to the Armed Forces.(which he noted in round #3).
Posted by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
I actaully meant to say: All "training aspects" to military affairs are not nothing without the existence of weapons tech. Apologizes to CON for the typos in that paragraph.
Posted by Samson11 2 years ago
Samson11
World war 2 Russian vs Nazi. Russian valor beat German tech.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Jingle_Bombssengejuri
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con has rebutted Pro's points.