[FoRK] Reducing defense spending

Reese howell.r at inkworkswell.com
Fri Jun 25 09:30:41 PDT 2010

On 25-Jun-10 12:03, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> Assuming that "boots on the ground" is required is based on a set of
> assumptions that are not unbreachable. We are seeing a similar
> transformation in armor; the US is field testing weapons that cross
> the magic energy threshold where it is no longer feasible to have
> passive armor. The longstanding truism of the "armor v weapon" arms
> race no longer holds. The weapon side won, and now there is an
> equilibrium shift toward active intercept of weapons.  So it is with
> boots on the ground, it just requires sufficiently advanced technology
> that will exist sooner rather than later.

I am in perfect agreement with this, but I must point out that I can
see shades of your earlier argument in it. Except here, "boots on the
ground" is already a diminishing part of the expense because it is in

The new expensive part is "active intercept for..." the toy, even if
it is a toy launched by the opposing force.

I think we may need to define terms offlist, after which, there is
every chance that disagreements will be diminished.


More information about the FoRK mailing list