|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcphage
777 days ago
|
|
|
> Back when we used pen and paper to create military vehicles it was mostly JUST about performance and completing the objective. There wasn't thousands upon thousands of other requirements and features (whether or not this is a good thing is debatable). It makes me wonder if this piling-on of requirements is also enabled or encouraged by computers. I agree that things are becoming more complex, but I’m thinking computers might be partially to blame for that as well. |
|
|
You can build a radar with pen and paper but you can't build an effective stealth bomber with the same. You can't build guided weapons without computers. You can't effectively build hyper-accurate guidance and navigation without computers.
Without computers you're at late-40s early 50s weapon systems. If everyone is stuck at that level you've got some amount of balance in capabilities. The first side/power to apply computers to increase capabilities has a significant advantage over all competitors.
Even if the availability of computers makes things more complex the increased capability is often worth the complexity in aggregate.
The first Gulf Ware is a good object lesson. Iraq had a large and capable military that was several technological generations behind their opponents. The Coalition forces could operate at night with impunity, had unbroken communications behind enemy lines, and could operate in enemy airspace largely uncontested. If the Coalition forces had the same level of technology and dispersion of high technology through the ranks, the Gulf War could have easily been fought to a stalemate or worse.