Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander
Well, it's different in that it can produce smarter, more adaptable and better motivated soldiers. And officers.
|
Which would presumably improve battlefield performance. But as every nation expects us to try to do so it is not clear what has changed.
The main difference is that there can be no arms control treaties when destroying weapons means executing people. On the other hand, in principle that just takes us back to Westphalian(and many other similar peace conferences) days when the main problem in ending a war was downsizing.
How effective would supersoldiers actually be? They would not be expendable therefore could not be committed to battle, and they can only be in one place at a time. They can conduct dramatic strikes, but can they take and hold ground any better then any other kind of soldier? Their brains, adaptablity, etc is limited when so much of war is random.