Diced

Certainly sounds rather frightening. We have become highly vulnerable to cyber attacks I guess. And if information is going to be as decisive as I said in my previous post it would mean instant victory for whoever wins the cyber war. On the other hand, whatever proved decisive at one point has been circumvented at another, that is why technological developments accelerate during times of war.

Perhaps having no information will limit the use of modern warfare and creates a situation where more conventional warfare will be used. This would, however, mean that the Iraq war can be used as a benchmark because it would effectively mean that one side cannot use similar technology. It would make it imperative for either side to win the cyber war and if that does not work, have the reserve to fall back to more conventional warfare.

It's interesting to see that our nation's army has decided to sell all of its tanks because they are considered to be redundant. Thinking about the above scenario it might not be so smart. Also, funding played a role of course.

irishcrusader95

some people debate today that tanks are outdated due to the now very prevalent supply of shoulder fired anti tank rockets which will make short work of machines cost millions to build, whether we'll ever again see the mass armour attacks as we did in WW2 is hard to say although the americans used it in the gulf war (renaming it to shock and awe). by far what i find more interesting in all this is that, just like before WW1, all the latest technological advances are largely untested so we don't know what the effects could be in any major war.