Bum raps are like, "if only." Six weeks, that's how long it took the Germans to defeat France. My point is offensive maneuver always has a dynamic potential that static defense is denied. A defensive wall of autonomous drones that kill on sight has a different stasis - but it's still a known quantity. Offensive innovation is the locus of surprise.
Perhaps the way to overcome a wall of drones that kill as efficiently as computers play chess is to go through a wall of drones with a massed drone swarm. The response? The remaining defensive drone wall goes kill indiscriminately within the breached enclosure? The possibilities for maneuver are endless. A counteroffensive begins -- all on autopilot.
I don't know much about drone warfare, but I do know about the Maginot Line. When I was in school, and for many years, we were repeatedly told that the Maginot Line "didn't work." But it did work; it did exactly what it was supposed to do. Of course it wasn't a universal panacea; it was supposed to force the Germans to go elsewhere, where presumably the French commanders thought they could be stopped. That they weren't is a different issue. The durability of the fiction about the Maginot Line is quite remarkable and I wonder what purpose it serves -- maybe the sacredness of such holy texts as "The best defense is a good offense." Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
In this discussion the whole offense/defense question may be a red herring of my own making. The Maginot Line worked as intended. I agree. If the Maginot Line was a battle plan it lacked a little something, other than that it did what it was supposed to do.
In the future, drone warfare will be on autopilot. Autonomous machines, programmed to kill. No man has been able to beat a computer at chess for ten years. The sky is the limit- poor countries will be able to build hundreds or thousands of drones a month.
I guess my perspective is it doesn’t matter if parts of the Line were the last to give up; the point is the enemy simply went around it.
Bum raps are like, "if only." Six weeks, that's how long it took the Germans to defeat France. My point is offensive maneuver always has a dynamic potential that static defense is denied. A defensive wall of autonomous drones that kill on sight has a different stasis - but it's still a known quantity. Offensive innovation is the locus of surprise.
Perhaps the way to overcome a wall of drones that kill as efficiently as computers play chess is to go through a wall of drones with a massed drone swarm. The response? The remaining defensive drone wall goes kill indiscriminately within the breached enclosure? The possibilities for maneuver are endless. A counteroffensive begins -- all on autopilot.
I don't know much about drone warfare, but I do know about the Maginot Line. When I was in school, and for many years, we were repeatedly told that the Maginot Line "didn't work." But it did work; it did exactly what it was supposed to do. Of course it wasn't a universal panacea; it was supposed to force the Germans to go elsewhere, where presumably the French commanders thought they could be stopped. That they weren't is a different issue. The durability of the fiction about the Maginot Line is quite remarkable and I wonder what purpose it serves -- maybe the sacredness of such holy texts as "The best defense is a good offense." Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
In this discussion the whole offense/defense question may be a red herring of my own making. The Maginot Line worked as intended. I agree. If the Maginot Line was a battle plan it lacked a little something, other than that it did what it was supposed to do.
In the future, drone warfare will be on autopilot. Autonomous machines, programmed to kill. No man has been able to beat a computer at chess for ten years. The sky is the limit- poor countries will be able to build hundreds or thousands of drones a month.