There has sure been lot of decent technology born from military tech, perhaps it’s too bad that we haven’t achieved such incredible technological breakthroughs without the actual war component. Okay so, let’s discuss this for a moment and come to terms with this from historical and philosophical perspective shall we? izinkilat
If one takes the time to read Giulo Douhet’s book “The Command of the Air” – which is still available through the University of Alabama Press published in 2009, onespace ISBN: 978-0-8173-5608-8 – a re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 work – then they will immediate see from his diary of thoughts from his work on the battlefield that the military technology of human conflict is alive and well, not only in his day – but also in our more modern era. Indeed, there is still more to come. legalitas
On the bottom of page 26 the author speaks to the future of war technology as a “constant evolution” on a graph, and almost seems to speak of an inflection-point concept where the virtualofficescbd cosign wave or military technology drops completely and starts again with a new paradigm due to the ability of aircraft to move regardless of terrain in a 3D space. Remember aircraft had just come to the battlefield in his day and changed the face of war forever.
Okay so I’d like to ask this question of the military planners, strategic thinkers, and visionaries of war technology today:
A.) Does that graph include a de-escalation of war, such as with the cold-war, alliedhealthexchange or a time in the future when there is no war?
B.) It should, shouldn’t it?
That is to say will there be a future time when human wars cease to exist. I believe so, I truly do. Why you ask? Well, simply because logically and fundamentally they just don’t make sense. Why subject your civilization to future wars, causing destruction, postlistd and strife of a population only to have that group of folks rise up in the next generation to provide their concept of a suitable reciprocal response? See that point.
Just as the war game scenarios of MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction determined that a nuclear exchange was unthinkable and there would be no winner, one could ask; is there ever a winner in wartime? Really, a clear victory, no, not really, and victory doesn’t seem to last forever. Thus, what this tells me is that often the best option is to not play. For more info please visit:-https://remedian.co.uk https://totodtc.com/ https://web-translation.at/ https://theseekblog.com/
So, is not playing; the future objective of human wars? It should always be the objective is my belief. So, what will happen to the evolution of human conflict, will it evolve itself out of the game, will we rise to that occasion? Please consider all this and think on it.