On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Blask wrote:

> o The best gadget in the world is no good if the maker doesn't survive
> to support it.

Sure it is. The vendor isn't the only choice for support, and if it's
good enough to be the best, it shouldn't *need* regular support.

>o Another analog to twist would be: a bunch of talented
> and enthusiastic guerillas may be good at the start of a conflict, but
> when it gets really serious you'll be unhappy if you are not the one
> with the integrated weapons platform...

1. You're comparing apples and oranges, soldiers against weapons.
2. With the right guerilla force, the shiny new expensive platform is
already useless by the time you deploy it *if it even makes sense for the
conflict you're in rather than the last conflict that happened when the
weapons platform makers all got their contracts.

History is full of tales of the vanquished who've felt their superior
large-scale do-everything weapons could win. That's one of the reasons
the US strategy to go to small light and mobile divisions is interesting-
it's a step away from the tradional "bigger, more" philosophy of
multi-billion dollar pork projects and Congress forcing the purchase of
ineffective integrated weapons platforms.

Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
paul@compuwar.net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
http://fora.compuwar.net Infosec discussion boards

firewall-wizards mailing list