But you did. So U the troll.

I was speaking in general terms. Then again if say some nation nuked a city in the west the public would suddenly become accepting of losses in a war that eliminated those responsible.


Two words: Davey Crockett.

But seriously as MacArthur said: "You don't attack where the enemy is, you attack where he ain't."

Using the correct combination of technology you can maneuver you units away from the enemy's strongest forces while drawing him in to the sights of your most powerful weapons. The trick is to use the correct combination of high technology to totally negate the enemy's advantages.

Well that is a case of being on the wrong side of the weapon-countermeasure game. That dwarf with a Panzerfaust would be next to useless against an Apache gunship, or a F-16, or a Scout-Sniper with a M82. One advantage of going the high technology is being able to invest in combined arms.

Although when you mention the a "well trained well equipped Dwarf" you do point out a middle ground between the High Tech and Human Wave camps- the Elite Unit camp. That is a corps of well trained troops with just the standard equipment. I guess this is the German way of thought on war for the most part. Its like WWII:

You got the Germans with the highly trained troops with mostly standard level weapons.

You got the Soviets with an unlimited supply of poorly trained troops with sub-par weapons.

Finally you got the Americans with average troops all equipped with the best weapons.

Utilized competently by all sides everything tends to even out.

The army dosn't have to accept anyone who volunteers. Do you thing the All Volunteer USMC accepts anyone who wants to join? No way!

You forget the power of those saying "But violence cannot be the answer!" They are VERY influential over here.

Like in Afghanistan...?

that is the text-book ideal, a variation of stone-scissor-paper. Something tells me that in the real world it just is not that simple. And with limited forces, the loss of one unit can easily threaten the whole network you just have created to carefully.

I know that the criterions have been lowered in order to compensate for the lacking interest in the military when combat operations turned to become more and more danegrous in the past 8 years. Recruiters have bigger problems today to find interest youngster, than they had after let's say 91. The ned for specialist peronaslle like poilots is even more pressing, since due to poor payment and better chances in the private sector many pilots have quit in the past 6 years or so, having brought the pilot pool of the air force to dangerous low levels. at least at times. Last time I read on this is one year ago, maybe even longer.

In Germany, the General in the interview has pointed out that due to the demograohic chnage it is becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy the military's need for new recruits. The abolishing of the draft for the most is a reaction to financial needs, but to some degree also to the aging and shrinking of the German population.

I heard that the Australian Navy can't even crew a single submarine with volunteers.
I don't think it would be that desperate here but still. We've even now, with the draft, a problem of getting enough high quality Officers and NCOs. Without the draft this number will even be more reduced so that the armed forces will be desperately looking for personnel. That usually doesn't increase the quality of the people. A dangerous Job with a rather low income is usually not very attractive for people with enough education to get other jobs..