I disagree. Yes, nuclear technology can be used as a hedge against huge armies, but for offensive warfare against (almost) equals the number of troops can make a huge difference. Also, since the use of nuclear weapons on ones own territory to destroy an invading army is unthinkable, a huge invasion force would still pose a threat even to nuclear powers. Huge armies are still intimidating. Why do you think we won't even consider invading North Korea? It's because North Korea, dispite the poor shape of it's populace, has a large army armed with biologically equipped artillary. Overwhelming numbers are no longer as important as they were to Napolean, but the US military needs more troops if it is going to take on an additional campaign (read Iran, Syria or both). As an aside, World War I was a product of new technologies not yet being understood and of defensive weapondry having outstripped offensive weapons. By World War II (and lasting until the present), offensive weapondry overpowered defense. Howard Brazee <howard at brazee.net> wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:54:51 -0800 (PST), S SHafer wrote: > Steve Brust wrote: >> >> Just to be clear, when I said, "technology" I was also including >> discoveries in tactics; Napoleon, to give the classic example, didn't >> have any weapon drastically different from his predecessors, but he >> formed his columns in a new way. I consider that an advance in >> technology. > > Napoleon also had, at least at the beginning of his career, more troops > then any of his adversaries. His "technological" feat decimated a whole > generation of French men... Imagine what GWB could do if he was able to > force every american male age 14-30 into the military (and then quickly > dispell this image from your mind because you'll have nightmares). One "technology" that hadn't been used before was the huge citizen army. It worked well for a century when battles were fought by rows of people with muskets and rifles firing at other rows. In the American Civil War, the South was successful for a while using tactics to force the North to fight on their terms. But then Grant decided that it was better to pay the cost and force the issue. In WWI this got bogged down so that neither side could win on the front. GW couldn't really use this today. Masses of men are now just targets. More often than not, great war machines won by being more mobile than their opponents. The Romans and The Mogols were great at this. But for a while, masses of men worked best - until technology changed. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/