Modern Warfare

[AppleDumplingHead]

Nah, it was fifth largest, so I wasn't too far off:



Source: http://undertheradar.military.com/2015/09/21-facts-about-the-first-gulf-war/

Depending on the source, it was rated 4th in some instances, 3rd in others. Because of mass conscription of all men between 14 and 50, the population of the Iraq Army, at the time, outnumbered even the USA military, but then, how much those untrained, scared kids and old men were worth against a technologically superior multi national force made all the numbers pointless.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

By these standards, WW2 is not over yet, because Russia is still at war with Japan since 1945.

Didn't USSR and Japan sign an agreement in 1956? I know there's no formal peace treaty, but I thought there was something signed more than just an armistice.

 

[Bugfatty300]

However, for the few who really profit from wars, and thus have the biggest say, these war robots are going to have to pay off somehow and that will be really hard to do. I just read that the US expended, on average, 250,000 rounds per kill over the last fifteen years. In the Viet Nam era the military spent on ammunition more than half of what NASA spent to put a man on the moon. These kill bots are going to have to be really expensive and really expendable to attract the people who matter.

Just to put the 250,000 rounds per kill statistic into context; its mostly a result of modern hard-learned tactics. The vast majority of rounds fired in combat are indirect, covering fire, suppression, etc. Only a tiny fraction of shots are actually fired directly at human targets. Arguably the latter former is far more important to winning infantry fights.

 

[Commodore]

Just to put the 250,000 rounds per kill statistic into context; its mostly a result of modern hard-learned tactics. The vast majority of rounds fired in combat are indirect, covering fire, suppression, etc. Only a tiny fraction of shots are actually fired directly at human targets. Arguably the latter is far more important to winning infantry fights.

Not necessarily. The goal is to take and hold territory, so if you can do that by scaring the enemy off, that works just as well as killing them.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Not necessarily. The goal is to take and hold territory, so if you can do that by scaring the enemy off, that works just as well as killing them.

Misprint