[DemoCoder]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/we...l?pagewanted=2

[SMarth]

It's important for the US to maintain the technological superiority, but's it's also extremely costly, mainly because competition in this field is low and there is too much politics in the decisions making. Though the size of the army is also of some importance. But what annoys me is when countries (sometime even the US) sell high tech weapons to instable countries. Maybe the treat of terrorisms will help to reduce the problem, but humans are so stupid and they'll do anything to make a buck, so I won't bet on this. Irresponsibility just like stupidity are the most dangerous diseases of this planet. Hopefully it will kill us before it can spread in the universe 8)

Go machine, die human

[Gubbi]

Actually, technology saves alot of cash.

Reducing the number of people needed to deliver a certain military effect is just plain good business sense.

Having a North Korea type military is _very_ labour intensive and hence expensive (A secondary motive why said country wants to evolve their nuclear capabilities; -nukes are cheap and pack alot of *oomph* )

There's also the added bonus of military research spilling over into private industry (Silicon Valley is a prime example of this).

Added bonus #2: Delivering death by mechanical proxy reduces casualties (on you own side).

Cheers
Gubbi

[SvP]

American forces can sail anywhere without interference

Really?

[nutball]

Originally Posted by Gubbi

Having a North Korea type military is _very_ labour intensive and hence expensive (A secondary motive why said country wants to evolve their nuclear capabilities; -nukes are cheap and pack alot of *oomph* )

Huh? How much to you think the average North Korean soldier gets paid?

Nukes aren't "cheap" at all, especially if you live in a country where the general populous worry about nuclear saftey. Their impact to cost ratio is somewhat better than a couple of million infantrymen with rifles and bayonets, I'll grant you that.