quietfanatic
Ancient One
Nukes and the like are not feasible because everyone ends up dying. The most commonly used and important weapon of modern warfare is still the (not so humble) assault rifle. This is because most regional conflicts are fought in third world trouble spots with a low socioeconomic status.
In the case of larger wars fought by well supplied nations, the side with the best technology and information is victorious. This includes having good battlefield communications coupled with technology, such as motorised units that can quickly respond to incoming threats, good general intelligence, such as where the major industrial base is vulnerable and the right equipment and weaponry to help the soldier in combat.
Air support is just one example of a vital advantage. You must have a greater industrial output to produce more and better planes to stay superior. The enemy builds SAMs, you develop electronic countermeasures. They develop counter-countermeasures and you develop a new plane with counter-counter-countermeasures and the cycle continues (wasting money and resources but hey). You must be able to strike the right targets rapidly and survive the enemy's own attacks.
If hypothetically, better personal armour could be developed cheaply it would be of great use to the armed forces to maintain life. If we actually could make anything even close to power armour, it would not be decisive in changing anything because the enemy would be developing the same technology or something totally different that would still help win a war for them. It would be useful for hunting the 'terrorists' in the third world, but would likely be a huge waste of resources.
In the case of larger wars fought by well supplied nations, the side with the best technology and information is victorious. This includes having good battlefield communications coupled with technology, such as motorised units that can quickly respond to incoming threats, good general intelligence, such as where the major industrial base is vulnerable and the right equipment and weaponry to help the soldier in combat.
Air support is just one example of a vital advantage. You must have a greater industrial output to produce more and better planes to stay superior. The enemy builds SAMs, you develop electronic countermeasures. They develop counter-countermeasures and you develop a new plane with counter-counter-countermeasures and the cycle continues (wasting money and resources but hey). You must be able to strike the right targets rapidly and survive the enemy's own attacks.
If hypothetically, better personal armour could be developed cheaply it would be of great use to the armed forces to maintain life. If we actually could make anything even close to power armour, it would not be decisive in changing anything because the enemy would be developing the same technology or something totally different that would still help win a war for them. It would be useful for hunting the 'terrorists' in the third world, but would likely be a huge waste of resources.