« VietNam or Korea, which was better in the long run? | Main | Broadband Speeds of 50 Mbps for $40/month by 2010 »



The willingness of a nation's people to sustain war deaths is directly related to importance they place on the conflict and the wisdom of the war's leadership. A war of no vital national interests being led by nitwits is simply not worth the investment a whole lot of patriotic blood.

Any technology that saves lives is positive, but I would also like us to choose our conflicts more wisely.


In general, yes, almost everyone would agree.

For example, I don't think it is worth even one US life to intervene in Darfur, Rwanda, or Somalia. I also don't think North Korea is enough of a threat to justify a US invasion. The countries nearer to there have more skin in the game than we do.

However, things are trending in a way that may leave us no choice but a full-scale invasion of Iran. Many analysts say this would cost 4000 US casualties in 2 years, now that our military is much more experienced from our Iraq operations. If innovations such as this one reduce the 4000 to 2000, that makes the equation that much easier.

The comments to this entry are closed.