The way modern warfare is conducted

There have been no sea battles worth noting since WW2 so I don't know what you are basing you opinion that carrier battle groups are effective on.

Nuclear weapons are a dud. They are feared so much that no-one will ever shoot one, even if the Taliban got one, I doubt they'd actually fire one. Similarly, the 'information technology' dimension is a dud. That is people thinking the world is like a computer game.
The M1 may be able to manuever into a better position than the T-90, but why bother? If you know where the T-90 is shoot missiles at it.
The M1 crew may be too scared to move out of cover because it knows there are enemy artillery spotters and hidden infantry scattered all over the terrain.
The enemy may have learned the frequencies that the M1 communicates on, and be flooding those channels with RFI.

War is the same as it always has been: flexibilty, intelligence and morale.

Recent wars have shown that well equiped, organised and determined infantry is the best defence, and a strong missile battery is the best offense. The difference between the rich and industrialised, and poor but determined has been reduced by advances in infantry arms.

The Cold War doctrine was centered in the north European plain and consisted of the "air-land battle" backed up by a strategic nuclear deterrant.  Naval forces were to counter Soviet submarine capability and to resupply the air-land forces as that battle proceded.

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 11-Feb-2008 at 00:36