Re:They're wrong (Score 2, Interesting)

Unwittingly, though, you've highlighted perhaps the fatal flaw in Katz's argument (beyond the fact that it's ten years too soon): no numbers of drones will ever change one fundamental premise of warfare, namely that aircraft can never capture or hold territory. Until drones can walk, attack and defend, infantry and armor will still be the mainstays of armed forces.

No, but drones can uterly obliterate territory such that it is no longer worth holding on to -- and that is what US airpower has been doing in Afghanistan.

During the European expasionist phase of several hundred years ago owning as much territory as possible was necessary as so much of the economy was based on ownership of natural resources. The global economy has reduced that requirement considerably, the US does not need to accumulate large amounts of new territory to survive -- and their military capabilities should reflect that.

In most any modern conflict all that is needed is a small piece of territory to use as a refueling or resupplying site & a place to launch drones from.

dan.