This will save lives on both sides but give the winning edge to our boys. A GPS mortar that\'s accurate to 10m and can take down an enemy unit in two shots will discourage many attacks. However if both sides have it casualty numbers could soar particularly if commanders don\'t update their tactics quickly.

@Wesley Bruce: You know what\'s still better at saving lives? Avoiding war in the first place. Then you can move on to building an education system that doesn\'t require your \"boys\" to risk their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan to be able to afford going to college.
Although I agree: building heavy ordnance might be less brainpower-consuming, and more fun when it goes \"ka-boom!\"

Wish we could avoid war but just because you don\'t want one doesn\'t mean there isn\'t somebody out there that\'s not going to try and subdue you just because they don\'t like you for not being one of them! Hitler comes comes to mind. This looks like a good idea. :-)

Not that i dont think youre both right or wrong, if you wish to win just over power the opponent, why launch 1 or 2 accurate mortars, launch a cruise missile instead with a 100meter radius of destruction.

Youll soon find out how long they like hiding when theres nowhere left to hide.

Either you fight to win, or dont bother fighting. There is no such thing as a kind war. The WAR is won or lost. One principle survives and the other dies.

Faffing around with small fights is pointless, war = wipe the lot of them out or dont bother and use diplomacy.

It\'s not surprising to get better accuracy with weapons. Killing each other over rocky useless ground seems to be the hallmark of humans.

@GavriloBozovic - Gavrilo we all said the same thing in our teens. But life teaches you to stand up against bad people or else they win. Fortunately NATO stood up against the Serbs and that was a good thing for everybody...no?

Dear folks,
As a history teacher I feel compelled to point out that... The bloody trenches of the western front were not of World War II, as the article points out but from World War I. Hitler\'s Blitzkrieg was designed to avert trench warfare. On a more positive note putting rounds on the target is better than just being \"close\" to the target.

@Todd Dunning: it\'s been a long time since I was last mistaken for a teenager, thanks for that!
War is a staple of mankind, and I don\'t think it will be completely suppressed anytime soon. Don\'t misunderstand me: I\'m not a misinformed utopian, more of a realist.
My point merely is that: people get excited about new weapons technologies, as they go fast and make loud bangs. However, other, less exciting measures, make the usage of warfare unnecessary. Take the example of Somalia, for instance: you hear weekly how NATO is going to put more warships in the area, be firmer with the pirats, etc, etc.
But seriously, people in Somalia spent the last 20 years in civil war, don\'t have a stable government and no way to make a decent living. What do you expect them to do, when given the opportunity to make some extra cash?
In the end, it all comes back to the first book of the Utopia, by Thomas More, when he describes the situation of 17th century England: when people have no choice, they will do what they have to do to survive, and repression is not going to solve the problem. People dont attack each other with AK-47 in Switzerland (that\'s where I live) not because they have some superior morality, but because there are better ways to make a living here.
What baffles me is that everyone agrees that the WTC would still be standing if the US didn\'t mess things up THAT MUCH in Afghanistan in the first place, but the people insist on messing stuff up elsewhere, claiming that \"this time it\'s not the same\".

@ Gavrilo Bozovic. Your myopic idea that avoiding war altogether is a better option. Is a sad delusion, as it totally denies the truth of the world we live in.
Peace through superior firepower.

To G Bozovic: Helvetia is fortunate in that its neutrality is supported by other countries, which allows it, rather than shoot off AK-47s, to sit back and make money from their conflicts without helping to stop the domination of other cultures, [in particular women] by the evil religious maniacs in the Taliban. Ian Colley.