Learned of this book via a podcast -- Amos Fox and Revolution in Military Affairs perhaps? Or was it #OperationalArch? Whoever it was, it proved to be a valuable recommendation. Particularly insightful on the challenges of planning in a coalition, with limited resources and divergence on agreeing on what is truly essential. My TOP take-aways: (1) thinking through nuclear battlefields is sobering but necessary, (2) defense funding is not the only factor in assessing "costs", and (3) the Pentomic Division (1956-9) was a dead letter given contemporary conditions, but perhaps offers a start point on how we think about dispersion and mass on today's battlefield. U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) | The Army University | U.S. Army Combined Arms Center | US Army TRADOC
Thanks! Using RMA a lot lately! Will check it out!
Executive Leader, TV Host, National Security Professional, Strategists, Team Builder & Results Achiever
9moGreat era our history to study to inform some of our current debates both internal to DOD and beyond that spectrum into US then global politics. A demonstration that radical DOTMLPF changes, this case with the Pentomic Division, can be a good or terrible move. There’s one thing to be bold but another to increasing risk by not quite thinking through the problem fully.