Quote Originally Posted by jcustis
The above quotes were pulled from other posts in this thread. From the perspective of military theory (despite the historical precedent), has the IED become a revolution in military affairs? Following the argument that RMAs can be the revolutionary technology itself (e.g. rifled musket, tank, etc.) I'm inclined to think we have a new RMA for a number of reasons:

/.../

Is the IED just one component of a larger RMA in the works?
I wouldn't go as far as that. IED itself isn't that new concept. During WW2 Japanese used burried arty shells to destroy US tanks. Soviets put explosives on dogs and trained them to run under enemy tanks. In Vietnam Vietnamese used unexploded munitions to make mines. And IED is just a more complex mine.

Jedburgs mentioned Hezbollah. I think that if you would study Hezbollah's evolution of IED use and compare it with Iraq you'd see same trends, from simple to complex, starting at similar position and taking similar stps. Only that Hezbollah's IEDs don't evolve as much (at least not under battlefield conditions) while in Iraq they do because there are constantantly developing counter-measures.

Are IED new RMA or part of it? IMO no. I see thm as next step in evolution of perticular weapons system. Same way as longbow (the one with arrows, not Hellfire missiles ) wasn't RMA but simply next step in evolution of a bow.