Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
Disagree. Resilience is an excellent topic in a variety of theaters. The opposite though of resilience is not fragile it is brittle. Something can be incredibly strong (like an oak tree), but if it is brittle it will shatter under force.
Agree.
Resilience as a concept is a precursor to much of the discussion on sustainability and military concepts such as force protection.
True but I disagree with the concept (not that anyone cares...) because it leads to esoteric discussions instead of concentration on issues.
A resilient society can withstand privation and sacrifice much more than a "just in time" inventory society with levels and depths of brittle systems built upon each others.
Granted on the effect -- how either Society responds though is the indicator of their real 'resilience.' Also note that 'not just in time' society may surprise you with their resilience in spite of the massive change in their norms.
Similarly the use of of contractors in the battlespace and substantial reliance on high cost weapons systems may appear to be effective but increase the brittle nature of conduct of war.
The 'resilience' is shown by how that force functions without contractors should they be abruptly removed. My suspicion is they would do far better than the Contractors would like to believe
Overcoming or adapting may be sexy to scream as mantras but if the systems were resilient in the first place would be unnecessary.
You may use resiliency; I'd prefer reliable and redundant; not the same things
In the end resilience admonition to societies from a variety of angles and to people directly that survival is about more than having a McDonalds available in time of disaster.
One would hope so. Don't think I've been to a McDonalds in over 10 years.

I get the point, Sam -- and do not disagree with the broad context. I do, however, believe that 'resilience' is built in to military structures and to people in general. That and I shudder every time a new term du jour pops up...