I'm it's a very faulty anology, just because your weapon are much more powerful, doesn't mean that others are less powerful en masse. It's only if you can counter other's weapons of mass destruction that it becomes a clear advantage.
Your anology would describe a knife v an automatic rifle, that doesn't mean that soldiers doesn't have a knife for combat and survival, it's just a matter of outsmarting a man with a rifle, when all you have is a knife.
Allow me to repharse my caffein chock babble post.
I belive it's a very faulty anology, just because your weapon are much more powerful, doesn't mean other countrie's weapon are less powerful en masse. Only if you can nullify other's weapons of mass descrution, that you have a clear advantage.
A well trained soldier can still take out another soldier with a better weapon with a knife vs a machinegun, it's all about outthinking your enemy, with timing, tactics and strategy.
Too many leaders have thought themselves invinsible and being utterly defeated, because they thought their army would crush the enemy in a swift blow ..just look at recent Iraq/Afghan war, the mighty USA sufferd a humiliating defeat, Greco wars, Sun Tzu, Alexander, Hannibal ..etc, all have fought hopelessly outnumberd against a powerful enemy.