The origins of the Revolution in Military Affaires (RMA) concept we use today has its roots in the Soviet military thinking of the 1960s. By the early 1980s the Soviet General Staff developed the concept of what many call the information revolution in military affairs today. They saw advanced data processing and communications technology applied to hi-tech conventional firepower potentially increasing the US and NATO conventional capabilities. The Soviets coined it the Military-Technical Revolution (MTR). Inspired by the Soviet thinking, the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) at the Pentagon at the time undertook an assessment that would explore whether a major shift in the character of military competitions was under way. They also started to use the term RMA instead of MTR to avoid a cognitive bias toward the role of technology in these kinds of shifts. In order to move RMA towards a common understanding it is important to try and keep the established meaning of the terms revolution and military affairs closely linked to the definition of RMA. If there is no link it is more expedient to change the term (as was done when ONA moved from using MTR to RMA.) A good way of defining RMA is as follows: RMA is a sudden change in the power relations between two or more political actors as a consequence of changes in variables other than economic or geopolitical prerequisites. The change has to be large enough to win significant political concessions through conflict, or through general acknowledgement of increased power. When applied to the historical example of utilization of mass mobilization in France in the late 1700s there is a traceable sudden change in power relations caused by the application of conscription that manifested itself in significant political concessions through conflict. Napoleon at the time did not grasp when the window of opportunity closed and failed to cement most of his political concessions, however. What complicates the discussion around the phenomenon RMA is that it is abstract and not readily available. What can be said of the nature of the phenomenon is that it will most likely occure over and over again in the future, but there is nothing inherit in the nature of it that ensures that it does.