Foliage penetrating radar is a thing.Trying to steer away from the thread drift.
This isn't true and you should know it. Almost every successful land military strategy in history has revolved around knocking out or constraining either command or logistics as quickly as possible, and that means fighting or occupying where those things are.
You are treating these as if they are absolutes. None of them require that we do those and only those. I wasn't arguing for 1st UK Mountain Division. I was saying our inability to think outside the armoured/mechanised box means we don't see smaller, quicker wins in other areas.
Here's a related question: are you in favour of a UK arctic capability, and if so, why?
Your second point is not the only option, and the others are strawmen. We have just spent decades being shown that weighing ourselves down is not the optimal solution, either on our side or the other.
This same logic means fat soldiers are better than thin soldiers. There is good mass, and bad mass. I'd also point out that more land operational victories have been won in recent times by forces lacking mass than those with it. So why is mass (or stuff, your choice) the key criteria? Arguably picking a sympathetic population to operate among (or if not NATO, find an effective means to cow them), be it as an insurgent or valient defender, has been the most important criteria in war for a century, because it reduces the need to constantly hold ground that saps your manpower and resources. Conversely, achieving that criteria reduces the value of mass. Again, you seem to be thinking in mid-20th century terms when there is ever decreasing evidence those beliefs were correct.
Finally, and this also relates to the OP: you and several others are massively overstating the degree to which airborne ISTAR can be a substitute or panacea for other capabilities. This isn't a matter of technology, it's a matter of the fundamental physics. Optics and platforms will improve, but waveform physics and signal propagation will remain the same. Until we invent Superman's x-ray vision or ground penetrating radio, there are going to remain hard limitations on what ISTAR can achieve. That has implications both for weight carried on the man and infantry roles, because Panglossian assumptions that airborne SIGINT and IMINT will collectively solve all our information needs is going to leave us with some huge black holes, that any competent enemy will exploit. Not least: even thermal can't see through trees, rock or solid matter, and the fact your radio doesn't work half the time also means we cannot track the enemy half the time.
Planning for technology to change is reasonable. Planning for physics to change is not.