Remote-Controlled Weapons Technology - The New ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’??

I am interested in what this very mixed audience thinks about the United States new updated version of their Gun Boat Diplomacy.

Remote Controlled Weapons Technology

This being the camera guided and other precision guided munitions that have been used in the Gulf War and now in Afghanistan.

Could it end up that the United States sends an entire high tech Airforce, and even ground assault forces against a remote target.

What would the world think if to reduce American casualties they started sending all out remote controlled weapons first to soften up the target so to speak.

It seems to me the natural escalation of this technology is going to end up being entire remote forces deployed against distant targets. If the US can build them better and cheaper and faster then any other country what would the rest of the world do against this new threat.

Surely people have wondered where this remote controlled technology is heading.

What do you think are the ramifications this policy and its continuation will face in world opinion for the US.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey, betavoltaic ...

I thought 'Remote Controlled Weapons Technology' started more than half
a century ago - Like with V-1's & V-2's, then ICBM's.

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

'The wars of tomorrow will be fought by tiny robots on the tops of very high mountains. Your job will be to build and maintain these robots.'

Good ol' simpsons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Safe to say things have escalated a bit since that time

Chagur,
I think it is safe to say things have gone a bit further as far as remote control is concerned don't you think?

I mean the V-2 for instance could be targeted to hit a certain area but it was hardly the level of sophisticated weaponry that is available now days. It was a terror weapon not a tactical one.

The reason for this post was to try to see how the US application of this type of weapons is viewed by the rest of the world.

This is the new Gunboat Diplomacy, A sub pops up and fires a volly of cruise missles at a chemical factory for instance.

The likelihood is that this will be a pattern. It produces fewer American casualties and does more damage for less effort and does it very quickly. Given that it is likely to become more widely applied and become more effective and enter into more combat roles.

What do you think the world would say if the US deployed not only UAV gunships as they have now but used Unmanned Ground Assault Vehicles as well. Then the US is also developing exoskeleton armor with power assistance for ground troops so they can carry more ammo and firepower.

What do you think will be the impact on the US as far as they are perceived by the rest of the world is the question?

 

betavoltaic ...

You are confusing me with your 'language' in that most of what you're
referring to is an improvement in targeting capability in one case (ex. V1/2's,
ICBM's, cruise missles) as opposed to real time control of an unmanned
vehicle (ex. Pioneer, Hunter, Predator, Global Hawk). And even then the
line can be blurred (ex. Global Hawk can be 'remotely flown' or programmed
for a specific target area).

Also, most 'precision guided munitions' require 'spotting' either by forward
ground observers or the vehicle delivering the munitions - unless they are
GPS guided, which goes back to improved targeting capability.

As for an unmanned 'ground assault vehicles', I believe the French already
are working on that and expect to conduct field tests by '04.

And as for 'exoskeleton armor', even without the 'power assist' it is still
a DOD research project ... not in the 'in development' phase.

Finally, as for "It produces fewer American casualties and does more damage
for less effort and does it very quickly." ... isn't that what the WW II use of
atomic bombs was all about?

So what is it that you're asking? As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the
world already views us as a 900 lb. gorilla.

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS As to what will the rest of the world do about it? They'll spend time
and money (if they can afford it) to counter anything we develop. Our
vaulted 'stealth technology' has already been compromised.

 

The Seacat missile was/is real-time remote control. TOW systems have been around for quite a long time (1970).

 

I build a robot army and you build a robot army and both desroy eachother and we are back to human fighting again

 

Except in this world, only the USA and its allies are ilkely to have robot armies in any given military campaign. The robots will fight for one side, humans will fight for the other, and only one side will suffer any battlefield casualties. Half as many dead people as before maybe. Better than no improvement at all.

 

And what will the world do and think? Like any other military advancement race to catch up! or steal the plans or secrets to the technology.

 

Advanced in remote control weapons

I stayed up far too late yesterday downloading the FAS.org website. Even with a broadband connection this took hours.

Reading through this web site you get a pretty good feel for where this is going and the reason it is going this way.

The leadership in the US is aware of the fact that the American public will only stand for just so many casualties. We want our wars to be quick and with few casualties on our side as possible.

The trend will be I think more advanced robot armies with better protection for the forces we do put into a campaign. Robot armies and Airforce with cyborg (machine assisted) soldiers coming in for mop up operations.

Can you imagine a machine the size of a Bradley fighting vehicle but instead of carrying a squad of infantry to the battlefield it was just packed with more firepower and fuel and computers and cameras and sensors.

I think something like that is just around the corner for total hot zone use anyway.

I remember how I felt when we went to Honduras back in 84' for Operation Big Pine. When we were on the C-140's headed for Honduras they passed out the new storm trooper helmets as we called them and the new Kevlar flack jackets. This is the first time we had ever seen these things. They were not in general issue yet. They just wanted us to look like some kind of high tech invasion force.

Then they passed out live ammo and we thought for sure this was going to be a hot drop. We got off the planes in Honduras and were trucked to the motor pool near the forward area. They had prepositioned our armor and we got everything ready and then went to the forward area to move into our positions.

The engineers had already been on the line and had dug in our positions. On the way to the line we could see Soviet Attack helicopters in the air on the Nicaraguans side of the line. Kind of made the hair stand up on your neck as you are checking your ammo load.

The point is that we were going by these villagers and their basically grass huts. Dirt floors, thatched roofs and walls made out of scrap wood. Bare foot little kids running around in what looked like ragged cloths from the back door of a US thrift shop.

It made us feel like we were Star Wars Storm Troopers getting off the ship that just landed on the Ewok planet. It was surreal the difference from our world in the US. Can you imagine the impact if all that these people were seeing were robots. With all the armor on I guess we kind of looked a bit like robots already.

When we had moved out onto the line and took up positions we could see the Old Soviet T-72's that the Sandinistas had moving onto their firing line. We ended up leaving without firing a shot. 50,000 US troops on the ground and it was all just to make them nervous.

When we left we went back by those same villages we noticed a change. The people had collected up the pallet wood and plastic we had left behind and had added it to their construction materials for their homes. It was unreal.

 

Hey, Adam ...

Completely forgot about the TOW systems.

Thanks.

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The New Gunboat Diplomacy Explained

By remote controlled weapons being the New Gunboat Diplomacy I meant that the US now that we have the CNN factor does not just move our gunboats off the waters of a country that we feel the need to intimidate for what ever reason.

In the past the news would show the Battleship Missouri off the coast of what ever country that was the object of our political attention. If you could see the guns of the Missouri on TV off the coast of your country you were pretty sure we could lay rounds the size of a VW bug on just about any square meter of your country we wanted. That is pretty intimidating.

With U2s and SR-71 flying over your country you were pretty sure we had every major target laid out and under a gun.

Now days it is different. Instead of all these gunboats and planes to intimidate the nation of our political interest we use remote controlled weapons with video, then on to an after action report including video of the target being destroyed in a Pentagon Briefing.

In this way not just the country of our immediate interest is intimidated but also anyone else who is watching CNN and thinking that could have been one of our command bunkers blown to smithereens.

The difference is the use of video for the added psychological impact. These video guided munitions are big favorites of the Pentagon now because of this new CNN amplified fear factor.

Nothing like watching the US send a missile through a window from 1000s of miles away to make you look over at your own window and wonder just a bit.

 

As far as remote controlled weapons are concerned Im all for it thats one less soldier that need be drafted like me for instance.
Just think of all the video game addicts in this country that are perfectly suited for remote controlled warfare.

 

Future Huh!
Im not sure how guilty we feel right now.

 

If this was totally in the interest of the US military, CNN would have a lot larger representation during these "conflicts". Vietman proved that news coverage, unlimited, is not always desirable for those wanting to continue a war. When such news coverage can bring "the action" right into your home during supper it has it's effects and not all of them are positive.

The idea of remote war vehicles has been captured before in scifi. I forget the story name. Basically a hotshot pilot, who flies remotes, goes for the gusto. Blows up a cave of munitions, along with the remote vehicle he is piloting from the console. Get's his but chewed, goes back to his console, and flies another out of the hanger on another sortie.

 

Science Fact often follows science fiction

It is not too far fetched if you follow all the patent data and government procurement programs as closely as I do. One of my companies is registered to procure government technology development contracts and as such I download the latest DOD initiatives for funding proposals.

They want this type of technology to advance along the lines I have described. I am just curious what the impact will be when we start air dropping remote controlled land assault systems instead of paratroopers into a hot zone.

You might remember Number 5. Well he looks primitive when compared to some of the bots we are looking at right now.