The future of the US military in Jeopardy.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Undecided, May 21, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw040518_1_n.shtml

    The US has gone too far with its hyper technological boom as of late. Is it possible that the US is depending too much of hi-tech weaponry, and loosing sight of the realities on the ground? The US Comanche helicopter has been shelved, the V-22 is that still going on? The F-22 is not worth its weight in gold (many in the US seem to agree), and the Sea Wolf is a relic from a war that never happened. The US is well equipped military, able to beat any conventional military, and threats. But when dealing with close, urban, and psychological combat, the weakness of American power shows. I think the US has gone a tad bit gitty over hi-tech toys, anything that has a LCD display get's some ppl hot. But the reality is that they are merely one part of a military machine, tech is indeed not all. Iraq shows that dangerously enough, considering that M-113’s are being brought in after the disaster that the HUMMER was in Iraq.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shadarlocoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    we need to hurry up and get powered armor working... not the walking mechs... but just body armor that takes the weight of the armor and the load of his weapon and back pack off the man... letting him walk longer farther faster and have some protection... even if it just countered the weight of the armor would be a world of improvment... have some protection vs. small arms is much better then no protection at all...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Nah, a country that doesn't piss people off with unpopular foreign meddling needs no special protection for its representatives. "Nation building" in some terminator getup will never win "hearts and minds", and stop the assymetrical warfare cat-and-mouse. America's military problems are not technological in the least: We are being politically defeated, and resistance is fertile.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cazov I eat plastic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    No...no, I think we need the huge mechas. Gigantic robots with huge nuclear reactors battling over entire countries....ahh, what an entertaining way to destroy a world, don't you agree?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think its much more entertaining than just nuking the place like what's probably going to end up happening...
     
  8. shadarlocoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    It would be cool to see giant mech's running round kicking the crap out of each other but really unless we imporve armor by a factor of 10 or so there is no way to make a giant mech that could even move under its own waight and not be a sitting duck on the battle field...
     
  9. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,156
    An upsized 'battle bot' if you will. Remote control. Armored. With a 7.62mm gatling gun from a Cobra and a 40MM grenade launcher. give it some camera's and go shred some bad guys.
     
  10. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,156
    The Little M113's dont do very well against RPG's but then again neither do hummers.
     
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    All good responses, but I want to hear what you think about my major statement:

    Is it possible that the US is depending too much of hi-tech weaponry, and loosing sight of the realities on the ground?

    Is the US too dependant on largely irrelevant tech. in regards to the new reality of war? (i.e. Urban warfare, civilian warfare, etc.) The robot thing brought up by Crazy seems to becoming a reality, but until then, should the US lighten up on the tech and deal more with specialized training?
     
  12. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    Alot of projects designed for the cold war continued after the Curtain fell. The F-22 for example. While many of these have managed to adapt, several have proven useless.
     
  13. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    There's not much that can be done when one isn't supposed to shoot at 99% of the people around them since they're civilians. Regardless of how armored one is, when that one person in the crowd of many sneaks up with explosives, and has no fear of dying, shit is gonna hit the fan.

    If it weren't for all the civilians in the way, we wouldn't have much problem, even when lightly-armored. We'd just blow away everything in sight. This has nothing to do with relying too much on high-tech equipment in regards to urban/civilian warfare. The only thing I can see helping us in that type of combat would be if something more high-tech were available such as putting microchips in every single person to track them and tell the difference between who's an actual civilian and who's an enemy in disguise. That or just start killing a lot more civilians which is a no no.

    - N
     
  14. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Since when did 'The future of the US military' become a Jeopardy category?????

    Oh... you meant 'jeopardy'.....
     
  15. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    For all the powered armor guys - how do you plan to solve the ground penetration problem? Big snowshoes?

    Try this simple experiment (with the permission of the shipping yard of course):
    1) Go to a shipping yard.
    2) Get into a counterbalance truck.
    3) Drive it off the yard and onto a grassy area.
    4) get off and watch as it sinks into the ground. In particularly soft areas or on a rainy day, it may go down a meter and a half.

    Any piece of heavy machinery is going to have this problem, even a smallish one-man assist, because it may not be as heavy as a several-ton forklift, but it will be standing around on two peg-like legs. The giant fusion-powered Battletech kind would be totally hopeless.
     
  16. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    perhaps the problem is that when you get unconventional, it becomes tougher to formulate a convention to combat it, which is really what the military is all about, it's a huge set of conventions. unconventional combat requires maximal flexibility from command and control down to the individual soldier. generally speaking flexibility is expensive and has the weakness of susceptability to conventional attacks? i agree that it's obvious that the US needs significant improvement in flexibility to combat unconventional enemies.

    just a thought
     
  17. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    Flexibility is the cheapest thing in the world, wes. Sometimes you give it away to work with large groups, as wes should well know.

    I would recommend an unconventional attack, such as a light dusting of tapeworm eggs over a country.
     
  18. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Hmm.. no BBH I don't think so.

    Example:

    Build a machine to do a thing.

    Then see if it does anything else (assuming it does the thing you intended).

    To build a machine that does all things, the expense rises accordingly.
     
  19. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    The human does all things by adopting extensions - the extensible tool. That's why the war on terror can't be won. You can't take away a person's "weapon" unless you kill them.
     
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    I disagree with that too, I think the war on terror can totally be won. You just have to trick them into thinking they're getting what they want (which could be accomplished by manipulating what they want, but that takes a long time). Well, either that or kill them yeah.

    LOL.

    So all we have to do is like copperfield, and make the western hemisphere appear to disappear!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'll stop this though as not to drag off topic.
     
  21. Hastein Welcome To Kampuchea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    379
    This is very much the case and I have to disagree with the military's standpoint. With their new armor they are actually pushing to remove the weapon from their hands altogether-bad idea. The name escapes me, but they are making shoulder-mounted boxes that shoot beams at people. What happens when these things break down in the heat of battle? What about relying on scans to find enemies? I played the game Halo a couple of days ago and was struck by the actual similarities between the fictional character and the soldiers they are creating.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Look at this!

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2096973/
     
  22. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    It does seem all a bit much doesn't it, let's face facts here. With the rapid availability of expert hackers to enemy gov'ts or organizations the US is putting itself at great peril if she becomes too technological. Yes there is such a thing as "too much of a good thing, is bad a thing". There are many problems associated with this level of sophistication, can a normal American soldier really be able fix any of these things should they break down within a reasonable amount of time? I doubt it. Secondly it would be prohibitively expensive for the US to engage too much in this because the tech isn’t cheap, the training is long and expensive, and during a draft impossible. Also the normal American soldier may feel too superior, he could disregard threats because they aren't deemed important enough, then bang he's a dead man. But most dangerous is the de-humanization of these men. They are not men anymore they seem to be nothing more then walking robots, who are "expendable". They [the soldiers] will be more apt to de-humanize their enemies, which is dangerous at best. Yes this tech. will give the American soldier a tactical advantage but at what cost? Obviously tech is needed, but not irrelevant tech. The US simply can't afford any of this now anyways... the tech is impressive but lacks a human element needed to make wars of the future wars, not holocausts.
     
  23. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    You have a bit of a point, Undecided, look at Veitnam. You ever see the movie Soldier? Where's the line?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page