Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Land Warrior System

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 1:38:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm just watching the Military Channel right now and they're doing an exposé on this new military technology - new as in, it's been in place since 2007, and already essentially a mainstay in the special forces - called the Land Warrior system, and I must say, it blows my f*cking mind.

Here's a video demonstrating essentially how it works. I find this so fascinating; its essentially a situational awareness machine, used mainly to more accurately and efficiently pinpoint and direct squads to targets, set up different strategies for attack or defense or what have you, and all around, it's just a damn cool thing to have.

It does have some drawbacks apparently - mostly its weight - but this is just the first obvious step towards a very highly computerized military. I mean, everyone knows these sorts of things are within the realm of possibility, but I doubt most know that it exists literally right now.

If you're interested in this sort of stuff, its a long and kind of droning video, but so worth a listen.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:32:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Military Industrial Complex. I wonder how much that piece of crap cost. The Afghanis seem to be doing fine with AK-47s and home-made bombs. I'm not sure why we need to spend billions of dollars on technology sixty years more advanced than the terrorists' technology. I'm sure the contractors love it though. It doesn't much matter how good our tech is if our strategy sucks, our soldiers are retarded, and there is no point of being there in the first place.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:37:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:32:57 PM, Nags wrote:
Military Industrial Complex. I wonder how much that piece of crap cost. The Afghanis seem to be doing fine with AK-47s and home-made bombs. I'm not sure why we need to spend billions of dollars on technology sixty years more advanced than the terrorists' technology. I'm sure the contractors love it though. It doesn't much matter how good our tech is if our strategy sucks, our soldiers are retarded, and there is no point of being there in the first place.

It saves American's lives. Now if only the terrorists had the same technology, we could wage war with no loss of human lives.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:40:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nevermind, I thought it was about this robot soldier.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:41:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:37:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It saves American's lives.

No, it doesn't. Americans lives would be saved if we pulled out of Afghanistan. The money would be better spent domestically or not at all anyway.

Now if only the terrorists had the same technology, we could wage war with no loss of human lives.

Seems a bit of a contradiction. Waging war pretty much demands the loss of human life.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:42:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:38:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/6/2010 9:32:57 PM, Nags wrote:
our soldiers are retarded

Lol. Okay.

What? Besides the soldiers from the service academies, the majority of the soldiers are high-school drop-outs too dumb to do anything else.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:43:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:41:13 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/6/2010 9:37:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It saves American's lives.

No, it doesn't. Americans lives would be saved if we pulled out of Afghanistan. The money would be better spent domestically or not at all anyway.

Now if only the terrorists had the same technology, we could wage war with no loss of human lives.

Seems a bit of a contradiction. Waging war pretty much demands the loss of human life.

No, I was referring to having U.S. robots vs. terrorist robots. No lives would be lost.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:44:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:43:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, I was referring to having U.S. robots vs. terrorist robots. No lives would be lost.

I don't see the point of waging war if only robots are going to be destroyed. Seems a bit pointless.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:49:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Meh, I wanna see them develop bonta-kun battle armor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:50:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And as soon as one side's robots run out Geo, they send the human soldiers in. That's WHY they are at war, BECAUSE they think it's important enough to risk such things. At best robots can prevent or minimize casualties among the victor's troops in lopsided battles. The losers are still going to have a high rate of death.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:50:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:44:32 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/6/2010 9:43:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, I was referring to having U.S. robots vs. terrorist robots. No lives would be lost.

I don't see the point of waging war if only robots are going to be destroyed. Seems a bit pointless.

You would rather see real human lives lost than see robots destroyed? What's the point of Call of Duty 4 if only virtual soldiers are going to be destroyed?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:51:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:50:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/6/2010 9:44:32 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/6/2010 9:43:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, I was referring to having U.S. robots vs. terrorist robots. No lives would be lost.

I don't see the point of waging war if only robots are going to be destroyed. Seems a bit pointless.

You would rather see real human lives lost than see robots destroyed? What's the point of Call of Duty 4 if only virtual soldiers are going to be destroyed?

Fun. Unlike, you know, actual war, which by contrast is generally viewed not as fun but as hell.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:53:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:50:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You would rather see real human lives lost than see robots destroyed?

But nothing would happen if robots fought. Each side would gain nothing and lose nothing, except money spent on robots. It would be a stale-mate with nothing changing. War is meant to kill people.

What's the point of Call of Duty 4 if only virtual soldiers are going to be destroyed?

The point of video games are entertainment, I don't see the analogy.
DontBeRacist
Posts: 584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 8:16:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:50:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/6/2010 9:44:32 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/6/2010 9:43:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, I was referring to having U.S. robots vs. terrorist robots. No lives would be lost.

I don't see the point of waging war if only robots are going to be destroyed. Seems a bit pointless.

You would rather see real human lives lost than see robots destroyed? What's the point of Call of Duty 4 if only virtual soldiers are going to be destroyed?

It's 2010. Please change your reference to Modern Warfare 2. A.k.a. CoD 6.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 8:21:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Maybe we should just use Modern Warfare 2 as a substitute for actual war. National leaders would sign on and play some Free-for-all Deathmatch. Whoever wins gets everything. My only problem would be North Korea or Iran. They would probably use some kind of game exploit to automatically get a tactical nuke.
DontBeRacist
Posts: 584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2010 5:20:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 8:21:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Maybe we should just use Modern Warfare 2 as a substitute for actual war. National leaders would sign on and play some Free-for-all Deathmatch. Whoever wins gets everything. My only problem would be North Korea or Iran. They would probably use some kind of game exploit to automatically get a tactical nuke.

Elevator glitch or mod their controllers. Absolute nubs.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2010 6:09:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 8:21:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Maybe we should just use Modern Warfare 2 as a substitute for actual war. National leaders would sign on and play some Free-for-all Deathmatch. Whoever wins gets everything. My only problem would be North Korea or Iran. They would probably use some kind of game exploit to automatically get a tactical nuke.

Then the country that produces the game would be ahead. If the president of the USA asked Infinity Ward to place in a specific hack that only we knew of, im damn sure they would. And then, the US would win every war. :(
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 9:11:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Terrorizing and destroying a society is a lot easier than protecting it. IEDs simply and cheaply kill innocent civilians, but protecting the civilian population requires more sophistication. Our society, with airplanes, bridges, skyscrapers and mostly-open borders is even more easily terrorized. The use of robots and high tech is labor-saving automation. Robots also can do some of the most dangerous jobs, like disarming explosives and searching caves. UAVs are robots with weapons.

There was a major initiative to modernize the whole army. It included a new generation of armored vehicles and advanced communication and targeting systems. A soldier could call for fire to specific point and the system would find an armor unit, point the gun, and fire within seconds. The whole project was scrapped early in the Obama administration. It's typical that when there is a war going on, R&D is reduced in favor current warfighting expenses.

The military has traditionally not accepted anyone without a high school diploma. Currently about 90% are high school graduates, but they are now taking a few dropouts and training them up to level they need. The military's main business is training, because they have continual turnover and their mission depends upon everyone knowing what they are doing. There is very heavy use of virtual reality simulation for training. It used to be just for vehicles, but now there is much more use of head mounted displays and full-body tracking for individual soldier training.

The idea that money would be saved by granting terrorists a permanent safe haven is total nonsense. The cost of 9/11 to the U.S. was astronomical, and with a permanent safe haven terrorists can develop chemical weapons as well as plan elaborate attacks with conventional explosives. Note, for example, the plan to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge that was foiled. The strategy is to keep terrorists defensive and disoriented. Obama seems to have recognized the need for the strategy.
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 9:31:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 8:21:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Maybe we should just use Modern Warfare 2 as a substitute for actual war. National leaders would sign on and play some Free-for-all Deathmatch. Whoever wins gets everything. My only problem would be North Korea or Iran. They would probably use some kind of game exploit to automatically get a tactical nuke.

Nice. Except the game will have to be over-analyzed to eliminate any hacks and cheats. I don't see national leaders as gamers though.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2010 9:48:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/21/2010 9:31:02 AM, Immortal wrote:
At 3/9/2010 8:21:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Maybe we should just use Modern Warfare 2 as a substitute for actual war. National leaders would sign on and play some Free-for-all Deathmatch. Whoever wins gets everything. My only problem would be North Korea or Iran. They would probably use some kind of game exploit to automatically get a tactical nuke.

Nice. Except the game will have to be over-analyzed to eliminate any hacks and cheats. I don't see national leaders as gamers though.

Speaking of over-analyzing... I was joking.