Future Warfare

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You will always have trouble killing something at this stage of human evolution and technological advancement. Think of it as quality-control from a manufacturing perspective, except that you are now manufacturing sentient humans who are capable of thinking for themselves. It is simply that the product is "not perfect enough" and still requires fine-tuning, but the batch produced is too large to be destroyed without cost and consequence.

From a cardinal perspective they are still the weaker ones, and it is just more filtering to be done.

P.S I am looking at this perspective from a devil's advocate point of view. I am not, by any means, a facist or a racist.

You are missing my major point; which is that attempts to manipulate Darwinism via war = death to the perpetrators. By Darwinism rules it means those who do so, are only getting themselves weeded out. Thus anyone who follow in their footsteps would likely be dooming themselves.

Those who start wars to manipulate Darwinism, are themselves not exempt from its rules. The fact that they suffer horrible deaths should be enough evidence that it is futile.

Rule number 1 of Darwinism; if it kills you, stop doing it!

[AnimeFan188]

Lockheed/Piasecki move beyond flying cars with ARES:

"A Lockheed Martin/Piasecki team will build and fly a new kind of unmanned, vertical
take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft in mid-2015 that will seek to replace helicopters
on a wide range of military missions.

The newly unveiled affordable reconfigurable embedded system (ARES) is the result
of a dramatic shift in focus of the previously named Transformer TX programme."

See:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...h-ares-396289/

[AnimeFan188]

Is Poland's Stealthy PL-01 The Tank Of The Future?:

"The idea of the PL-01 is to try and eliminate the infrared, radar and visual signature
of the traditional tank to a large degree, while also relying on guile to take identity
masking a step further. In addition, the PL-01 concept aims at brining to market a
tank packed with relevant modern features, many of which already exist off the
shelf, while others are still on the developmental horizon."

See:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-...ure-1554395391

[grylsyjaeger]

I wonder how much armour that thing actually has.

Being ten tons lighter than a T-90 or let alone 3/5s the weight of the Abrams doesn't leave much room for actual protection.

Possibly a good platform for an ambush or static defensive position but it's probably vulnerable to most man packed ATGMs from a front attack profile.

[AnimeFan188]

Navy Will Install ‘Star Wars' Rail Gun Aboard Ship for Testing:

"The Navy will install a version of its electrical cannon on a ship this summer, though
the weapon will not be fired at sea for another two years.

Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Matt Klunder said the electromagnetic rail gun
will provide a relatively inexpensive, yet powerful, deterrent to enemies that will
complement, rather than replace, a ship's traditional ballistic missile and gunpowder
weapons."

See:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...t.aspx?ID=1460


====================================


Navy’s Magnetic Super Gun To Make Mach 7 Shots At Sea In 2016: Adm.
Greenert :

"23 pounds ain’t heavy. But it sure hurts when it hits you going at seven times
the speed of sound.

That’s what a prototype Navy weapon called a “rail gun” can do, and it does it
without a single gram of gunpowder or rocket fuel — just electricity. For many
missions, a rail gun is better not just than current cannon but than the laser
weapons the Navy is testing this summer in the Persian Gulf (I’ll explain why in a
minute). And, after years in development and hundreds of test shots on land —
see the video for a small sample of the destruction — the rail gun is finally going
to go to sea."

See:

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/n...-adm-greenert/

[AnimeFan188]

"Masked faces on the streets of Donetsk represent the latest example of stealth-
invasion, a tactic that is here to stay, according to Steven Metz, writing for World
Politics Review. Metz heralds it as the dawn for what he calls unrestricted warfare,
defined roughly by its originators as a state of war where “boundaries between the
battlefield and what is not the battlefield, between what is a weapon and what is
not, between soldier and noncombatant, between state and nonstate or
suprastate” effectively disappear. It’s a system of war for the future, and one for
which the U.S., says Metz, is unprepared. “The United States,” he said, “wants its
conflicts and security problems to remain tidily restricted. Its strength is greatest
when there is no political ambiguity or ethical confusion, and when partners jump on
board. This is precisely why America’s adversaries will not fight this way.”"

See:

http://www.defenseone.com/technology.../?oref=d-river

[AnimeFan188]

Does the Ukrainian Conflict Represent a New, Privatized Form of Warfare?:

"For weeks, the Ukrainian military has been embroiled in a no-win conflict with
armed pro-Russian separatists.

But on May 15 in the contested city of Mariupol, something very interesting
happened. Thousands of unarmed steelworkers took to the streets against the
separatists.

The separatists, who had just recently been out in the open, disappeared as quickly
as they arrived. Teams of workers from Metinvest—one of Ukraine’s largest mining
and steel holding companies—along with local police began patrolling roads and
dismantling separatist barricades."


"The company plans to expand the operation—known as Volunteer People’s
Patrols—to other troubled cities in eastern Ukraine. If successful, it’ll be an
example of a private company successfully entering an armed conflict and
winning, all without firing a shot.

It’s also a bit worrying. The patrols are employees of a company owned by one of
Ukraine’s wealthiest oligarchs. At the same time, he might also be the person
who can keep the country together and beat back Russia’s new—and more
discreet—way of war."

See:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d2863f23ee61

[AnimeFan188]

The U.S. Marines’ Next Anti-Aircraft Weapon Could Be a Laser:

"Every military in the world worth its epaulets is investing in drones. Now sensing
that drones could be a threat to U.S. troops, the Marines are working on a laser
to zap them out of the sky.

It’s called GBAD — for ground-based, anti-air directed energy weapon. The
Pentagon’s Office of Naval Research announced on June 11 it had awarded a
series of contracts for the laser, which the Marines hope will augment a looming
future shortage of anti-air Stinger missiles.

ONR has tested some components for the weapon already, and wants to carry
out field experiments with a 10-kilowatt laser later this year. In two years time, it
wants to triple the laser’s power to 30 kilowatts.

Eventually, the Marines want the entire weapon to weigh less than 2,000 pounds
and fit inside a Humvee and its replacement, the still-in-development Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle."

See:

https://medium.com/@warisboring/mari...n-141e7fc66c53

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

The U.S. Marines’ Next Anti-Aircraft Weapon Could Be a Laser:

"Every military in the world worth its epaulets is investing in drones. Now sensing
that drones could be a threat to U.S. troops, the Marines are working on a laser
to zap them out of the sky.

It’s called GBAD — for ground-based, anti-air directed energy weapon. The
Pentagon’s Office of Naval Research announced on June 11 it had awarded a
series of contracts for the laser, which the Marines hope will augment a looming
future shortage of anti-air Stinger missiles.

ONR has tested some components for the weapon already, and wants to carry
out field experiments with a 10-kilowatt laser later this year. In two years time, it
wants to triple the laser’s power to 30 kilowatts.

Eventually, the Marines want the entire weapon to weigh less than 2,000 pounds
and fit inside a Humvee and its replacement, the still-in-development Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle."

See:

https://medium.com/@warisboring/mari...n-141e7fc66c53

Reminds me of the $3000 Avenger from Generals Zero Hour - anything that flies will be shot down.

So when will we have a particle cannon?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

So when will we have a particle cannon?

You mean you want something that is ridiculously destructive at close or medium range, but then become near harmless at any further distance?

Because that's all the fictitious particle weapons are. In real life our explosive payloads have been more than adequate. There is really no benefit in researching more deadly weapons; even the laser weapon was marketed as the CHEAPER alternative to anti air missiles.

At the moment even if we get deathrays, it would change nothing. We don't have problem killing anything we can target. What would truly change warfare is better defences.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You are missing my major point; which is that attempts to manipulate Darwinism via war = death to the perpetrators. By Darwinism rules it means those who do so, are only getting themselves weeded out. Thus anyone who follow in their footsteps would likely be dooming themselves.

Those who start wars to manipulate Darwinism, are themselves not exempt from its rules. The fact that they suffer horrible deaths should be enough evidence that it is futile.

Rule number 1 of Darwinism; if it kills you, stop doing it!

I don't know. I have a hard time believing modern warfare between humans would have any appreciable effect on Darwinian selection. Since things like individual fitness are ultimately FAR less important than how well an army is collectively equipped and trained. An army of dull runts will run circles around an army composed of NFL linebacker geniuses if the former has better equipment, doctrine and training. Those factors have a far greater influence on survival of individuals in an army than how "fit" those soldiers were.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Rule number 1 of Darwinism; if it kills you, stop doing it!

...this is frankly another problem with Darwinism through warfare. Potentially speaking, being born with club feet is more genetically fit than having the body of a paraolympian. A paraolympian will get sent into combat where he can be randomly shot and blown up. A guy with club feet will be kept doing relatively safer work on the home front on account of him not being physically useful for combat.

I think there's a Chinese myth about this one boy avoiding conscription in an ancient war this way, and ending up one of the few eligible bachelors after everyone else got conscripted and killed.

[scififan]

Originally Posted by grylsyjaeger

I wonder how much armour that thing actually has.

Being ten tons lighter than a T-90 or let alone 3/5s the weight of the Abrams doesn't leave much room for actual protection.

Possibly a good platform for an ambush or static defensive position but it's probably vulnerable to most man packed ATGMs from a front attack profile.

Didn't M1 got owned recently?
ISIS captured an Iraq city and blow up M1 on their ways. ISIS have the battle expeirence with T-72, so they know its weakness is its rear. So, they applied same tactic against Iraq government's M1, and it is still worked!

So, tank units always have weakness. Working with other units may reduce tanks' risk being owned. Stealth and speed and interlink are the current trends. Both airforce and navy are leaving heavy armour behind.

[grylsyjaeger]

Originally Posted by scififan

Didn't M1 got owned recently?
ISIS captured an Iraq city and blow up M1 on their ways. ISIS have the battle expeirence with T-72, so they know its weakness is its rear. So, they applied same tactic against Iraq government's M1, and it is still worked!

So, tank units always have weakness. Working with other units may reduce tanks' risk being owned. Stealth and speed and interlink are the current trends. Both airforce and navy are leaving heavy armour behind.

M1s aren't some unstoppable force. But the crews sure do think they are.

There have been systems capable of destroying M1s on the battlefield for the last decade.

The RPG-29 can penetrate the side armour and the new Russian AT-14 / Kornet EM is a scary piece of kit that can penetrate over 1 metre of RHA at a range of 8 km! Weapons overmatch from the next county.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I think there's a Chinese myth about this one boy avoiding conscription in an ancient war this way, and ending up one of the few eligible bachelors after everyone else got conscripted and killed.

I think that is an example for dysgenics, not Darwinism.

[AnimeFan188]

Carbon fiber clouds hiding naval destroyers from anti-ship missiles:

"The US Navy has recently tested a new anti-ship missile countermeasure system
using an obscurant generator prototype. The systems and tactics were tested under
a variety of at-sea conditions using assets from the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force to
evaluate how radar-absorbing, carbon-fiber clouds can prevent a missile from
detecting and striking its target as part of a layered defense.

The Naval Warfare Development Command tested the maritime obscurant generator
prototypes June 21-25 to assess their tactical effectiveness for anti-ship missile
defense. The shipboard device generates carbon-fiber particles suspended in a
cloud of smoke. These particles absorb and diffuse radar waves emanating from the
seekers of incoming missiles, thus potentially obscuring the target from the missile’s
seeker."

See:

http://defense-update.com/20140628_pandarra-fog.html


Smoke screens; not just for visual concealment anymore!

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think that is an example for dysgenics, not Darwinism.

Dysgenic is just a word that humans came up with when they realized that Darwinian fitness didn't actually mean what they thought it meant.

A human society very well might consider yellow throated type males to be dysgenic, since it encourages the existence of more physically puny members of the species. Which is a bad thing for a society, since they could very well want to use physically strong males as warriors. But that has no bearing on the fact that it's a good survival trait from a Darwinian perspective.




Very often evolution has nothing to do with human sensibilities.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Dysgenic is just a word that humans came up with when they realized that Darwinian fitness didn't actually mean what they thought it meant.

A human society very well might consider yellow throated type males to be dysgenic, since it encourages the existence of more physically puny members of the species. Which is a bad thing for a society, since they could very well want to use physically strong males as warriors. But that has no bearing on the fact that it's a good survival trait from a Darwinian perspective.

I suppose so. The "men of last resort" to continue to help populate earth has been pretty much that way. Though I think that women aren't all yellow, there are maybe red ones with big boobs who jostle for the attention of the orange guy, traditional blue type plain janes who does not want to compete for a mate, and the yellow lolis frail and small ones who can only wish for a mate.

Some of the red ones might get tired of being 2nd place and chose to dominate the yellow and blue males, and the latter may not be interested because she is too much of a hassle. Should the orange male be too overwhelming to control the market and enroach upon the supply of blue females, the blue male might go for the yellow females.

Everyone has a mate and is happy I suppose?

Very often evolution has nothing to do with human sensibilities.

Assuming that all females are yellow, if the orange is capable enough to control his own territory like the blue-males, the yellow would have to breed with themselves. And the females might see the yellow males' behaviour as entertainment.

Ok wait that sounds incredibly wrong.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Very often evolution has nothing to do with human sensibilities.

This.

This is why so many people get the idea wrong. And why in reality no "master race" truly exists.

At any point in time, there is always physical traits that are considered desirable by human society. But that social preference doesn't actually translate to what people mistaken as evolution. Society is often, if not always, wrong about what individual people want or don't want. And the perception of wanting "superior people" is always misguided.

[Ithekro]

Also technology and medicine have altered things a bit as people that would have died or had undesirable traits now live to breed, or have their traits altered so it is not known until the next generation that something was off.

This includes things like:
Glasses
Dental work
Plastic surgery
Medications for various medical conditions
Surgery to replace defective organs.

All of these can get around genetics in the present, but the DNA is still there for the next generation to deal with.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

People with undesirables traits don't stop breeding. Never have. Because what's undesirable is usually determined by social rules, nothing to do with nature.

Nature only cares about lethal traits. Breeding don't produce superior humans, just humans who are good enough to breed again. By its very nature the result is a large variety of people. Because the system only works when everyone is a little bit different. The Masterrace theory is created by retards who don't realise that it is so very easy to wipe out a people who are genetically similar with all the same weaknesses.