Fatal flaw of the F-22?

shadox said:
here before too long everything will be unmanned :cry:
Click to expand...


That could be true, but I will ALWAYS trust the Judgment of a Human being, over a computer, a computer can't do the one thing a human can, reason.......the day a computer can reason, we might as well name the internet Skynet and get ready for the terminators
 
The only downside about people is that they have a tendency to want to kill each other at times, but that is a thread for another day. I like the idea of removing the operators and putting them somewhere else, to save human lives of course.
 
Not me, I don't have any problem killing another person as long as I have a reason to kill been there done that only killed for a reason, BUT machines fighting a war on their own requires a machine that can think independently, THAT in itself would make all humans obsolete. I'd rather take the chance of dieing in combat than becoming obsolete
 
That sounds like the type of situations that mankind has imposed on armed conflict, it would be really ironic if that did happen.

But as said, thread for another day.
 
Sukio i understand what you're saying but if you take the human element out of war then war loses consequenses so it just becomes a sport
 
Shadox, war would be much nicer if it was a sport. Because right now, it's a dirty business. We fight for political power and economic domination.

And the people in power dont care much about the people dying in combat. They dont care about the soldiers fighting, or the other soldiers they fight, or the civilians living in the area of operations, or the costs of the weapons used...

it's not important for them. There is the tax payer to pay for ammo, the patriots or the poor people forced to join the army for blood and suffering... etc etc...

Some said that were very advanced animals on this earth. We dont fear for our survival anymore. We are 7 billions, we even think that if we could scratch this number a little, it would be a good thing.

And we are labeled as "homo economicus"... The economy is the real priority. We dont give a damn about human life or human suffering, if the economy says it's good, then it's good.

War is good for the "economy", or at least, good for the economy of the powerful people. The tax payers have an economic power, but their economic power is in their ability to consume and buy useless crap... It means that if we kill a few of these tax payers, their capacity to buy will move from the dead ones to others who are alive... ANd even better, if they are scared, they buy more crap...

So war is wonderful from an economic point of view. People work more, buy more weapons (for the state to use), they dont moan too much about how the country is directed etc etc... advantages...

The soldier will be obsolete when the robots will be cheaper than soldiers...
 
LeMask said:
Shadox, war would be much nicer if it was a sport. Because right now, it's a dirty business. We fight for political power and economic domination.

And the people in power dont care much about the people dying in combat. They dont care about the soldiers fighting, or the other soldiers they fight, or the civilians living in the area of operations, or the costs of the weapons used...

it's not important for them. There is the tax payer to pay for ammo, the patriots or the poor people forced to join the army for blood and suffering... etc etc...

Some said that were very advanced animals on this earth. We dont fear for our survival anymore. We are 7 billions, we even think that if we could scratch this number a little, it would be a good thing.

And we are labeled as "homo economicus"... The economy is the real priority. We dont give a damn about human life or human suffering, if the economy says it's good, then it's good.

War is good for the "economy", or at least, good for the economy of the powerful people. The tax payers have an economic power, but their economic power is in their ability to consume and buy useless crap... It means that if we kill a few of these tax payers, their capacity to buy will move from the dead ones to others who are alive... ANd even better, if they are scared, they buy more crap...

So war is wonderful from an economic point of view. People work more, buy more weapons (for the state to use), they dont moan too much about how the country is directed etc etc... advantages...

The soldier will be obsolete when the robots will be cheaper than soldiers...
Click to expand...

Thread for another day....
 
More like if we take the human element out of war....then war becomes a computer game.

Computer are NOT flawless, Imagine if you can a top of the line F22 Raptor thinking on its won fighting on its own, with a computer virus.
a computer virus vulnerability is a flaw in the F22 as it is,along with EVERY computer controlled war machine on this planet.
 
Super weapons as fighter jets could then be manufactured, the only limit in many aspects of combat effectiveness and the endurance to the F 22 for instance, as of now is how much the human pilot can handle, which without a doubt hampers the planes performances and lethality, this being a prime example.

But ironically that would make the plane less lethal not because of firepower, but due to lack of humans in combat. As far as leaving people on the battle field in positions we don't have to, I disprove of the idea, I say if money and funds provided, leave nothing but advisor's and spotters in a war zone,advisor's to talk to the reporters, spotters to make targets for the machines.

All arguments of machines not being able to reason a moral judgment call are not valid, and are voided by the fact that you can still have the human element involved, and I say this with the fact that it's already happening today, and I have no doubt can be expanded further.

As with all decisions in life, saying that a machine cannot gather enough information to make tactical decisions, that response would melt away with the fact that in military history, gambles are taken everyday, and the lack of information persists and blunders are made today even with humans, and time and time again, waiting around for more intelligence, may prove you act to late. And even now you will most likely not have as much information as you like at the start of any given operation.

Lastly any comment with human controlled machines, being used to commit atrocities such as killing of civilians is not valid, due to the fact that uniformed military personnel have does so multiple times themselves since the dawn of military history it is, and as far as I am concerned, and unavoidable consequence of human conflict, the ones who have problems with that, like myself, should before ever opening their mouth ( I know I am hypocritical) and take a long, hard moral look at the human experience the mirror.

Other wise boot up your computer unsheathe your mouse pad and go to war.
 
Last edited:
I boot up my computer every day, I play online war games for fun. but if thats teh future of real warfare then war will become a game, played by politicians who will have never even seen the enemy, or care, because now we fight a war where only the people who don't have a computer will die.
 
wolfen said:
I boot up my computer every day, I play online war games for fun. but if thats the future of real warfare then war will become a game, played by politicians who will have never even seen the enemy, or care, because now we fight a war where only the people who don't have a computer will die.
Click to expand...


War is nasty, I value human life, to a extreme extent, if you can save lives then go for it, seeing the nature of human conflict and armed warefare I think the last thing on our minds at this point through the eyes of society is willingly wanting to send more people walking into incredibly dangerous situations when we do not necessarily need them to, just cause it's a (its how we also done it) type situation.

As far as warfare being a political chessboard, I do think that has been happening for quite awhile now...humans or drones, no matter....

People in the cockpit maybe obsolete one day, but people wanting to exercise brute strength through warefare, will not, conflict carries on no matter how big or small it seems.
 
Then we have two choices, either roll over and die as a human race, being killed by a machine, or..................heres the tricky part....................Stop making war. Just imagine a total outbreak of world peace.
 
The only problem I have with the second one is PEACE DOES NOT ADVOCATE FREEDOM! Oppression still has plenty of room to exist.

Now the unknown threat to me is, we become so reliant on the machine, the freaking things have a massive crash and we are sent back to the stone age, that threat seems to be much more viable than any Terminator scenario.
 
Sukio said:
The only problem I have with the second one is PEACE DOES NOT ADVOCATE FREEDOM! Oppression still has plenty of room to exist.

Now the unknown threat to me is, we become so reliant on the machine, the freaking things have a massive crash and we are sent back to the stone age, that threat seems to be much more viable than any Terminator scenario.
Click to expand...

True about the oppression part.

But really man................you don't honestly believe a computer can crash do you? I mean they ARE so reliable and never make mistakes (yes I said that being sarcastic towards computers)
If we EVER become so dependent on a computer that we can't live without one somebody PLEASE send them to kill me kill me first.
 
Or the things fail in a national security scenario, rendering the country of question vulnerable to be taken advantage of, militarily, economic whatever. Basically knocking the glasses off the blind kid and pulling his hair while he gropes the floor looking for them.
 
Combat is a personal thing, probably one of the most personal of things. The guys on the ground need to be living breathing humans. Sure we can get help from machines to accomplish the missions, the final word needs to be humans. I think it's important for soldiers to see their handiwork. It's much easier to kill when looking through a screen, quite the opposite when you're on the ground and have to deal with the situation first hand. Veterans of wars carry physical and emotional scars with them that remind the rest of society about the horror that combat is. I think the elephant in that room needs to remain.
 
brink said:
Combat is a personal thing, probably one of the most personal of things. The guys on the ground need to be living breathing humans. Sure we can get help from machines to accomplish the missions, the final word needs to be humans. I think it's important for soldiers to see their handiwork. It's much easier to kill when looking through a screen, quite the opposite when you're on the ground and have to deal with the situation first hand. Veterans of wars carry physical and emotional scars with them that remind the rest of society about the horror that combat is. I think the elephant in that room needs to remain.
Click to expand...

You've nailed my vision of future ware fare, augment humans with machines, not the dogmatic view of one taking over and killing all the other, like all other major advances in warfare, there will be drawbacks

*what if the machines fail?
*do they have effective endurance?
*what if human forces lost their edge from overly depending on machines?
*what if you get 30 kills without dying and call in a bonus EMP strike?

Both will have their drawbacks, but I think we haven't even scratched Shock and Awe, until the human and machine interfacing component is intergrated into a complex but devastating technological war machine...BOTH on the ground, in the sky and on the sea, BOTH enhanced to work together to identify VALID targets, and blow crap up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top