Newjarheaddean
Banned
AHOY, this conversation originated in a thread by IMF member coolfeelings titled “new question”.
Major liability your point about a possible foe of equal or more advanced tech.
As we all know the US has the greatest foot hold with the ultimate high ground (space). IMO the US well never loss that, I once read a book that suggested WWIII would start in a way that would be very public yet not noticed for what it was i.e. it would start with a series of Satellites falling to earth. Victims of attacks (sats going off course and crashing into others) and being portrayed to the media as malfunctions or mishaps. Hence Space command’s SOP (standard operational procedure) “treat every malfunction as an attack until proven otherwise”.
I would very much be interested in some of our Geek (computer master) members opinions about what might be possible for one side with out the benefits of space i.e. sats meaning no GPS right? And the counters possible for the side with sats i.e. against techniques possible to the have-nots (no astronauts lol) side. The book about WWIII ended with the suggestion the winner would be the side with the last antenna (possibly on a sat) standing.
On a more current near feature dilemma. I would like everyone to consider this.
The fallowing statement was written before Network centric warfare was becoming a reality.
“Attitudes differ on the battlefield. It can be difficult to tell whose winning. Especially today when battles are lost, units are quickly repositioned. Troops decide who won or lost. It’s possible for non combat troops to maintain reasonable belief in continuing victory with out knowledge of the big picture. A local defeat can be explained as an exception. Opinions also very with M.O.S. rank and location. Paraphrase of James Dunnigan.
NOTE: IMO with systems like Network centric warfare this naivety (mentioned above) would be less likely in the feature.
Thus without being able to keep the masses in the dark, IMO there is more need for what?
Motivation? Dare anyone say indoctrination? Drugs perhaps, i.e. movie Jacob’s ladder. (movie suggested troops in Vietnam were given a drug to make them more aggressive).
Can any government produce true killing beings? Keeping in mind the book “On killing”. The theme is basically that there is lots of evidence to support the claim that over the years (back to at least civil war that I recall) most combatants on the battle field are not trying to kill anyone.
Might wars on a much smaller scale be necessary? Like the general (whose name I can’t recall) said “we need to prepare to fight limited engagements, by minimal means, for specific goals”. G-day!
Major liability your point about a possible foe of equal or more advanced tech.
As we all know the US has the greatest foot hold with the ultimate high ground (space). IMO the US well never loss that, I once read a book that suggested WWIII would start in a way that would be very public yet not noticed for what it was i.e. it would start with a series of Satellites falling to earth. Victims of attacks (sats going off course and crashing into others) and being portrayed to the media as malfunctions or mishaps. Hence Space command’s SOP (standard operational procedure) “treat every malfunction as an attack until proven otherwise”.
I would very much be interested in some of our Geek (computer master) members opinions about what might be possible for one side with out the benefits of space i.e. sats meaning no GPS right? And the counters possible for the side with sats i.e. against techniques possible to the have-nots (no astronauts lol) side. The book about WWIII ended with the suggestion the winner would be the side with the last antenna (possibly on a sat) standing.
On a more current near feature dilemma. I would like everyone to consider this.
The fallowing statement was written before Network centric warfare was becoming a reality.
“Attitudes differ on the battlefield. It can be difficult to tell whose winning. Especially today when battles are lost, units are quickly repositioned. Troops decide who won or lost. It’s possible for non combat troops to maintain reasonable belief in continuing victory with out knowledge of the big picture. A local defeat can be explained as an exception. Opinions also very with M.O.S. rank and location. Paraphrase of James Dunnigan.
NOTE: IMO with systems like Network centric warfare this naivety (mentioned above) would be less likely in the feature.
Thus without being able to keep the masses in the dark, IMO there is more need for what?
Motivation? Dare anyone say indoctrination? Drugs perhaps, i.e. movie Jacob’s ladder. (movie suggested troops in Vietnam were given a drug to make them more aggressive).
Can any government produce true killing beings? Keeping in mind the book “On killing”. The theme is basically that there is lots of evidence to support the claim that over the years (back to at least civil war that I recall) most combatants on the battle field are not trying to kill anyone.
Might wars on a much smaller scale be necessary? Like the general (whose name I can’t recall) said “we need to prepare to fight limited engagements, by minimal means, for specific goals”. G-day!