will there ever be a zero-Casualty war? - Page 3




 
--
 
June 27th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
Hahaha, Pershing, you just ripped the crap out of that guy! I'm sure this website is monitored by some kind of group for anti-terrorist purposes and anyone that these "PEOPLE" don't think are quite right would be under observation right now. And i also agree with everything u said above about having my doubts about that dude.

I kinda feel embarrassed when someone gets busted pretending that they're something and they're really not. But saying things like CLASSIFIED and NOT AT LIBERTY and TOP SECRET make me feel pretty cool too!

Rich
June 27th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I don't believe I am at liberty to comment on that at this time. But we are on a bit of a serious thread here guys if we can keep from derailing it I think it is worthy of keeping on track. Let's start a new thread under "Jokes", titled "I am a secret agent man"
June 27th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
Hahaha!!!!!! Dude, stop it, i'm gonna fall off my chair.



Rich
--
June 27th, 2005  
Miss-Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
Sorry Misazeno, but I have my doubts about what you're saying and you in general.

First off, by the time we can create an artificial intelligence capable of autonomously identifying targets and neutralizing them said AI will be able to identify hostile and non hostile targets. Hence you're robots would only go on a genocidal rampage if instructed to do so.

Secondly I highly doubt any such simulation exists. You cannot model human behaviour, current politics, unforseen mass political movements, and a world economic model with today's technology. It isn't the weather.

And who is "we"? Right, you're probably not at liberty to tell. But that wouldn't make sense because even if such a simulation was possible you'd need to rent a commercial super computer. And a quick FOIA check would reveal that outside of the NWS the government hasn't been doing much of that. And if the program is too classified for it renting a commercial supercomputer to be FOIA accessible then it's certainly too classified for you to be talking about it on a public forum.

Not to mention your profile, no one who is actually a spook, makes it obvious that they're a spook. Otherwise, they wouldn't be a spook.
1. I didn't say the robots would have AI. I said it would have to be programed by a scientist on where it could walk, etc. To add, don't you think the country that had them would program them to kill everyone. I think so. You know you wouldn't have to worry about the enemy in the future if you killed them now.
2. you wouldn't need to rent one if you own it. I didn't say it was accurate. You would have to program what a soldiers supposed to do. You have to take into account that any government can buy and put together a computer.
3. Spook...? I'm not a spook.
June 27th, 2005  
Miss-Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
I don't believe I am at liberty to comment on that at this time. But we are on a bit of a serious thread here guys if we can keep from derailing it I think it is worthy of keeping on track. Let's start a new thread under "Jokes", titled "I am a secret agent man"
LOL good one
June 27th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
bulldog has the right idea, stay on topic before it has to be locked.

If you want to lay out your "service" record, Misazeno, I, too, believe the Jokes forum would be a more appropriate place to do so.
June 27th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misazeno
1. I didn't say the robots would have AI. I said it would have to be programed by a scientist on where it could walk, etc. To add, don't you think the country that had them would program them to kill everyone. I think so. You know you wouldn't have to worry about the enemy in the future if you killed them now.
2. you wouldn't need to rent one if you own it. I didn't say it was accurate. You would have to program what a soldiers supposed to do. You have to take into account that any government can buy and put together a computer.
3. Spook...? I'm not a spook.

1. Eh what? An artificial intelligence is a set of programming instructions that control the actions of whatever the computer is directing. If the robot doesn't have an AI then it cannot function without someone directly giving commands as the computer controlling the robot is not capable of making any sort of decision. There are many types of AIs, from those designed to control a complex system of trains, path finding AIs that try and find the shortest route between locations in everything from map quest to computer games, to AIs that analyze sensory information for anomalous data. And no, I don't think the country using robots would program them to kill everything. Why? Because it breaks every convention of war to date and is asking for wide spread international condemnation. It also pressures the attacked nation to use whatever means of retaliation they have, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

2. So what about a FOIA request to the government owned super computers for usage records? If the simulation isn't accurate what the heck is the point of running it? So that you can get probably incorrect data? I bet justifying that before a budgetting committee must be tons of fun. And I fail to see how running a combat simulation of what computerized soldiers would do in a given situation could possibly create the data that you said you've generated.

3. No, no you're not.
June 28th, 2005  
vargsriket
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
ya, that was a pretty successful example, although there wasn't no ground operation there to really 100% defeat the enemy


but the operations in iraq pretty much contradicts the theory that high-tech, great-training will be able to create a zero-casualty war for U.S
Still, if you compare the US deaths to insurgents, it would be in the least a 1:50 or something like that. Wounded would be probably something like 1:200. American technology is far far superior to the old 60s/70s Russian weaponry Iraq had before the war began. Happened in '91, happened again in '03, high technology and great individual training will always win battles. Now, political "battles" are a whole different issue. In Vietnam the US won 9 out of each 10 engagements. Politically they lost.

If it wasn't for the high tech and good training, you know, the US would have a much much higher casualty count. It's the technology that saves lives. When before men would bleed to death, nowadays soldiers are able to survive wounds that were fatal 20-15 years ago. Quoted from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8323385/page/3/

Quote:
In past wars many of these men and women in combat would have bled to death or died from catastrophic wounds but because of today’s medical technology, rapid access to care, and high tech body armor wounded troops are surviving at a rate never seen before.
American high tech saves American lives, it's a fact.
June 28th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
[quote="vargsriket"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
In Vietnam the US won 9 out of each 10 engagements.
Have you got a source for this or is it an opinion?
June 28th, 2005  
vargsriket
 
I remember reading it in a book and a few articles, I'll try to find it if I can tomorrow. However, it's a pretty well known fact that the US did not lose any major battles in Vietnam. I'm not talking about those small platoon on platoon type of engagements, ambushes can be deadly. It's a pretty well known fact that the US won the war militarily, but lost politcally. If you take a look at the casualties, you'll get an idea.