DW,
>>
Can a robot sniper choose when and where to fight?
>>
As much as any man can. When you are the occupier but not the /owner/ of a given threat battlespace, you react when someone else initiates.
See the French fighting the Vietminh and later our own path to destruction vs. the Cong. In Daylight we pretend to own the country. At night, we curl
up and shiver behind locked doors as the indigs come out of the woodwork to dance by the pale moonlight.
OTOH, if you can flood the field with them, the very act of robotic _aperture_ presence acts as it's own inhibitor to threat action in the
maneuver-to-contact (logistics in action) phase of their own attack. The difference? The robot will see, record and pass on the face of anyone who
attacks it, even as it _does not_ 'die bravely' fighting back.
You absolutely cannot send a single soldier into a FIBUA environment filled with ENEMY civillians of a totally different phenotypical appearance and
expect him to live. Sending teams only increases the profit:risk factor for the calculating enemy and makes it look like you are hanging it out there
daring him to get inside your OODA loop.
>>
Can it get in close and be sure of the shot hitting?
>>
A robot has better statistical accuracy than any man alive. Just as a function of vastly better visual acuity and rock steady aim. It can carry a
heavier caliber rifle (up to SPRs) with ten times the ammo count and it is _utterly_ brave.
It can deploy further robots in smaller scales down to the size of a toy car, making it immensely less likely to be detected while scouting or of
taking a shot on a target whose face is 'kinda like the guy' in the biometric database. But not quite.
OTOH, man sized closure with the enemy usually only makes YOU predictable in the approaches defense (in depth) techniques that they can use to
channelize and compromise your ingress for a couple hundred meters before they decide to ring your neck.
>>
Can it act like a scout for a unit?
>>
Pfffft. Can a man run at 35mph? This is the _traditional_ problem with infantry of all sorts and SOFies choicers in particular. They look all tough
and ugly when they are set up on a ridgeline, their 70-120lb packs by their knees, dug in and calling down air on a satcomm radio. But they cannot
keep pace with maneuver warfare demands and IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT EVERYTHING IS MECH.
If you want to 'scout' you play recce along the side of the road looking for IEDs 15-20 seconds before the convoy goes by.
>>
Can it track and hunt a unit of men with no outside help?
>>
Theoretically? Yes. As of now? No. The difference? A patently absurd belief that the men doing the hunting are more 'elite' than those fighting on
their own turf, in their own time, with all our playbook laid out before them, written in their own blood, to reference.
See the dead-SEALs incident on the AfG/Pak border.
OTOH, 'absent nightfall and a safe helicopter LZ' it can sure as hell provide better SAW-man 'covering fire' when the enemy starts attacking with
recoilless or HMG from atop a canyon crest 1,500m out and the Mk.4's are all pissing 5.56 in the wind at anything over 300m.
Even as it almost certainly has the armor protection to require precision explosive fires to first-hit incapacitate. And thus adds another layer of
scarcity-of-resources difficulty to the monkey force threat.
>>
Does a regular infantry unit carry around; "acoustic/Q-pulse or IR varieties "...no I doubt a regular squaddie is qualified in that kind of
engineering.
>>
Read up on the 'Viper' sniper finder. It is a Swallow UAV mounted system which looks DOWN on shooters and both spots and classifies muzzle plumes
before cross associating the secondary acoustic reverb to give 'our side, their side' differentiation on near/farfield range overlap.
The DIFFERENCE still being that Ronnie the Robot takes a helluva lot more to kill him than a 7.62X39 above the interceptor vest.
And yes, he could probably carry a similar system if that's what it comes down to. Whereas the absent ability to hump or 'understand' the
technology at the grunt level only serves as further indictment against the principle of manned presence.
>>
No offence mate but a robot cant and wont replace humans in combat, why?
Because, once we totally remove ourselves from behind the trigger then we will forget what war costs..it will just become one less robot not one life
gone.
>>
No. We have already forgotten that. We FORGOT THAT at Nuremburg in 1945 when we were so interested in punishing the losers that we forgot all the
established precedents (our own West for one) by which an established, largely peaceful and stable, nation is rolled over by a more advanced one that
the descendants of both might be made stronger.
When WAR is labelled a 'crime against humanity' then the WARRIORS sole purpose must be to prevent the attack of madmen who would risk their very
lives to commit such a _criminal_ offense.
Unfortunately, the reason Saddam was not rolled over in 1991, 1992 or 1994 is _we did not want him to be_. Since as long as Iraq was excommunicated
from OPEC, the remaining Gulf states got fatter taking up the slack and we got a cheap-oil kickback.
While the military, operating at tempos twice that of the Cold War period got to retain the budgetary (ops account) dominance of a
militarist/adventurist 'democracy in action'.
By acting as mercs for Arab oil (blame the American Satans, get rich doing it).
That did not protect the average Joe U.S. citizen on 9/11. When a self righteous Arab decided he'd had enough of the infidels on Arab holy dirt. And
300 billion dollars later, buck thirty oil is but a fading dream. And the 'war' is not acknowledged as much as won.
You won't win this war until you make it clear that Pax Americana means we will have peace, whether the bad guys are exterminated or among the
breathing. And so the notion that a 'sense of blood loss' is what's at risk is completely ludicrous. Because we love our enemies and our victims
more than we love ourselves.
ARGUMENT-
Remember the old saying "Crime wouldn't pay if the government ran it!" ??
That's how most of us increasingly feel. Because we are being told to go about our ordinary lives while those lives are completely disrupted and the
only thing the President and Official Mouthpiece for Federalist Big Business can say is "There will never again be a time when we can guarantee
safety..."
We are paying for a criminal activity which is not being acknowledged because to be so, it would have to be shown to be the HISTORICAL failure that it
is as a function of making our ENEMIES pay for our expenditures.
In such a condition, my IMO is the exact opposite of yours. In that, robots offer a way out by making the average grunt think twice about dying in an
attemt to gain coup over a silicon chip. Whether that grunt be a man in uniform who knows he is obsolescent and has been since autofire rifles and
radio control bombs became standard. Or a mutt in mufti who thinks God Smiles upon those who murder anonymously for a cause.
CONCLUSION-
If every man was told that fighting outside his borders was worth an instant trip International Court for death penalty trial. No one would bring none
and there wouldn't /be none/ because the national leadership could not crouch behind officialdom.
And Ronnie the Robot would make for a helluva lot better 'scout' over in Peshawar land wherein we DO NOT KNOW whether the bag is full or empty of
the ONE MAN that this war should be focussed on finding and making a terrible example of.
What we need to focus on is the ever increasing application of Precision Engagement and Policing (UN rights to enter into any nation in search of
criminal X) capabilities to control a world NOT in global conflagration. So as to be able to draw down a military which is dead set 'roles and
missions' designed to instigate such an activity.
THAT is the real danger here. For the U.S. mindset counts psychological coup just as much as the barbarian sand monkey. And as long as we maintain
attachment to boots on the ground dying for squat, we will not want to make their losses for nothing by pulling out and 'refocusing' elsewhere.
Even if the consequences for those that soldiers _cannot protect_, at home, are even worse than the embarrassment of yet another Vietnam.
KPl.
P.S. What is the song sung at the end of 'We were soldiers once'?? Nice and Cold. The reality of life-end as a soldier dying in some back of beyond
for little to nothing but the man next to you who should /also not be there/.
>>
quote: Originally posted by ch1466
As much as any man can. When you are the occupier but not the /owner/ of a given threat battlespace, you react when someone else initiates.
>>
No the robot would ethier be in one of 2 control systems.
A) open
B) closed
One requires a controller or some kind of sensor, the other doesn't.
>>
The reality then being that NOT having a controller does not lead to mad dog robotics ala ED-209. Because the robot has the ability to decamp under
fire without having to respond to the threat, lethally. What man can juggle a smoke mortar on his back and an M-16 in his arms with the tazer or
rubber bullet gun or maceball shooter in his web gear while running at 35mph? If you say "There will be no lethal response to threats in this area
_PERIOD_, for X mission duration; the robot will faithfully obey. Asking a human to do so is unfair because his life cannot be put back together with
a trip to Radio Shack. i.e. The bogeyman fear you attempt to instill is exactly the OPPOSITE of reality. The robot has more self discipline than any
man ever will.
On a related note, the notion that the drone cannot manage it's own navigation and recce role autonomously, dialing into a local EPLRS or similar
(TTNT, whatever) network to ask a systems manager "Hey, this is new, what do I do?" also underrates the ability of the machine to housekeep it's
own basic existence. Much as humans do for the 70% of the time we are tying our shoes, walking to the bathroom, or or or. GPS and inertials alone
will let a robot navigate with perfect memory of where it has been and unerring notion of it's final objective. Mass will protect it from incidental
contact with humans that get the hell out of it's way or else. A scanning LIDAR or MMW device that evaluates terrain elevations can define
widthXheight extremes where it cannot go. Even as a simple contrast (light:dark) monitor will keep it centered in the street or sidewalk.
IF THE INTERNET GOES DOWN the mission goes on.
While the presence of a human /behind/ the Robot allows for much more effective radiated power 'in proximity' for conditions where direct human
operator interactivity is required. In conditions where said meatbag is protected from simultaneous engagement and likely has his own vehicle to run
away if need be. As such, it's not likely that the Terrorists can overmatch this capability with comms denial or spoof takeover, even if they have
their own Radio Shack.
About the only remaining conditional modifier is what happens when your troops decide to walk down the street to 'talk to' a guy and an attack
occurs with Ronnie present in a flurry of moving legs and bodies. In this case, no matter who is 'in command' the urge to 'defend our own' may be
an overriding command line in the robots ROE logic controller. The question then becomes, how can it 'tell the difference' between a human with an
M16 ten feet to it's front and one with an AK-47 50ft beyond that? The answer is to put laser-tag BTID markers on the humans (think MILES in
Miniature) so that as each tag is authenticated for but one mission, the soldiers who where it will have an exclusion globe around them into which
Ronnie will not fire. Of course if Ronnie can move at 35mph, Ronnie sure as hell doesn't need to shooting over friendly heads neither.
I _despise_ people who think of ways to incriminate a robot for using excess of force when 'humans were an available alternative'. Because the
simple fact is that the only thing a robot needs to do is take a threat's picture and RETREAT while the presence of humans exacerbates and escalates
a threat by giving it a psychologically recognizeable coup mentality that basically comes down to "Hey, I can kill that guy, even if I die
(trying)!".
Barbarians have nothing. Therefore they don't care as much about losing it. When we give them popup targets in easily identifiable uniforms, WE
PLAY INTO THEIR GAME. And that is where the BS about 'war becoming cheap' runs afoul it's own hypocritical mirrored image.
>>
quote:
See the French fighting the Vietminh and later our own path to destruction vs. the Cong. In Daylight we pretend to own the country. At night, we curl
up and shiver behind locked doors as the indigs come out of the woodwork to dance by the pale moonlight.
"our" ?
I didnt know britain had entered that war..
>>
OUR. Me + My Nation. The one spending 300 BILLION WITH A B DOLLARS to save a bunch of ungrateful pissants from themselves. It took approximately
420 billion before we learned our lesson in SEA.
>>
Also I dont quite get where your going with that...
>>
Sigh, the implication of your comment is that of a 'Jackal' situation wherein the robotic assassin with it's heavy gun misses the target and sprays
down the innocents. This is BULL. Because the robot is a better shot than ANY HUMAN LIVING OR DEAD.
OTOH, if the man is going to avoid being put in a situation where the enemy fires over the heads of his own people as bullet shields, he can only do
so by festunging himself into remote firebases and 'only killing those who come near'. As indeed is in the process of happening in Iraq as we
(politically, in time for the 2008 elections) prepare to handoff to the Iraqi 'Security Forces', willy nilly.
This is how you lose a contested battlespace.
Because while you are playing at 3 Monkeys, the insurgents are out there 'winning votes' and pistol whipping the people until they realize that they
cannot stop being hurt /by/ the bad guys until they help them kick your sorry ass out of country.
I doubt seriously if we are actually 'in control' of half as much of the battlespace as we pretend. But we COULD BE if we used robots. Because
they are better armored, faster and ultimately _have no relatives_. Such that one Bolo can cover the area of an entire platoon for mobility and at
least match a Squad for firepower. Even as it asserts Presence-with-a-P. For Photography.
If I want to gut an insurgency, I need to make it a CRIMINAL ACTIVITY SUPPRESSION EFFORT. The only way to get there is to make everybody have a
'drivers license' of biometrically held ID. Faces, Body Proportions, Fingerprints, DNA. Matched to Addresses and Relatives and Workplace. Fail to
have an ID or Lie about any of the latter data and you are eligible for a Field Court and rifle squad. Fail to turn in someone you KNOW is doing
'bad things' because you live and work with him (and another law allows for neighbors to come inspect each other's homes and vehicles) and so are
you.
The ROBOT need only be standing on the street corner take the picture which begins the evidence trail that leads to an arrest.
Whether it is armed or not, it's ability to be present and take names (not ears) makes it TEN TIMES as valuable as the human which cannot be
'exposed' to such a threat. Alone.
>>
Right, I think ethier you or I is getting spun around here.
First are you talking about using them as "recon" as in going in as a sheep to see who the enemy is?
Or using them in a combat role?
>>
Snipers best roles are often as observers. YOU were the one who used the term 'scout'. But humans cannot stand there and take it. Cannot bust out
of an ambush WITHOUT use of lethal weapons. Cannot in fact even /carry/ sufficient weapons, incapacitants and obscurrants to give them an option.
This in a mass autofire age where, even if artillery is present, you may not have time to call it in.
That said, my suggestion was that of scaled carriage and remote telemetered (radio or cable waldo) vehicles which can go up stairs or into rooms while
the main vehicle is safe outside. Because even a robot has a fixed replacement cost. And because a Tamiya RC car is going to make for a lot smaller
auditory and visual signature than an R-Gator.
>>
Thats a misconception, snipers can enter those situations with ease and dissapear with ease.
They never work alone, always in 2 man teams and they onnly need to be withing 600 yards of a target or find a nice tall building then your sorted.
>>
Crap. This is NOT Vietnam. There are no triple layer canopies or wide open nothings. EVERYWHERE has /SOMEONE/ living in the spatial volume.
Which is why 6 Marine snipers. 'Best Of The Best'. Were slaughtered like sheep thinking they could come and go at will when their very differences
of appearance and patterns of movement became predictable indicators of behavior. If I'm an insurgent and I want to scrape a little bit off the
image of U.S. 'elite forces now, better watch out!' invincibility, I am going to CREATE a situation in which the local commander turns to his scout
snipers and says, "Okay, I'm interested and you're up."
Because once I know the objective (having created it) I can pretty much guess the likeliest routes and offset obspoints. And then it's just a matter
of dropping a building on them or blowing up a trash can beside them.
The same is true of the SEALs on the border. They died because they thought they were too damn good to be caught. And once they were proven wrong in
their first misconception, they didn't have the armor or the staying power to wait for a proper night extract. Thus killing all those who went to
'save them'.
A robot can be put down in an LZ five miles from the in-contact threatened forces and BE THERE in under 5 minutes at 35mph. It can then use
/whatever/ fires (40-60mm mortar) to CREATE the hole in the enemy envelopement. Simply by saying: "Okay, the unit is at X GPS coordinate. Create an
exclusion bubble of 20m around that coordinate and obliterate anything outside it." NEVER ENTERING the enemy line of battle. Never putting itself
at risk. Something that no 'manned' rescuer can manage as he puts himself and 15 others at equal risk ("Your government mourns your loss...") to
save FOUR men.
God, People. Are you REALLY THAT STUPID!?
>>
It may be more accurate, it may have more ammo and a larger size but can the robot think tactfully?
>>
Targets are fleeting. If you can make the shot then you should do so. If you cannot, then don't. If the MISSION is not to shoot bullets but film,
then do so. How many times have we seen /insurgents/ doing some evil deed on night vision scopes? How many times have we LOST the info war because
Al Jazeera doesn't have to willfully NOT choose to publish U.S. forces observing a massacre by Arab against Arab?
In any case, if a robot cannot statistically make a kill because the risk to others is too high, it won't. Only a man can override mission orders,
find himself less than the challenge after all. And then have the relevant service cover up for his mistake because they can't afford to condemn him
for it.
Robots are thus not only more lethal but more merciful or as you put it 'tactful'.
>>
Can it decide if it should kill now or wait?
>>
If it has a window to achieve a mission in it will kill to make that window. If it has a 'call us up on acquisition' it will point a directional
antenna up at a pseudolite comms relay UAV and ask for permission. The one thing it will /never/ do is take a shot because it feels exposed. So
really, the 'human factors' element remains the same. It's just that the decision mode is offboard and/or preprogrammed for conditional modifiers
before the robot enters the mission area. This is actually a GOOD THANG because it allows a man not stressed to make the best use of an entirely
_expendable_ asset while having that JAG lawyer standing over his shoulder saying "Nope, see those smaller fastmoving dots all around him? Those are
kids. No women, no kids."
>>
No, it falls back onto its program and programing is not that advanced yet.
>>
This is the typical excuse by which robots are chained to the limitations of humans who somehow believe that they can make a 'better decision'. So
long as they are never challenged on-point. On-merit. For a robot that has no mission to _supplant_ human activity X will never be 'taught' the
interactive ROE codes to achieve human-or-better level rational cognitive discipline.
And while such an ontologic level of reason is utterly unnecessary for combat /because/ the robot is never going to fear for it's life; it serves to
preserve the human mendacity of superior discretion. Which is simply not present. Because those six snipers would have fought like wild tigers to
get out of an ambush. And they are too few to assert scout-presence as a photojournalist alternative _by mission order_ to shooting at all.
Robots are better shots. They are instantly trained to that level of capability. Their mercy is inherent to their 'immortality'. They are
available in numbers such that there is no reason to refuse a mission because your assets are too limited as human master class shooters are. They
are thoughtlessly noble.
ROBOTS ARE BETTER WARRIORS THAN HUMANS EVER WILL BE.
>>
Yes you can do that but think about it, the smaller the robot the smalller the gun.
Can you hide the noise of an electric motor? How would it move? Crawl? Tracks?
Noise and movement will give it away.
>>
Oh please. I can design a gun, complete with a 50rd rotary drum magazine, that will fit into a smoke alarm. It's .22lr and with a 2" barrel it
will put a bullet RIGHT THRU YOUR EYE at anything up to 50m.
OTOH, as long as the parent vehicle has the payload margin to carry BOTH the mini-UGV /and/ the .50 SPR, then it can hide behind a building. Send the
car out front to erect an camouflage net that is AMLCD 'active' across it's 1X1ft frontal area.
And, /looking through the film projector/, use a 35mm zoom digital camera system (COTS all the way) to take snapshots of whoever. The only 'gun'
that the minivehicle thus needs has upwards of 16GB of 'ammo' in a card the size of a matchbook and ZERO recoil from a unit mounted through the
centerline between the tires.
Do you see the facial signature match little rover? Yes? HQ, I have flash traffic, is this our guy? Yes? 2EOT (Two Eyes On Target) confirmation.
The UGV rolls out from behind the building and shoots the Al Zarquawi through the chest with a .50 round.
Mission done, it recovers or cuts-tether abandons the self-safing mini-vehicle and RUNS.
No human can match that capability. Because at a thousand meters no ordinary vision will see EITHER the prone sniper. OR the Tamiya RC car UGV. And
at 50m the car will make less noise and indeed have a _smaller_ visual signature than any human. Even as the 'expectation zone' (could a human be
there and not be noticed?) of it's presence is similarly expanded to places which no human could low crawl to.
>>
The enemy wont know your there because your sitting about 600 yards away looking like any old bush.
>>
Not in a MOUT environment. Are you deaf? It's not like I haven't said it before.
>>
No in urban it is all manpower, the germans learned that when they went into Russia.
>>
The Germans would have levelled Baghdad. The Germans would have instituted a policy by which, for every one German who died, 100 civillians would.
For every 10 Germans who died, 1,000 civillians would have. For every 1,000 Germans who died, 10,000 civillians would have. Additively and
Exponentially until the local populace made the choice to side with the folks who had the most bullets.
OTOH, if you are talking Stalingrad, you are missing the point. They were never invested in SGrad as an occupation force. They had no control over
the far bank logistics effort. They sent their /best/ A-level armored formations SOUTH to play in the mountains when they were outnumbered from the
moment they arrived.
If you want to take Stalingrad, you take it like you 'took' Warsaw: First you envelope it. Then you level it. Then you shoot the survivors as an
example of what happens to those who don't 'surrender first'. This is basic MECH warfare 101.
But rather than give you further lessons in martial history, let me simply state the obvious: If there is a fire in a neighborhood, do you send your
firemen to the blaze on foot? With horse drawn wagons? By helicopter? NO. You put their sorry asses into trucks and you drive there. Fighting an
insurgency is nothing if not the act of putting out a 1,000 small conflagrations, popping up here, there and yonder. The difference is that if your
enemy exploits vehicles to both emplace IEDs and Small Ambush forces and you are 'living it up' in Festungs away from their direct reach; you had
damn well better be prepared to DRIVE to the fight yourself. Or you will never be able to catch them. Or evac your wounded when the 2nd and 3rd
leave behind bombs go off as you arrive.
>>
Why do you think they send in infantry FIRST into a city before the tanks?
>>
Thunder Runs anyone? Tanks moving down streets with infantry crouched behind in Berlin and Seoul and Hue and and and?
When you channelize yourself on a street and the crossfired MG begin to hammer you, you have literally 2-3 seconds before they butcher you all like
/sheep/ in an abatoir chute. Armor makes them resort to explosive fires and acts as a mobile pill box proof against anything up to 20mm. If it has a
disadvantage in urban warfare is that when they /do/ kill it, it blocks the road for followons. And that too is something whereby taking a wiesel
sized mini doesn't really decrease the frontal protection but gives you good cause to pull the morons taking up interior volume in trade for a
thicker hide and the ability to push on with another when the lead vehicle runs over a bomb in the street.
Do you understand ANYTHING of military history?
Sigh. Fine. Conventional Warfare is what happens when the cowboys roll into town, guns blazing and their warfaces on and nobody has the balls or the
firepower to obliterate this mythical image of juggernaut intensity.
Then the insurgency happens when you set up camp among the defeated and they see that you defectate with your pants down like anyone else.
The irony of opposite similarities being that while sufficient shock-of-contact can rout particularly a primitive force construct, primitive
(gangland) coup psychology can equally unseat a conventional force which is restricted from mass reprisals to make the insurgents realize that if they
don't give up, they will simply be exterminated.
I.E. INSURGENCIES DON'T HAVE TO WIN TO DEFEAT A CONVENTIONAL FORCE.
They just have to use proper COE (Contempt Of Engagement) assymetric attacks to make them bleed until they cry and go home.
Infantry exist because they are filthy cheap compared to a six million dollar MBT which is disabled by a LAW class weapon from the sides or rear.
But where HUMAN COSTS are the driving factor in Assymetric (COIN) ops; you cannot treat the human factor as an insignificant trade by virtue of the
'heroic cause'. For a cause has to have an objective (goal) endpoint to be measured-for-worth against. And an insurgent only has to make the
apparency of his never giving up stretch that goal out to the event horizon of infinity to prevent the hero-psychology from applying.
We NEED a replacement for both. Something which has the power (heavy weapons, massive ammo counts, mobility above and beyond) to supplement the tank
as a cheaper mobile fires platform. Just as we NEED to replace the human altogether. For his presence is what drives mothers to weep when they
realize how cheaply their son died 'saving' a bunch of savages.
And his /vulnerability/ to that mortal fate is what gives those savages a reason to believe Allah will welcome them as Shahine for letting go the
mortal coil while clenched in a deathgrip with another living being. But the Koran says not a damn thing about dying at the 'hands' of a silicon
chip.
>>
Can a robot act stealthly and track an enemy unit and scout for infantry?
>>
Sure it can. It's called a UAV. OTOH, if the UAV's are weathered out, you still have GSR and FLIR based optics on a masthead which can see
/kilometers/ further than any man can.
>>
Who is talking about convoy's , this is about regular warfare, scouting is required for EVERY unit.
>>
Indeed. But every unit moves to battle or between logistics points on trucks. Don't belittle mechanization sir. Being a truck driver is the A#1
most lethal MOS in Iraq right now. Because while you can send out foot patrols on their own two hoofs, you can't feed them or treat them when they
come back 'with their shields or upon them' if you don't have the ability to transport TON MILES of equipment.
Insurgents attack that CS/CSS capability, often with similar vehicles (Cement Truck Bombs are very popular right now). And they at least 'resent'
the Hummers and IFV/LAV that gob together 5-10 troops into one nicely colocated target matrix with similar tenacity.
The difference is that a robot doesn't transport troops so it doesn't need to be bloated with their vulnerability as well as it's own. And it
doesn't die so it can support convoy operations on the 'still have to eat' basis of occupational existence without being itself exposed as a lone
'scout' for IEDs etc.
quote:
Theoretically? Yes. As of now? No. The difference? A patently absurd belief that the men doing the hunting are more 'elite' than those fighting on
their own turf, in their own time, with all our playbook laid out before them, written in their own blood, to reference.
>>
Its not absurd, its good thinking.
>>
Any SEAL, SAS or Beret on the planet can be killed with a bullet between the eyes. Much of the equipment which formerly gave them an advantage on the
battlefield (NVD, satellite network comms, LAW and Remote Detonation weapons) are now so commonplace on the battlefield as to be almost classifiable
as 'civillian'. OTOH, helicopters have always been contemptible machines whose intimidatory factor has long since been exceeded by even /unguided/
shoulderfire rockets. Even as Sprey and others noted as long ago as 1965 when it became clear that, after the first 6 months helicopters lose all
their 'Stukian' powers of psychology.
What is more, the notion that the 'superb conditioning' of a snakeeater makes any difference is largely invalidated by the notion that these men are
carrying packs which weigh almost as much as they do and so are 'marching' at all of 3-4mph in air so thin that even the natives know better than to
sprint. Yet because they are moving cache` to cache`, they are doing 7-10mph with little more than an AK, a bag of rice and a blanket.
FIGHTING LIKE YOUR LEGS MATTERED IS ABSURD.
>>
Its a good turret I agree but it cant think for itself, it needs a controller and orders.
>>
Only if it has to fight for friends or among civillians. Somebody brings it to a robot and it can run away. Or lay waste. And a BTID tag (IR
reflective and shortrange laser-barcoded) on OUR guys gives good security even when supporting own-troops.
The problem is that these pathetic pack mules _cannot keep up with_ the robot. And so THEY are the point of decision around which an engagement MUST
be accepted. Or can never be joined.
And that means you've lost all your initiative, all your 'smart monkey' reasoned tactical skills, right there. Because you are fighting them
exactly like they fight you. Bullet to bullet, back pack to back pack. And your life, all half a million spent bringing you up. All the love of
your parents and your wife and your kids. Is worth the 23 cents of a bullet.
Morons.
>>
The robot cant get to places a human can, its simply not got the mobility.
>>
More crap. When the Anaconda thing went completely south as we had forces trapped between a ridge and a town where only an IDIOT would hi-lo threat
put infantry, the CH-47 'rescue force' had to come FORTY FIVE MINUTES out from their staging point. When we lost 3 of 4 Apaches in the first 30
minutes they turned those Chinooks around because the LZ was too hot to insert. And do you want to know what was in the back of those hulking
targets? The /very same/ aircraft as would later be shot down like a rat in a sack? 6 Gator assault carts.
Systems which, if they had had no men to carry and decent weapons/sensor systems could have been dropped 7-10 miles out, run in at 15-20mph and put
the serious hurt on the OTHER GUYS who were busy shooting up the backs of infantry looking upslope at a sophisticated, interlocking, series of
fighting positions with heavy weapons well deployed and mines /everywhere/.
WHY would it have been necessary to go all out on a civillian vill? Because MEN were on the battlefield and they lacked anything more serious than
PBA to stop the inbound rounds.
Throughout AfG, even today, it is common to let the Gator carry the 'camping gear' including radio and medical because everybody is so overloaded
with 40lbs of interceptor and a patrol load of ammo that may well be 15 mags or more. Throw in some water and a first aid kit and you are just barely
able to function above 8,000ft.
I know, because I live in Colorado and as a native _I_ can barely function with nothing at all but my clothes in our 9-10,000ft passes.
How much smarter to NOT risk losing everything when the Gator gets first-round killed. But rather to put the weapons and sensor systems ON THE GOLF
CART. And pull the men altogether.
>>
Sure it can spray and pray alll night long but frankly thats not much help to the commander other than having a mobily gun emplacement.
>>
And you cannot use 'spray and pray' in the same argument in which you have already admitted:
"It may be more accurate, it may have more ammo and a larger size but can the robot think tactfully?"
So sorry, but you either accept that an mechanically armatured weapon is the ultimate 'bench stable' accuracy point. Or you don't. And you have
already yielded that point.
And then there is a the 'psychological factor'. Gunners get messy (to the point that it took 50,000rds per M16 kill in Vietnam vs. 15,000 with the
M1 Garand in WWII and 1,000 per Springfield/Enfield in WWI) when somebody shoots back.
66.102.7.104...:0uCrzRDekHIJ:www.comebackalive.com/df/guns/boystoys.htm+Number+of+bullets+per+kill+in+WWI&hl=en
Robots don't. You want useless destruction, you 'spray' autofire around at the point of 20yr old's muzzle. Scared to death and realizing what an
incredible lie the whole 'let your training save' _BS_ this current random death murder system of insurgency represents.
>>
"Monkey force"?
>>
The Russian word for indigenous forces around whose ability to maintain weapons or hold to doctrine a 'war of liberation' warfighter strategy had to
be implemented. You see, at least until the Bear Went Over The Mountain, they knew better than to fight with their own forces to fight their dirty
little wars for places they had no need to win so much as despoil for our own 'Capitalist Running Dog Economic Gain'.
And we are stupid enough to think that we can do better. Can 'bring everyone together'. When even our own history of the west shows that you back
ONE side and come hell or high water, make them the victor. Before you slit their throats and throw'em on a reservation.
>>
No all it requires is a few sniper shots at the barrel and its history.
>>
I have no clue what you are trying to say. If you feel the need to shoot at a .50 caliber through 25mm (about the range of calibers you need for COIN
ops) you be my bloody guess. No matter how good a shot you are, 70% of the time you'll miss. 20% of the time you'll ricochet off (especially at
'survivable' distances) and the other ten percent, I will have my boys stand up in a row and lob 10 RPG-7 at the robot and _kill the vehicle
completely_ while you're trying to play Robin Effing Hood.
The problem then being what to do about the second robot 2,000m back or a 20,000ft overhead, which sees the ambush happen and calls down Steel Rain to
finish it.
In any case the reality remains: Fighting Mech required Heavy Weapons. And heavy weapons cannot be lugged on foot by them any more than by U.S.
>>
Yes its a UAV, not a regular infantry.
>>
Which only furthers my argument that any infantry which isn't in the field is another target that a 'sniper' doesn't have to protect from other
snipers. Or from an IED (which he can only attack the emplacers, hours before).
>>
You need an UAV team, a launcher, a coms trailer and a regular infantry team to use it.
>>
None of which have to be on the battlefield and the last of which can be replaced by a robotic patrol vehicle. You see, it even /helps/ to have the
UAV not saturated by large numbers of firers. To _encourage_ the enemy to make that 'one careful shot'.
So that the UAV-turned-UCAV can put a Viper Strike, Hellfire or GBU-39 right down his throat.
What you seem to fail to understand is that I WANT THEM TO TRY.
I _want_ the enemy to shed his blood noblely for a robot.
Not another man.
And the reason is quite simply the same psychology as your own.
Because beneath it all, you cannot accept that man has no place on the battlefield lest your 'interest', whether professional or cheerleading, also
be rendered to little more than that of an accountant or tech.
And it is THAT very fear of inadequacy which will end war. Because if man finally realizes that no matter how many machines he kills, they will
always come back while he can only lose **once**. He will cease to listen to old fools that insist they have the right to send him to his death for
their ideals. Whether they be Mullahs at the corner mosque. Or some git that thinks free college is worth it for the President he has never met. Or
the folks at home who are told to 'live as if there was no war'. Because there is no threat. To them.
>>
Ronnie the robot cant climb vertical slopes, ronnie the robot has a limited range, ronnie the robot costs more than a regualr infantry man.
>>
Insurance on a 'regular infantryman' is about 100,000 bucks. Training on that muzzle mutt is another 35,000 dollars. Take that training up to a
specialist MOS rating like 'sniper' and you can make it a further 20 grande, easy.
>
While some of the operational costs of todays military aircraft have been discussed earlier, the acquisition costs of todays combat aircraft
coupled with the expensive maintenance costs, parts replacement costs, and logistical needs, dwarf other weapons systems in the U.S. arsenal by
comparison. It costs today anywhere from $5 to 7 million just to train a combat pilot. It only costs only about $35,000 to recruit and train a basic
infantry soldier.
>
66.102.7.104...:mBYkp3CkcsgJ:www.veteransforpeace.org/The%2520Economic%2520Costs%2520of%2520Modern%2520War.doc+what+does+it+cost+to
+train+an+infantryman&hl=en
This /before/ the 13 grande it takes me to pay that worthless E-1 fresh out of Basic. And the continuation training that comes after. And housing
him in anything more than a squalor. And his families separate benefits if he has a wife and kiddies living ib an off base allowance.
www.dod.mil...
NOW. You want to talk /cost/? Consider that, to the Marines, the _minimum_ deployable force considered fit for independent operations is a
BATTALION. Of some 900 men.
THEN and only WHEN you have factored in the costs of all those men. And the half a million bucks their parents spent raising each of them for 20 odd
years.
Can you tell me how 'cheap' a man is compared to Ronnie. Because when JQ Smith get's his legs blown off and loses control of all his bodily
functions as the darkness comes. After singing in high soprano for his mom for the last 20 seconds of his life while a bunch of Iraqi sand monkeys
dance around him, laughing as they kick his breathing corpse.
Ronnie will lie there quietly. Waiting for the recovery crew to come take him home to be reborn.
Snipers exist to exploit those numbers. To make large kill counts 'work' with a small force that seems so much more 'elite'. But without those
numbers, neither our best shots nor theirs have anything to shoot at.
THAT is what a Ronnie is for. So that once they get past this hormonal angst some call patriotism, once they've SEEN war and want to come home
because they know beyond learning that nothing has been done but butchery and that largely random against a phantom foe. Maybe some of those men can
live to make a real contribution.
>>
Do you know everything about the robot?
Not everyone does, your thinking about replacing the infantry man with technitions.
More later.
>>
There is an old saying: "To kill your enemy make him your friend by sharing what's yours." As usual they got it half right.
To OWN your enemy put him in a situation whereby his death makes it clear that you will control all that he holds dear if he does not submit
immediately and forever.
I think an old Marine put it the best: "So that he knows you will enslave his son, have his wife and kick his dog."
And there won't be a damn thing he can do about it.
War has a purpose. It is to amalgamate rather than isolate resources, cultural and strategic, under a common law and share.
Even lowly Pirates had this much right.
We do not.
Because we make every act of vile conflict be based on some servile notion of 'duty' in righteous vengeance for an attack we induced upon
ourselves.
Because we have chosen not to make our enemies believe how deadly serious we are, our own people no longer believe in the rewards of an ultimate
victory (Spice Must Flow) so much as the moral of morale by which we 'play' at conflict until bored or gored badly enough to come home.
Under such a condition of sport warfare, there is absolutely no excuse to demean the 'technician' in us. Because at least a technician knows that
his logic must be ruthless and perfect. Or the machine will not work.
And never you fail to doubt sonny. We are tool using creatures no more. The tools are become autonomous. Because they are better than us.
If you won't use war to make an end to war. War will make an end of YOU. The warrior wannabe.
>>
"Anything is a weapon in the hands of a master."
>>
Including the pen or the keyboard. How ironic you seem to forget that when you describe something like this-
www.nellis.af.mil...
No wonder the Almighty Air Farce thinks of infantry as brute thugs and gets the lions budget share because of it. They know how to fight a war based
on Contempt Of Engagement. And they fight to win. If only against their fellows.
KPl.