Have there been "super Soldier" projects?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Shattered Skies
Sorry but your wrong on the count that the Zulu's superior tactics is what defended them so well. Yes they employed a solid stratagem in the form of their “bull's horns” attack, but it mostly relied on overwhelming the enemy with numbers.
The Zulu's would attack with an army of 7,000-15,000 warriors strong against 100-200. But if you can come up with some thing else I'm all ears.

And Doc thanks for the info on the exoskeleton, really cool stuff!!!

I was under the impression that the Zulu's were the ones outnumbered.

Shattered OUT...




posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Doctor
there tactics reach beyond "hit and run" the reason the coalition forces are having a hard time is because the enemy looks like the civilians they cannot tell who is freindly and who is not. They will never win in Iraq.


Agreed... the war in Iraq is not a real war but a battle between a real army air force etc against a large number of terrorists hiding among civilians. The rules of engagement have all changed and thus the strategy too. It is a good grounds for learning and all in all a somewhat fair fight. If US forces started attacking Iraqi civilians indiscriminately, this battle could be over very fast. But of course this would not play very well in the media of the freer parts of the world.

Iraq is a lot like Nam but instead of jungles you got sand.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies



I was under the impression that the Zulu's were the ones outnumbered.

Shattered OUT...

No not so much watch the movie Zulu and you get a clear idea as to how the Zulu nation fought. this one of the few wars that was decided by over whelming tactics and tech. A spear is just no match for a rifle.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Denythestatusquo,

>>
Have to agree that robots are part of the answer to the problem but even robots have limitations too. I see no reason to believe that soldiers are not being genetically engineered somewhere right now.
>>

That's the point. I said 'droid'. As in short for Android.

www.google.com...:Android&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

A synthetic man or man-like creation.

Right now, the best 'robots' are and always will be wheeled or flying because it is vastly easier to engineer for their more simplistic movement modes. But a droid can do things like move up a stair case, manipulate a door, drive a conventional automobile or type on keypad. Even duck and sprint and pull a trigger.

And once that comes to be seen for the 'only way forward' that it is, we will be completely outclassed as combatants, even in our own 'specialized terrain matrix' of direct habitation.

What's more, combat droids (by virtue of relatively simple mission/interaction functions @ cost) may be the way forward to automated societies which replace ethnic-X slave labor with truly 'un not low paid' equivalents.

Which is most likely the only way for decrepit capitalist societies like our own to recapture our self-identity if not determinancy in a world dominated by Asian Economic Superpowers.

And there is just no comparison. Because (to again use the Star Wars 'Attack Of The Clones' scenario) you could be a Jedi Knight and, at four droids per second, coming off the line, _never wade up the stream_ of threats coming at you. Because, even as a clone, your endurance and abilities will be measured in limits. While your generational (raising period to adult capabilities) are in years, not minutes.

And there are other modifiers to consider:

1. You have to be innately stupid or desparate to join the military. Because increasingly this 'be all you can be' garbage is being shown to provide ZERO real world experience in a job market for which returning first year vets are suffering a 16% unemployment ratio as they take part time courses to try and catch up. If intellect is a key driver in the 'modern soldier' as a function of systems and tactical competency, (languages, logic interpersonals and a thousand other related skills), you are setting yourself up for a poor retention rate, by virtue of getting what you want.

2., You have to be innately apathetic or cruel to join the military. Because a 23 cent bullet will put an end to the 300,000 dollars and 20 odd years your parents have put into your life. For the chance at 44,000 bucks of college tuitition payoff. So again, far from designing for a 'morally upright' personality with whom to entrust highly lethal technology, you must go for someone whose mental capacities do no equate risk with reward on a tactically _integral_ level.

3. If you use them, you will lose them. Since no combination of human tissues will be able to 'dodge bullets and recover from damage' like Jean Claude Van Damme did. And even if you COULD design to such a specification, what would you do with them? If men start taking lethal injuries and recovering, the "Thou shalt not clone!" mandates which the U.S. has applied to isolate the WORLD WIDE quest for an ubermenche will be laughed out of common belief. As entire populations are rendered obsolescent within a decade or two rather than their alloted '3 score and 10'.

4. If you want to shield the product of any 'research' (has anyone heard from Eve lately? Thought not...) you _cannot_ expose them to everyday threats of the battlefield (scorpions, snakes, disease, mines, snipers, mortars etc.) AT ALL. And indeed, why would you WANT to do so?
Because one Einstein with all the brains of a 50 year old in a 15-20 year old body could give us the answers to things like the Universal Theorems. One doctor, one statistician, one economist, one engineer, one teacher, one empath, one precog. Could change the world as we know it.

VASTLY more efficiently than any /group/ of super killers could.

The real answer to winning war is not to play it. The 64 dollar question then comes down to how you transition a global society 'all at once' to a level where they no longer feel the need.

Such a complex systemic rewrite to how we live and interact is not something for which your 'typical' (which is to say focussed learning as much as physical abilities) soldier is going to have a the time as much as inclination to write an outline-answer to.


KPl.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
ShatteredSkies,

>>
That is so wrong. History has taught us that you don't need the highest level of technology and the largest armies to win wars. If anything, History has taught us that this is not how you win wars effectively. Will you win? Possibly, and if you do, at what cost?
>>

There have been many such African tribal victims of British imperialism. The one key thing they have in common is that they are all disenfranchised and more or less 'historical', powers while Britain is not. Quite.

Of the most successful of unconventional warfare practitioners in fact were Boer (captured winning Winnie among other things) and yet they too were brought to heel when their home-and-hearth (Women and Kids) logistics were obliterated or taken captive independently of their mounted cavalry warrior caste.

When the whole were made to pay for the actions of the few on a geographical associative basis, the interlopers tend to win by process of detail elimination of their opponents.

'Terror' as an assymetric leverage then being our forte`.

>>
Look at the War on Terror, believe it or not folks, they're winning, insurgents are keeping at bay the world's most advanced fighting force, with what? AK-47's and RPG-7s? IEDs are proving to be annoying too.
>>

They are winning because we refuse to treat them like we did the Germans after WWII. No weapons, no guns, no partisan propoganda, we write your initial laws and administer them through a military governance. If a man of ours dies, your town will be burnt to the ground. No safe havens.

The Iraqis are winning because, at the heart of all primitive, violent, societies is a 'coup' based system of one-upmanship which never acknowledges greater threats to the societal infrastructure system until the potential of total loss is brought right up into their faces.

They can't kill each other without begetting endless vendetta (which is why we are going on 3,000 dead and they have slaughtered probably 20,000 of their own). But they can gain face and status by slaughtering outsiders. 'Free and Clear'.

So long as they can see this risk:gain factor, they will try. If only because they have little or nothing else to look forward too (unemployment still runs about 70% in young males over there, last I heard).

One specific instance I recall is a U.S. Medic being shot in the chest by a sniper to the frenzied calls of "Allahu Ackbar!" and then watching in disbelief (via his spotter's videocamera) as he got up and hobbled to the other side of the hummer he was standing in front of.

15 minutes later, that same medic was attending to the wounds of the captured sniper team and so their tape was published for all to see.

THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

Because it implied that U.S. infantry 'could not be killed' which only inspires more drastic efforts to find a way to disclaim the proof.

Now. Imagine the soldier is a robot. And BELIEVE that you 'know you can't kill it'. Because 'it' is not a 'he' or a 'she' to begin with.

What is the point of trying? It's like standing in front of the rising tide and 'daring God' not to drown you.

The Tide isn't killing you. Your 'lets make it a game!' coup psychosis is.

To which I can only add that the troops at Isandalwhana had more men, more bullets and equal or better terrain to prepare a position in and they were slaughtered. The men a Rourke's Drift had less area, fewer men, far worse position and a terrible numeric imbalance.

BUT. Because they 'counted their numbers in lead'. And because the Zulu came at them in _limited to like_ totals of men only sufficient to engage the obvious frontal positions; the Brits were not overrun forced out of their prepared fighting positions by indigs who were prepared to keep them that way.

Because they never fought their enemy as a crashing wave of total force (which is what you have to do when faced with a killing zone disparity of 200+ yards vs. 10-20ft), they instead 'lost by little drips and drabbles'. With a superior numeric force. Sound familiar?

If we were to measure the Iraqi's 'by the numbers' of enemy we COULD NOT SEE (goats hidden amongst the totality of sheep) we too would be 'outnumbered'. And unlike the Zulu, the Iraqis know that they need only use assassination tactics to keep the kettle boiling and the world press will storm the parapets of higher reason.


KPl.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
If you check out DARPA's website they are working on a number of ways to augment human performance - partly stregnth and endurance, but mainly things like delaing with sleep deprivation and providing ways to survive otherwise life-threatening injuries logn enough to get treatment.

Spears are certainly a match for rifles in some hands. The 'primitive' Mapuche defeated all Spanish attempts to overcome them (and adopted Spanish weapons in time), and with better political management would have had a nation of their own yet.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Spookily enough, in today's news - "In their quest to create the super warrior of the future, some military researchers aren't focusing on organs like muscles or hearts. They're looking at ..."

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Its about time the US with all its military might brought out true stealth soldiers completely undetectable to even low tech such as sniffer dogs.

I mean the advantages are unquestionable! You could go where the enermy goes, it doesnt take much imagination to think up possiblities!

To me the future super soldier is one such as this, much like modern day Ninjas.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
A ninja is no match for a bullet at 40 feet away. Martial artists are good in close combat situations but would be slaughtered on the battlefield.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
web.mit.edu...



The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) is an interdepartmental research center at MIT. Established in 2002 by a five-year, $50 million contract from the U.S. Army, the ISN's research mission is to use nanotechnology to dramatically improve the survival of soldiers. The ultimate goal is to create a 21st century battlesuit that combines high-tech capabilities with light weight and comfort. Imagine a bullet-proof jumpsuit, no thicker than ordinary spandex, that monitors health, eases injuries, communicates automatically, and maybe even lends superhuman abilities. It's a long-range vision for how technology can make soldiers less vulnerable to enemy and environmental threats. You can see dramatic examples of how research will achieve these goals in a newly released 12-minute video about the ISN, its mission, and its research program



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
[
What was it, I believe there was a tribe of south africans (forgot their name) during the British days of global conquest that fended off the advanced British forces from their tribal lands with literally sticks and stones. This goes to show that Tactics goes a LONG way. Longer than numbers and technology if you know how to apply it correctly. The insurgents in the middle east believe it or not do have tactics, it's called hit and run. Also suiciding, that too is a tactic if it gets the job done right.

Zulu tribe.
For my own part, I have heard, and have met people who have worked in the defense industry, and or have been in the military.
As I was told, and I have no real way to confirm this either, but from listening to different sources, but did the US engage in trying to make a superior solidier? Yes they did. Means of which started with biological on levels that can be scary. After all who knows what they inject into recruits on entrance into the military or what they do with all of the blood samples they take.
I have heard of reports, coming out of WWII about some of the South Pacific islands where the only way to actually kill the native was to shoot them in the head, right between the eyes, as several bullets to the body would not stop them. There are tales that are from that region, and my memory slip as to the name of the peoples, I want to say the Philipines. I have also heard tales of Buddhist monks doing amazing things as well, which would qualify as a super soldier, beyond the movies.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Doctor
A ninja is no match for a bullet at 40 feet away. Martial artists are good in close combat situations but would be slaughtered on the battlefield.


No i diddnt mean the US should have Ninjas lol, take for example the special forces + total invisible camo suits +modern age communication and weaponry = super soldier, that or just make a clone army of Chuck Norris'



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
If they were invisable or unknown then that would make them near invincable. I mean if you don't see a target/know where it is, you can't shot it, or plant a bomb in its path (like tank coming). If you don't know you are fighting or if a enemy is around what are you going to do?

All of the personal armor in the world can't protect you from a hail of fire.

But if they are actualy invisable or cloaked, and enemy gets word of it, they might look out for shadows or predetor distortion things. Heck if they were fanatics they might rig themselves to explode.

The olny major problem to the idea of super stealth is implimenting it. How do you?

[edit on 24-4-2006 by jazz_psyker]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Invisability does not make you invincable when someone could just pick up your heat signature or sound what about if it was raining you would see the drops cascade the outline of a body.

Still not a super soldier though because they are still bound by human limitations like speed strength etc. you need to overcome human physical and mental limitations to have a true super soldier.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
If you do a google search for "super mice" or genetically modified mice... Or something to that effect. You should find some intresting news links in regards to genetic modification of mice. They isolated the "muscle doubling" gene within the mouse (im assuming human too) genome.

If you find pictures of the mice you'll see that they're huge. By turning on this one specific gene, it apparently doubles the muscle mass of the mouse. I'm not sure on the specifics of it. Genetic engineering isnt something i've indulged myself in. I'm sure that they've isolated other genes aswell. I know for a fact that they isolated the longevity gene in mice and simple worms. They can make a mouse live 2-3x longer than its normal life span by simply changing the gene into the on position.

I'm sure if you worked hard enough at the genetic level you could produce a super soldier. Long life and super strength are a start. Conquer quick tissue regeneration and super intellect and you're well on your way.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
So what have we learned from thist post

There is nothing "Super" about a well trained soldier

Unless this soldier is genetically enhanced (dulce conspiracies involving ET bio genetic technolgy) then its unlikely.

Robots are the best idea because they can withstand bullets and carry more ammo.

If you wanted a super soldier just take a well trained man.. pump him full of steroids and genetic engineering, Give him some lsd and train him to fear nothing.

I can see it now... The Bezerker division...

Oh by the way, Kurt Russel is the Ideal super soldier.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I read a book once where they mentioned the US military's Project Jedi, which lo and behold has a wikipedia entry.

I can't remember the book's title, but I am pretty sure that it claimed, oddly enough, that Al Gore was supposed to have been a candidate or subject of the project at one point. I have NO idea how true that is, it seems pretty bizarre, but that's what I read. Once I get back to that library I'll see if I can find the book again and post some more details.

Wikipedia sez:



Project Jedi is an alledged project undertaken by the United States military in the 1970s to create a super soldier that would posses superior strength, intelligence, cunning, and intuition by utilizing neurolinguistic programming. It is thought to have been conducted at Fort Bragg under the United States Army Special Operations Command. It is not specifically known when the program began and or if it has ended.


Also, I had an older thread on a different and more recent (and verifiable) project here:

DARPA seeking "Metabolic Dominance".. ie, super-soldiers... scary stuff

[edit on 25-4-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I am a member of the armed Forces and have seen evidence of these things in my passing of different places



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Okay first the cybornetic and anomalie ideas hold nerit but I am talkeing about training so intense that it increases muscle mass 150-200 percent and makes their fibers 4-5 times stronger tan any other soldiers



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Sweet! Do they sell this stuff on the black market yet? Im looking forward to being the first "rogue" super soldier..





 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def