If the US Military is so advanced...

Why the DARPA Grand Challenge?

Why the use of iRobot robots, that could be built by just about any hobbyist?

If the government has all this technology, why do they spend such a huge amount of funds that could be used to further their own tech?

I believe that up to 15-20 years ago the government was a good deal ahead of the game. With the widespread usage of the internet, though, I think the general public(civilian firms, hobbyists in many cases) is pretty much caught up, atleast robotics and general tech-wise. Aeronautics have just about always been developed by civilian firms with government funding.

So, what's the military have that makes it so advanced? I find it hard to be impressed by all these r/c "Robots" that I could build myself. When I was younger I was always in awe of the potential of the military technology, but I see today they have nothing there. I know robotics is just one thing, and that's the stem of my issue, here, but it makes you think what else they are behind on.

I think you're right, to a degree. I don't think the private sector has totally caught up or surpassed the military when it comes to tech, but the areas in which the gov't holds the big advantages have gotten more and more specific.

I wouldn't say in all sectors that the military is behind. The military still has a very clear edge in firearms, aircraft, sensing equipment, and missiles.

So, scratch that. The military is not behind in anything, except maybe ground based robots, and that's probably just because they haven't particularly focused on it. The difference between the private sector and the military is not informational, it is financial. The military's greater financial resources permit it to spend so much more on R&D than any private firm could ever hope to do.

If the US Military is so advanced...

y did thay have to send in troops to find saddam thay could of used there high tech to find him instead of go in and take out half the country true everyone agrees?

good point above post. but robots can only do so much. i believe that robots will save lives but until the tec catches up to the idea we still must have the human eliment in the game...

Originally posted by DaleGribble
good point above post. but robots can only do so much. i believe that robots will save lives but until the tec catches up to the idea we still must have the human eliment in the game...

tru but some timming thay could know exact location of saddam ages ago and allias and take them out or find them and capture easyier

Originally posted by SoFunkyMe
If the US Military is so advanced...

y did thay have to send in troops to find saddam thay could of used there high tech to find him instead of go in and take out half the country true everyone agrees?

goes to..why would they WANT to? when they HAVE the marines,army,navy,airforce,seals,delta and such that are THEIR "high-tech" killing machines? do you think by sending robots they are going to gain the support of the american people? no way.

and all the money they paid/paying for each soldier, everything from pistols to fighter jets to carriers, were all made as almost an accessory to equip their high tech machines.

Going full force into sending and making technology would leave the things they've already made and tons of it! useless and wasted money.
and robots can only do so much as to the human body, as far as reaction time to adrenaline to thinking.

thats kind of true yeh but dident thay assisinate a president or was that another country using laser targets?



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 25-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

ive only been out or the military for about 4 years and i must say the tec leaps they have made since then are impressive. i love the new ads you see. that start out by saying "working every day to unman the front lines".

i think that no matter how advanced we get there will have to be some sort of human influance. although the tec will help us keep that to a min.

Originally posted by SoFunkyMe

Originally posted by DaleGribble
good point above post. but robots can only do so much. i believe that robots will save lives but until the tec catches up to the idea we still must have the human eliment in the game...

tru but some timming thay could know exact location of saddam ages ago and allias and take them out or find them and capture easyier

Huh? timming thay? i'm kind of lost on that..

I kind of understand the question you are asking, so i'll try to answer it for you as far as my opinion goes.

one of the two, which would you choose?

as far as exact location goes and uses of technology..try getting out a remote control car/airplane with pistol and a camera attached to it running on batteries and go out and drop it to a location you never been to before and set a target to find. All while you are sitting back at your house trying to navigate and control it through the locals there that aren't really appreciating you in there and have some nice AK-47's and IEDs ready for you at possibly every corner. by doing this you'll save a lot of US lives and you'll pretty much send a lot of your soldiers that you've already paid for and all the technology you got for them obsolete to your mission huh?

option two.
You have Marines, soldiers..jets, advanced and very modern weapons of all naval and air and armor. All built for you to use along side your troops, and you've spent a lot of money, and a lot of history to get it where it is today.
You're gonna go into an unknown territory and you want to find somebody and take out all the "bad" guys. what would you like to do? You're gonna want to finally be able to use your "toys" in real-life right? rather than just testing it, you're gonna send your soldiers with all their high tech "upgrade" and you're gonna see what they can do in the real battlefield, you're gonna get your money's worth right?


maybe that might make sense, maybe that might not, i'm going to sleep, i'll probably touch up tomorrow

Originally posted by SoFunkyMe


thats kind of true yeh but dident thay assisinate a president or was that another country using laser targets?

i'm not sure, i don't ever remember a president or something got assassinated by laser targets?

i think it was in mid east somewere a terroist not a president as i read

umm well using tech is better then millions of lives going to waist dont u rekon? life is more importent then money guns war?

I would like to preface this by stating that I do not approve of America's continued involvement in Iraq in the least bit. That being said, what would assassination of Saddam Hussein have accomplished? Granted, the current war has accomplished very little, but merely killing Hussein, in my opinion, would have accomplished even less. If Hussein had died and nothing else had changed, one of his sons would probably have taken over and business would go on almost 100% the same.

Technology has it's place, but can only do so much. There are certain tasks that require boots on the ground. As for hunting for Saddam, how do you propose that he could've been found any faster? Exactly which technology would be used, and if it exists, why wait to use it? You have to have good intel, to know where to focus your search, and if someone doesn't want to be found(and keeps a low profile), it's very difficult to find them. I'm still not sure what the question about robotics had to do with military technology lagging? Remember- the military doesn't build weapons. It funds private companies to develop them.

Originally posted by SoFunkyMe
If the US Military is so advanced...

y did thay have to send in troops to find saddam thay could of used there high tech to find him instead of go in and take out half the country true everyone agrees?

Cos satellites cannot look underground

reply to post by uberarcanist


Take firearms off of your list, and I'll agree with you 100%.

The military is actually behind in the firearms sector, as well. I think they are just cautious to adopt new tech there, because of it's extreme importance.

The only things it is advanced at are the things that civilian companies aren't allowed to make, or have no reason to make. Funding is not an issue.

As someone who was actually in the U.S Army, I have to say that I really don't see where we are so powerful. We are certainly not as powerful as we could, or, perhaps, should be. Now, we may have some weaponry in underground bases that would blow your socks off, I don't know, but I have never seen them.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

I think many people are uninformed about DARPA. If you havent gone to their website you should.



DARPA

DARPA’s original mission, inspired by the Soviet Union beating the United States into space with Sputnik, was to prevent technological surprise. This mission has evolved over time. Today, DARPA’s mission is to prevent technological surprise for us and to create technological surprise for our adversaries. Stealth is one example of how DARPA created technological surprise. DARPA’s mission is discussed in detail in Section 2.

DARPA isnt completely about armies of androids or robots walking across the globe destroying everything. Most of the projects they research arent to replace, but to SUPPORT troops in the field. Such things like the robot that is used to explode IEDs or the RC planes use for recon. DARPA even looks to highschoolers for ideas. Many of their projects arent even top secret either and are common ideas amongst researchers wether those scientist are working for the government or private firms.


As for using technology only to fight a war. Technology can only do so much. There is a point in all technologies that they break down without human support. When we pulled Saddam out of his hole, that is a perfect example. Nothing but a soldier could have gotten him out of that hole. Would you surrender to a robot or a soldier with a human face even if it was a horrible enemy? In many places where they dont even have running water a robot would be a terriffying thing to encounter. Sad to say, no government will fork out cash for a exspensive robot army when humans are so much cheaper to lose. Maybe someday, but not anytime soon.


There will always be a DARPA no matter how advanced we are compared to the enemy. DARPA is there to keep a edge on others and to keep that edge.

[edit on 29/9/07 by Pfeil]

Originally posted by random hero
I think you're right, to a degree. I don't think the private sector has totally caught up or surpassed the military when it comes to tech, but the areas in which the gov't holds the big advantages have gotten more and more specific.

No, the civilian sector is years ahead of military technology. The military still uses microprocessors from the 1980s and keeps a company alive just to produce these ancient microprocessors.

This program is implimented just to collect civilian technology and use it for military use.

The term in the industry is called "Spin-on".

Spin-off is when military or government industry develops technology used by civilians.

Spin-on is when the military uses civilian developed technology.

Since the 1970s, there have been no spin-offs...only spin-ons. The US military is far behind the times, but farther ahead than its other counterparts of other nations.

Originally posted by Zeeko

Originally posted by SoFunkyMe
If the US Military is so advanced...

y did thay have to send in troops to find saddam thay could of used there high tech to find him instead of go in and take out half the country true everyone agrees?

Cos satellites cannot look underground

Yes they can, advanced geo-magnetic surveying equipment on a large array could theoretically penetrate the ground at an extreme distance such as a Geo-stationary orbit, or a low-orbit.

Currently we only use aerial equipment to do this, but it is not limited to that....

Aerial equipment could penetrate any ground structure for a matter of miles and would be able to accurately portray the size, structure, density and other minor characteristics of the facility thus enabling any analyst to assume its purpose.

Doing this from a satellite would take some work, but it is not impossible.