reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
But how much does the military know really? How much does the Government know?
That's almost two completely different questions. The government is about as fundamentally dysfunctional as the average politician and knows about
as much as a flock of chickens being driven around the barn yard.
The military is only a slightly different story in that it tends to be just as dysfunctional, but in its own flavors and varieties that differ
considerably from government. The military is a bit more like a family with parents that argue all of the time and the kids simply get the "aura"
of what is going on.
So therefore, is it safe to say that they might have discovered any interesting, weird, wonderful and dangerous technologies?
Historically, when has the Military ever 'discovered' a new technology? Even the Manhattan Project - one of the most classified and operationally
secured project to have ever been undertaken by human beings - was based around theories and research that were publicly available -decades- before
the initiation of the program.
What the military would be doing now, is paying thousands to millions of dollars for pre-market technologies that are not mass-produced and putting
them to use in ways that are impractical for mass production and sale. For example - the AN/AWG-9 was the first radar to offer track-while-scan
function (it was able to track up to 24 targets while continuing to search the airspace for additional threats - a first). It ran on an Intel 8080
microprocessor (that was the core of its TWS capability). This would not be challenged until the development of AESA radars that broke down radar
function into individual pulses and states of the antenna array - which gives the radar almost infinite agility - so it can 'jump' to locations of
radar tracks and update their locations without having to pan the array to do so.
I don't know - maybe even try to even found a way to stabilize a wormhole to create a time machine you never know - That type of information
if leaked to the public would be like kryptonite!
As a general rule - if you think some technology is too dangerous to be taught in highschool and college physics, then you shouldn't develop it.
Preventing the proliferation of defense technologies to the non-military industries and contractors is impossible. It will happen. You can delay the
inevitable - but only so long.
Just this year, China banned any depictions of time travel in entertainment - I mean, like WTF and why? Talk about over reaction? Or is it a
cover up that China may have had breakthroughs in manipulating the very fabric of space and time itself?
It's illegal to fart in an elevator in some municipalities. That doesn't mean it's the secret to perpetual energy.
You can't sometimes have a decent argument to challenge existing laws in Science without being casually ridiculed at. Its very difficult to
convince a text book scientist to sometimes think outside the box as they would rather stay in the comfort zone of the known realm where most of the
lot hang about.
To a point. You will actually find very few scientists who -dislike- the idea of over-unity or FTL. Many love the idea and the fact that people are
willing to challenge known laws of physics and discover ways around obstacles. What many don't like is a bunch of yahoos running around and trying
to sell snake oil or talk their status up based on "modern science doesn't like progress!"
While there is a point to be made, there - large wheels are slow to move - and "old habits die hard" ... it's one thing to take quantifiable
observations of the universe and draw up a new theory to explain the phenomena, and a completely different thing to say you've broken the laws of
physics and have succeeded in making over-unity devices and antigravity devices out of tin foil and magnet wire.
And, yes, us pompous intellectuals tend to nit-pick each others' work with a sort of ruthless and almost hostile nature... but when someone's model
starts describing behavior better than other methods available... then we have really no choice but to use it - if but purely for function (a
"mathematical convenience" as it is known - a very important concept in physics, especially when you are analyzing phenomena that are beyond direct
So I was wondering, what if the Government did know about impossible technology which could possibly be very dangerous to let the public know
about? I mean, if top secret government scientists managed to tap into unlimited energy/power, that could spell DOOM for every energy company and
hundreds of millions of jobs around the world! Hence could be a reason why they might never want to reveal it - or may gradually over the years to
Gas being at a national average of $8/gal in the U.S. is going to doom about an equal number of people and even more varied segments of the market.
The accompanying rising costs of electricity are going to put people under even more pressure.
Further - the energy industry wouldn't be "doomed" - it would adapt. You would still need people to maintain and supervise the plants and
facilities. Demand for these things would also go through the roof - the number of jobs created just to keep up with the demand for production will
be more than enough to offset any threat of unemployment and smooth over the transition of the market.
Further - an unlimited source of energy like that would invert the energy equation. We are usually trying to figure out how to generate enough energy
to supply our needs. If we had a source of such gross amounts of energy, we would be trying to find a need for it. And this would drive other
segments of the economy in ways that hadn't been seen since the industrial revolution.
In short - the country that develops perpetual energy and makes the most extensive use of it first gets an uber-win as the techno-industrial leader of
the world for the next 20 years by default. Sure - you won't be the only country with it, but you'll be at the pinnacle of it all.
They already do countless things behind back doors, so whos to say they aren't playing around with a plasma cannon or even a starship capable
of travelling faster than the speed of light?
And who is to say the Star Gate series isn't a documentary?
It's difficult to really prove a negative. About as "far in advance" as I would say the military is, with regards to space travel, would be
air-launched space delivery/recovery vehicles powered by some silicon-based hydrogen rockets that were fabricated much in the same way a CPU is (and
quite powerful). While not in commercial use to my knowledge - they would work well for complementary projects to high-altitude hypersonic aircraft
research that has been going on over the past few decades or so.
Otherwise - many of the advanced research concepts going on today are actually just an attempt to keep up with the civilian technology market. Combat
awareness networks - similar to your various HUD elements in first-person shooters (icons above friendlies, monitoring of ammunition, status of
allies, topographical maps as well as floor plans for buildings displayed on a visor, etc) are where it's at, right now. Video games are,
interestingly enough, providing huge insights into how to make more effective use of ground forces. Mini-maps - so standard in games like Call of
Duty, Medal of Honor, Ghost Recon, etc that we'd be seriously irritated at a lack of them in future installments, are one of the major focuses of
current development research.
One of the things infantry tend to do is cluster together - it's human instinct. It's counter-productive. You want infantry to spread out and be
very difficult/impossible to pin down en mass, and to be able to focus fire from a greater number of angles (this is not only to minimize the
effectiveness of enemy cover, but it is also far more destructive - a thousand rounds shot into a structure from one angle pales to the amount of
destruction that can be done from a hundred rounds spread across a 60 degree arc).
When testing the "advanced warfighter" gear - they noticed that teams using the gear instinctively spread out more while still staying in effective
communication - almost instantly making them a vastly superior fighting force.
Newer improvements will likely aim to have built in acoustic locators and be able to relay enemy (as well as friendly) locations via the combat
network - though that will, at first, likely require a lot of front-end (object recognition technologies are limited in application, and there would
be limits to what could automatically be determined to be an enemy - requiring someone to upload coordinates as being a MG nest, Sniper, etc). Feed
from aircraft and drones could also be accessed, as well as radar contacts be identified (ground search radars picking out armored vehicles or
artillery positions, as well as air search radars capable of tracking artillery being able to give advance warning and estimated kill-radius for each
round and alerting infantry in the area).
Take some history lessons from World War II. Magic weapons and technology don't win a war. Information does.
Germany had some of the most advanced technology and industry in use during the war. Not necessarily all - but more than their fair share. They also
had a considerably larger force at the onset than any other. They lost the war because they spent half their time preparing fronts to invasions that
never happened (or were really planned), bombing dummy airfields, and wasting research time and resources trying to counter allied projects that
didn't exist and were completely impractical.
The more informed your force is (particularly how aware you are of friendlies so as not to shoot them), the more effective they are.
Compared to wonder-weapons that can hardly ever be used - technology in the hands of the soldier can be used - and to great effect.