The Future of Warfare

[soundmotor]

This could just as easily go up in the computer section:

Future War #1, Non-specific Middle East

Then watch this one:

Future War #2, China

Way cool hardware in order to minimize US casualties. Pretty bad-ass concepts & a way to get all the unemployed IT people back on the job too!

soundmotor

[whocarz]

Complete and utter propaganda. I love how the only US casualty in both videos combined was an unmanned vehicle used as bait.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by whocarz

Complete and utter propaganda. I love how the only US casualty in both videos combined was an unmanned vehicle used as bait.

Wet blanket.

soundmotor

[ziadel]

hes right, if the shit hits the fan with China it will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by ziadel

hes right, if the shit hits the fan with China it will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park

Why do you suppose that would be so?

soundmotor

[Suave]

Originally Posted by soundmotor

Why do you suppose that would be so?

soundmotor

Remember WWII? Well the Germans had better technology and training than the Russians, yet got WHOOPED by sheer numbers. Similar situation here, except the technology gap between China and the US isn't as big as it was with the Ruskies and Germans. That, and they both have nukes.

[ziadel]

because theres billions of people in china, and the typical chinese youth would rip a typical american youth to shreds.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by ziadel

because theres billions of people in china, and the typical chinese youth would rip a typical american youth to shreds.

The first part I agree with. The second I do not necessarily. I mean, it may well be true, but I doubt there is any basis in empirical data to back up the second part of your claim.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by Suave

Remember WWII? Well the Germans had better technology and training than the Russians, yet got WHOOPED by sheer numbers. Similar situation here, except the technology gap between China and the US isn't as big as it was with the Ruskies and Germans. That, and they both have nukes.

That analogy does not easily work here. The Germans got WHOOPED because they fought a war on multiple fronts & could not eliminate the industrial base of those they fought. Secondly, the Germans absolutely had better technology relative to the Russians in your example but the Russians quickly adapted and improved on what was being used against them. By the end of 1942, the Russians were building some of the best tanks in the war. The KV-1 for example outclassed anything the Germans had and the Russians had a lot of them. Further, the Germans were without long-range bombers so the Russians were free to build armaments in safety to throw back at the them from 1000's of miles behind the front lines.

Also, the Russian's large numbers were key in the ground war being fought, but the Germans had numbers too in the beginning. The newly occupied Balkans eagerly supplied troops to fight the communists as well. In the first years of the Russian campaign, the Germans nearly had them. I've stood at the monument outside Moscow where they stopped the Germans. You can see the city from it. The Germans got that close to capturing Moscow. It would have ended there too. Up to that point, about all the Russians had were massed troops and creaky equipment to throw the Germans back and it did not work. By the next year however, they began to fight back with better equipment and mile by mile pushed the Germans back.

soundmotor

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by ziadel

and the typical chinese youth would rip a typical american youth to shreds.

You can support that assertion how exactly?

soundmotor

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by Suave

except the technology gap between China and the US isn't as big as it was with the Ruskies and Germans. That, and they both have nukes.

Actually, it is far greater. The Chinese have essentially no satellite intel resources, 1 nuclear missile sub, no way of projecting power outside their own land base (1 short range aircraft carrier), mimimal (if any) cruise missiles, and are surrounded by hostile neighbors, some of which that have nuclear weapons.

The counterpoise on China in their sphere of influence is India, Australia, & Japan and to some degree Russia. Assuming that statecraft & diplomacy failed utterly and that China would want to lose it's largest trading partner in the world, the US, here is how it might shake out:

Russia is essentially neutral unless threatened directly by China. Even though they've opened up greatly to the Chinese in the last 5 years, they still hate each other's guts. If the Chinese were to mix it up with the US, Russia would essentially be happy that 2 of its enemies were beating on each other. There is however no way to tell what they'd do. They might even join on the US side if real ugliness began. China would have to have some portion of its nuclear arsenal held in reserve against a Russian strike.

Australia is a given for the US despite anti-US sentiment amongst a segment of the populace. The Oz PM is Pro-Bush & Pro-US knowing that if the ish hits the fan, it is the US that would be there for them not to mention the special arrangement the US has had with Oz & UK since WWII. China attacks the US & Oz lets loose on a long ago determined, Pro-US action against China. China would have to earmark part of its nuclear arsenal for Australia.

Japan has developed into perhaps our strongest ally in the world. Japan's current constitution is under review and is likely to be changed so that they can re-militarize with offensive rather than purely defensive forces. That is rather a sham really as Japan already has advanced, US supplied, seagoing Aegis missile systems deployed to counter Korea as well as an air force complement more advanced than the Chinese. Should China attack the US, Japan would be on offensive, Pro-US footing overnight. China would have to earmark part of its nuclear arsenal for Japan.

South Korea & North Korea essentially cancel each other out in a Chinese/US conflict.

India however does not. Traditionally an enemy of the Chinese aligning themselves with militarily with Russia & over the last 8 years steadily increasing its Pro-US stance. Further, the Indian war materiel is almost exclusively Russian which as far more advanced than what the Chinese use, essentially Russian copies. The Chinese could not predict what this emerging nuclear power would do either. It would be tough to invade as India has a huge standing military as well. Part if it's nuclear arsenal would have to be earmarked for India.

So assuming that China did launch some portion of their ~250 total nuclear launch devices, of which only a fraction of are capable of reaching the US shores, The US still has nearly 3,000 devices, the majority of which can hit China back. China would have a better outcome by having all its citizens jump off a chair simultaneously than to use its nuclear option. Far more likely is that they invade Taiwan and dare us to do anything about it. It is that kind of scenario that future combat systems are meant to engage.

soundmotor

[nowthen]

blah blah blah. they can try and convince themselves all they want that warefare can become "sanitisied" and "surgical", but at the end of the day somebody has still got to get in there and do the killing, especially in an urban enviroment.

look where all that technology has gotten them in iraq - in to a bloody street fight. and i dont care how much technology you have, you take a round from a dirty, 20 yr old AK47, you are still going down. you step on a bomd made of little else than primitive explosive and nails, you and your buddies around you are going to loose limbs, maybe more.

war is hell folks, we can kid ourselves that technology insulates us from that reality but its all about the killing at the end of the day. it will never be a sanitised operation.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by nowthen

war is hell folks, we can kid ourselves that technology insulates us from that reality but its all about the killing at the end of the day. it will never be a sanitised operation.

You are right and wrong here. War is hell but US casualties in each conflict from 1776 forward have steadily declined. Indeed, around the world the US in known as adverse to combat deaths and everything about the way we go to war is designed to limit them. We are the only nation in the world that does this and it is why the importance of UCV-type equipment has become an obsession with all branches of the military in addition to requiring fewer troops to achieve a given objective.

I've got 2 kids, neither of which I want to see go into combat. If they do make the choice to do so, I expect the military to have the most advanced ways & means possible to incinerate whomever we have engaged. If FCS gets them to this goal more quickly, full speed ahead with it.

soundmotor

[kinsaj]

HAHA... that was funny.. because we all have to use touch-screens... and what happens when ur personal computer crashes in combat?... load of propaganda crap... id rather not see my tax dollars going to this 3d rendered money-hole

[kinsaj]

I also have to add that the secodn one looks soo much like a game of Command&Conquer:Generals... I swear, they have to use some of the same sound effects as well.

[whocarz]

sound motor, you seem to know your stuff, but I seriously hope you recognize these videos for what they are. They are, pure and simple, propaganda designed to entice the video game playing youth of today into military service. The striking similarity between these videos and popular games today atests to that.

It shows a clean, safe battlefield for American soldiers, who get to use cool toys, and get to have fun killing pathetic excuses for enemy resistance. In the first video, they happened to be some real incompetant insurgants who are standing around with their weapons on an empty street corner in the middle of the night. Oh, yeah, real inconspicuous, guys. Then, the guard on the 2nd floor didn't notice the damn robot that was on the stairs in plain sight mere feet away. A real winner there. I almost forgot, the idiots out in the desert planting claymores as the US column approched, only to get smoked by an AH64 and that mechanized artillery piece. The only violence directed towards American forces in the whole thing was right at the end, against a robot, which was ineffectual.

The second video has us fighting the Chinese horde, which seems to consist of one guy with an AT launcher overlooking a bridge, a poorly rendered tank, and lots of red blips on a tactical screen. Why is the idiot on the hill by himself? Where are his comrades? Why isn't the bridge wired with explosives? Because these are mindless idiots, much akin to the Germans in most World War Two movies made from the 40s through to the early 90s. In this video, we actually see a close call, but thanks to our anti-missile technology, no one is hurt. Only the poor robot gave up it's "life", so the AT trooper could be located (again showing his stupidity by shooting at an insignificant target. You would think that they would learn what kind of shit we have, and use that knowledge, but no, they are mindless Chinese! The simpletons!).

These are both hilarilously bad propaganda attempts, similar to the crap they pumped out during WW2. At the very least, I can see that. I sure as hell hope you can too.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by whocarz

sound motor, you seem to know your stuff, but I seriously hope you recognize these videos for what they are.

Of course! Had I wanted to comment on that aspect of the video segments, I would have posted to Tilted Politics. This is Tilted Weaponry however and the segments do indeed accurately portray what has both already been deployed (JDAM-type munitions, networked AH-64Ds) and what is being worked on now. My impression is that others interested in weaponry would also find these depictions of interest, fair enough?

The modularized weapons platforms (tank, JDAM-mortar, & assault carrier) make great sense in that they share common chassis and can be field repaired more easily than unique, non-relating vehicles. The Germans found this out in Russia BTW. Instead of sending spares to repair the hundreds of dead vehicles they had at the front, the command kept sending them improved & non-equivalent versions. When those broke, even newer & more non-equivalent versions arrived. Seems like the computer industry somehow. The Russians on the other hand had ~20 overall designs & kept building them even if they sucked. 3 heavy tanks, 3 motorized guns, etc. meant lots of spares to repair others when they broke. Our military procurement has been too like the Germans in the past and this is a refreshing change in thinking and probably best attributed to Rumsfeld whose creedo is faster & lighter.

Again, I didn't post the links to debate the political nor propaganda aspects of the video segments. However, you are turning a blind eye to the soldiers in the military now if you do not think that they think in the terms of hard-core gaming. You might wish to read "Generation Kill" as it is quite eye-opening in that regard.

soundmotor

[d*d]

funny title - surely in this day and age, there is no future in warfare

[Lockjaw]

But it is reality. As long as there is man there will be war.

This thread turned political quickly enough didn't it?

[d*d]

Sadly I agree, however another big war with our technology might just be our undoing. I don't trust the people with their fingers on the bombs

[Charlatan]

Technology is the biggest "ally" the US has... If US soldiers had to actually fight, one to one in a war (i.e. on an equal playing ground) they would be hard pressed to win.

It is only with this superior tech that the US has managed to throw its weight around as it has...



That said, what makes anyone thing that China would ever attack the US? If anything, it would be the other way around. The US attacking China for something China did economically or to some other nation (i.e. Taiwan).

[ziadel]

Originally Posted by soundmotor

You can support that assertion how exactly?

soundmotor

Because the chineese kid is scared, they're so indoctinated to fear us, that they hate us.

That kind of emotion most certainly can help win a fight.

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by ziadel

Because the chineese kid is scared, they're so indoctinated to fear us, that they hate us.

That kind of emotion most certainly can help win a fight.

You can support that assertion how exactly?

Support means to cite, as in show a reference to, the Chinese youth anti-American indoctrination program & streetfighting regimen they must participate in.

The only scared Chinese kids I've seen lately are the ones they keep pulling out of 40-foot shipping containers in Long Beach, CA. They didn't look much like asskickers to me.

soundmotor

[ziadel]

Originally Posted by soundmotor

The only scared Chinese kids I've seen lately are the ones they keep pulling out of 40-foot shipping containers in Long Beach, CA. They didn't look much like asskickers to me.

soundmotor

um, when I said chinese youth, I meant youth in china...


I dont need to link you to a article, and you don;t have to accept my opinion, bu I will say this. Nowhere in the world can you get a handout like in the good old US of A... the strong hunt, the weak are fed.

[MooseMan3000]

Originally Posted by soundmotor

This could just as easily go up in the computer section:

Future War #1, Non-specific Middle East

Bahahaha... it's the Killhouse map from Rainbow6! ROCK!

[irateplatypus]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Technology is the biggest "ally" the US has... If US soldiers had to actually fight, one to one in a war (i.e. on an equal playing ground) they would be hard pressed to win.

It is only with this superior tech that the US has managed to throw its weight around as it has...

uhh... no crap. did you think someone was saying that we're somehow better because we wrestled in high school? technology has always been a large part of a military forces lethality... that goes for iron axes, greek fire, catapults, trebuchets, stirrups, long bows as well as our modern-day weapons.

however, that isn't the total picture. we have outstanding leadership commanding seasoned troops who have the best training money can buy (made possible, in part, by technology). also, our industrial, economoic and agricultural base at home allows our military to project it's power with greater force, flexibility and sustainibility.

in a conventional war... we would roundly defeat china with minimal (relatively speaking) casualties. the gap is just too great. people must appreciate that the technological gap and the realization that manpower & technology intersect along a steep curve. the greater the technological advancement... the less significance manpower (in sheer numbers) projects onto the battlefield.

it's a curve. let's say that 10,000 years ago it took two thousand bone-wielding cavemen to fight against an opposing two thousand bone-wielding cavemen. nineteen hundred years ago it would take 1,000 roman foot soldiers to defeat two thousand bone-wielding cavemen. in medieval times advances in armor and weaponry would mean that it would take 500 medieval knights to defeat two thousand bone-wielding cavemen. today, it would take a single apache helicopter (manned by 2 soldiers) to take out two thousand bone-wielding cavemen. it's a simplistic explanation of the model, but i think it illustrates my point.

it appears, however, that our lead in technology is becoming less pronounced. the force relationship progresses on two planes: 1) their population #'s mean less as technology developes and 2) our technological supremacy shortens as time goes on.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by ziadel

um, when I said chinese youth, I meant youth in china...


I dont need to link you to a article, and you don;t have to accept my opinion, bu I will say this. Nowhere in the world can you get a handout like in the good old US of A... the strong hunt, the weak are fed.

In the US you have legions of young men (I use men because it's more accurate than a blanket statement "people") trained to enjoy killing as though it were a video game, who would fight without any concept of death.

[Lockjaw]

Hmmm I wonder who would be the better shots...a random Chinese kid or a kid growing up in Watts or Compton.
Don't assume just because we are decadent that we are soft. That's part of the duality that makes America what it is. It's a soft country no doubt but when it's feet are put to the fire it will put up a hell of a fight. We are just some stubborn SOBs no way around that.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by Lockjaw

Hmmm I wonder who would be the better shots...a random Chinese kid or a kid growing up in Watts or Compton.
Don't assume just because we are decadent that we are soft. That's part of the duality that makes America what it is. It's a soft country no doubt but when it's feet are put to the fire it will put up a hell of a fight. We are just some stubborn SOBs no way around that.

Probably neither. Most people are terrible shots, especially gang members.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by ziadel

hes right, if the shit hits the fan with China it will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park

We've got 20 years until it starts to get likely that the US and China will go at each other.

Thanks, Bill, for selling them missile technology!!!

[soundmotor]

Originally Posted by daswig

Thanks, Bill, for selling them missile technology!!!

He didn't sell them anything directly but the outcome was sure the same IIRC.

Via approval from the Commerce department under Ron Brown, a design review board staffed with Loral personnel was allowed to evaluate what the Chinese were doing wrong and comment on their work product without telling them directly what the problem was. "Well, we're not saying necessarily that poor solder connections on your 1st through 4th guidance circuit boards are actually causing your missiles to go off course......." You do that enough times and you absolutely influence the outcome. The Chinese advanced decades in their launch capability because of this treasonous behaviour.

soundmotor

[Dyze]

I love especially the patriotic and heroic soundtrack! Nice, war is becoming a video game. And the "Mission Complete" thing reminds me of the "Mission Accomplished" thing I saw somewhere not too long ago...