Future Soldiers

[Marxist ßastard]

...Stricter recruiting could be conducted to filter out the ignorant fools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We're talking about the US here. The primary question to consider when making any decision is "would this increase our economic well-being?"

 

It is an exercise left up to you to determine if it would be profitable for the government to spend money on raising recruiting standards so that we are left with a kinder, gentler military that does less damage to the target, the end result being less work for contractors.

[loveme4whoiam]

Ah. Again you make a good point. I guess I was being niave to thik that the US might actually think about the well-being of anyone other than their shareholders; since what is the US now, if not a huge commercialised business?

[Malchik]

...Stricter recruiting could be conducted to filter out the ignorant fools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We're talking about the US here. The primary question to consider when making any decision is "would this increase our economic well-being?"

 

It is an exercise left up to you to determine if it would be profitable for the government to spend money on raising recruiting standards so that we are left with a kinder, gentler military that does less damage to the target, the end result being less work for contractors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The question you refer to in the US is surely "would this increase the economic well-being of the ruling oligarchic plutocracy?" 'Our' is a bit too idealistic there unless you are a member of that group and your forum name would suggest otherwise.

 

I am not sure however that that question applies all the time. Periodically I think it changes to 'what will give us the best results in the next election?'. These are sometimes contradictory. This is why election promises have to be broken.

[loveme4whoiam]

So, since the US has a morally bankrupt government it seems apparent that this system won't benefit the world come its unveiling (if ever). But what if another country were to come up with somethig like this for use among its troops? The applications among UN peace-keeping forces, where they are almost always out-numbered and in hostile country, should be beneficial shoudn't they?

[Marxist ßastard]

Periodically I think it changes to 'what will give us the best results in the next election?'.  These are sometimes contradictory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What the candidate lacks in morality, he makes up for in advertising budget. These words have been spoken every four years since the inception of radio broadcasting, and have always held true.

 

The applications among UN peace-keeping forces, where they are almost always out-numbered and in hostile country, should be beneficial shoudn't they?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/2569318/2569318_screen003.jpg

[Peregrine]

Simple physics puts a limit on how powerful a weapon a human can use.

 

What theorem of simple physics creates this limit?

 

 

That minor one about equal and opposite reaction that says a human can't use a tank cannon as a rifle. You know, where the recoil force breaks the arm of the idiot who tries anyway.

 

And besides that, there's the issue of weight... carrying around a 500lb weapon isn't practical, so individual soldiers will have a limit on their firepower.

[Marxist ßastard]

I don't think that the concerns here are the little pop-guns that infantry are going to be equipped with. The concern is that if said pop-guns stop working, more drastic measures would be called for that can have some long-lasting effects even after the war is over.

 

Chemical and biological weapon research, the use of land mines, the general destruction of anything that could serve as cover so that snipers can get a clean shot, &c. -- things that could cause some very ill effects for the civilian population -- will likely start to proliferate at the same time that sophisticated body armor does.

[Peregrine]

That post you quoted was in reply to the idea of terrorists getting some miracle weapon to defeat this armor. Obviously heavy weapons could do the job (even if the armor doesn't break, hitting it with a tank shell will squish the person inside), but how many terrorists do you see driving around in tanks?

 

These drastic measures you're talking about are only available to formal armies with huge research budgets, not some terrorist group. And when you're talking about war on that scale, we're already way beyond the damage those things can cause. A minefield looks pretty minor in comparison to flattening half a city with a B-52 strike.

 

And anyway, these measures won't be needed. At most, you make pure infantry combat rarer, and most militaries upgrade to light vehicles that can carry heavier weapons. It just means instead of one guy and a rifle to kill someone, you use the 30mm cannon mounted on your light tank.

 

The idea that any advances in body armor technology could require some absurd increase in overall firepower is just showing ignorance of the physics involved. Anything that can be worn by a single human as armor is going to be limited in its protection. A missile small enough for a single person to carry and use can already kill a tank... there's no way body armor is going to match that firepower. Even if it stopped it from penetrating, the shock of the impact would kill the person inside.

[Marxist ßastard]

These drastic measures you're talking about are only available to formal armies with huge research budgets, not some terrorist group.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A claymore mine doesn't take trilions of dollars to build and deploy. Additionally, it isn't just some nutjob poorly-organized terrorist group that will face just the least bit of desperation against an army of invincible men.

 

And when you're talking about war on that scale, we're already way beyond the damage those things can cause. A minefield looks pretty minor in comparison to flattening half a city with a B-52 strike.

 

Even sites that suffered a nuclear blast are relatively safe now. Minefields that predate nuclear weaponry are still yet to be cleared.

 

And anyway, these measures won't be needed.

 

Rarely does a desperate foe do exactly that which you would deem as "needed."

 

The idea that any advances in body armor technology could require some absurd increase in overall firepower is just showing ignorance of the physics involved.

 

I don't care about the firepower that the average man on the ground is going to be packing. A Kar 98K will rarely destroy villages, poison water supplies, and make areas uninhabitable for decades -- I have no reason to assume that will change with advances in rifle manufacturing.

 

However, once conventional methods prove largely futile, other strategies need to be taken into consideration. Those methods are what have me concerned.

[Chaosmaker]

...but I'd guess it'd be around $100,000 - $500,000 per suit. If we look at the amount of soldiers in Iraq at the moment, roughly 100,000...

 

$250,000 x 100,000 = $25,000,000,000 to suit up the US army in Iraq.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes that is the price now but as an example prices of things that seem so advanced eventually drop down as they become more common. Such as a VCR they used to cost around $500 now you can get them for $50 or even $20.