Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

I figure we're gonna see attacks by a drone carrier that drops autonomous mini-drones with explosive payloads. Literally fly a bomb through every chimney and window in a city block. Then the drone carrier returns automatically. If captured it self-destructs.

I also predict we're gonna see the US begin overtly using an explosive or incendiary chemical weapon and argue that it doesn't count as a war crime because it's just the propellent for the weapon. If it gets all over the target it's not their fault. If you ban any weapon that contains chemicals, you are banning every object. At minimum you're banning guns.

Finally I predict you'll see some alternative to land mines that still creates a no-man's-land, such as automated armored turrets, laser-pointer drones on overwatch that paint targets for laser-guided mini-missiles, and plastic foam sprayed over an area that hardens into a barrier that gums up wheels and bogs down infantry.

As for policy, what the US has going on is unsustainable. Either the US will become ruthless, which will result in its de jure hegemony or its destruction in WW3, or the US will become unable to maintain military bases and adventures because there will be no visible progress to make it worthwhile.

That certainly is charmingly pessimistic. It also takes a lot of liberties with certain things, but it certainly sounds good.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Pessimism and taking charming liberties is pretty much my forumgoing MO.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I personally predict that warfare will become economic suicide, and thus be avoided by all rational actors.

[misko27]

I personally predict that warfare will become economic suicide, and thus be avoided by all rational actors.

Rational actor theory, quite an interesting thing. Unfortunately, and as literally no human being on the face of the Earth - from the layman on the street to foreign policy analysts - seems able to understand, states are not people. They are composed of people. That is a world of difference. There is no situation, logically, where either the US or the Soviet Union would ever launch a nuclear attack, even in the face of extreme provocation. It's stupid, it's painful, it means an end to you and your power.

But it's the working gears that could make it happen. All those nukes aren't in the hands of the President, they're in the hands of soldiers, many of them, all over the world, all prone to rash thinking. The Cuban Missile Crisis was dangerous because a simple stupid soldier could end the world with the wrong actions.

And that is not even to mention the alternatives to rational actor, organizational and political.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Plus there are economic benefits to war - or at least, rational people can become fooled into seeing economic benefits. And occasionally war is clearly to one's economic detriment but it's carried out anyway. Finally, clandestine war is extremely cheap and becoming more effective over time. Even if people became much more benevolent and economically rational I think that's not a reason why conflict might decrease.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

War as it is conducted these days is not economically beneficial. If you make another country your financial vassal slaves, sure, that can make you money. But the international community won't tolerate that, either because they think it is wrong or they don't want their enemies thinking they're allowed to do it. The only people who make money from modern warfare are defense contractors and Treyarch. A figure I like to bring up is that Iraq's oil production only reached 2000 levels again in 2011. "No blood for oil" isn't a political statement, it's actual literal fact.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I always assumed the reason why the US would go to war to benefit companies was to maintain US cultural and economic control. Again, the government is made up of individuals, and those individuals have ties to business, which means if business is good then it's good for those individuals.

But on a more sociological scale, people in a tribe want to ensure that the tribe will never be threatened, and also that neighboring tribes are culturally similar so that they not only won't threaten us, but will even promote the shared culture themselves. You want everyone to be in your tribe because then there are no foreigners, no external danger. And if you assimilate neighbors thoroughly enough there is little risk of internal danger. It just so happens that everyone is our neighbor now.

Which is why I think the future of the US hinges on whether it becomes more ruthless, or gives up trying to assimilate and control the world.

[ibot66]

Just going to say it:
The US navy is deploying an obelisk of light to the strait of Hormuz.

[Chaoswizkid]

On the topic of advanced military stuff the US is working on:

I'm aware of research into being able to instantly triangulate the position of any firearm fired within audible range by using a set of deployed microphones. My own conjecture would supply that the reliability of the triangulation would be limited to open areas only or perhaps urban environments if the soldiers being shot at all wore microphones.
Think about that, then think about automated turrets that use that information to react as fast as inhumanly possible and return fire, likely with high-caliber weapons, maybe explosives, in the event that a shooter was able to duck into some cover. There would be a number of different ways to avoid friendly fire, and the turrets could be deactivated in the worst-case scenario, so that's not really an issue.

The automated turrets combined with the microphone tech is just some thoughts I had about it. The mic tech is legit though. I don't even think it's that secret, my old CompSci professor talked about working on it as his current research a few years back.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

A person behind hard cover might be OK unless the turret fired rounds that pierced the masonry walls. Which would be awesome, though it would result in the whole neighborhood looking like swiss cheese. If the turret fired lower-powered ammo the shooter could fire then drop, allowing return fire to strike his cover. But a person crouched in some bushes firing repeatedly would be toast.

Again, it's area-denial. You wouldn't set these up if you had troops in the no-man's-land, and your people know to stay out of the area. 

I sometimes wonder if we're gonna see Identification of Friend or Foe tech on the infantry level. You have access to a map of the area, all mobiles are marked if spotted by a combination of aural sensors, drones, satellites, and the security camera network. Their faces are also automatically searched against a database, and either marked Unknown or Enemy depending on whether he's in the database of soldiers / police / terrorists / criminals as being part of the "other side" in that engagement - although anyone with a friendly RFID tag counts as a Friend, if an Enemy has a Friendly RFID tag it flashes a special warning. Basically saying, this guy is either a friendly operative who still has a record, or he's an enemy combatant who picked up some of our gear.

If an Unknown fires a weapon he's marked Enemy. Your police is pretty much that if you're a civilian in a warzone you need to be registered as a friendly combatant or an enemy combatant, and if you shoot without doing one of those things, we assume you're an enemy. You could be shooting our enemies! But we don't know that because our aural gunshot-detection tech isn't perfect.

Sure it could let people disguise themselves as part of your side, and it could let them track your men - but uniforms do that already. This is like an invisible uniform. And as long as your side has better access to the RFID tracking tech and GPS mapping, you have the advantage.

[Lightningfalcon]

Boomerang.
A problem I can see happening with the face system is if they are wearing a gas mask or anything else that blocks facial recognition.   Soldiers could carry small transmiters that would mark them as friendlies, but then you would have the problem of the transmitters being looted. 
However, such a system could work well with something like this XM-7

[10ebbor10]

The other problem with FoF transmitters is that they make pretty good aiming beacons if they enemy knows you're using them.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Facial recognition would assume anyone wearing a mask and NOT carrying a friendly RFID transponder is Enemy. Again, you would outline in your rules of engagement that identification is mandatory. If you want to remain in a warzone wearing a mask, expect people to shoot you.

I'm not saying it's a pleasant idea, but I think it's what they'd do. And they could get away with it, unlike just shooting everyone who isn't in your army.

As for capturing an RFID transponder - true, you could disguise yourself. But if your face is visible and you're on a watch list, you're flagged as a conflict. If you're wearing a mask you're flagged as Enemy. If you carry two transponders you're immediately suspect. And if you just carry the RED transponder, BLU will shoot you - just like a uniform.

And each transponder would have an individual ID. If that ID is changed, the system will wonder why two of the same ID now exist and call for investigation. But again we're assuming this side has the tech to exploit this but the enemy doesn't. Which I think is the current US military dream for the future.

RE: Aiming at FoF beacons
Yep, which is why I think it caught on with planes more than infantry - you already know a plane is there so the beacon isn't really giving anything away.

[misko27]

But a person crouched in some bushes firing repeatedly would be toast.

Lies. Bushes are bullet-proof[/quote]

Also if someone can find that comic with a guy trying to hide behind a table and getting shot anyway that was posted somewhere around here.

[sneakey pete]

I'm pretty sure the microphone tech is (was) actually already deployed with units in Iraq (perhaps only limited rollout for testing and evaluation though).

A person behind hard cover might be OK unless the turret fired rounds that pierced the masonry walls. Which would be awesome, though it would result in the whole neighborhood looking like swiss cheese.

Skip to 12:00 of this to get an idea what that might be like...