The Soldier of the Future 289
An anonymous reader writes "Land Warrior, the Army's wearable electronics package, was panned earlier this year by the troops who were testing it out. They were forced to take the collection of digital maps and next-gen radios to war, anyway. Now, Wired's Noah Shachtman reports from Iraq, those same soldiers are starting to warm up to their soldier suits of the future."
Time to give Apple a DOD Contract? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Time to give Apple a DOD Contract? (Score:2, Insightful)
The soldier of the future... (Score:5, Insightful)
As Einstein said,,, (Score:2, Insightful)
A bit misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
IOW, it's still a POS, just not quite as much a POS as before. And, oh yeah, it costs money the Army doesn't have.
Jesus. I was a grunt back in the dark ages (late 80's) and I can't tell you how glad I am that we didn't have to lug that crap around with us. The amount we did have to carry was already a killing load; the senior NCO's, who got their start in Vietnam, always told us exactly what we should throw away, and were unanimous in their opinion we were still carrying too much stuff. (And they had heard the same thing from their Korea-veteran sergeants.) Sorry, I don't believe that today's infantrymen are that much bigger and tougher than we were -- the human body hasn't changed, but the amount of crap the brass wants to load onto it keeps going up and up. And this is in the desert! Pretty soon the Iraqis won't have to kill American soldiers, just wait for them to drop dead of heatstroke.
Re:The soldier of the future... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The soldier of the future... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear hear. (Score:2, Insightful)
Arthur C. Clarke's "Superiority" (Score:5, Insightful)
A rueful officer explains how his advanced army with a brilliant research division was "defeated by the inferior science of our enemies."
The story describes how they were continually being equipped with new and advanced weapons. They were constantly delayed while their ships were being refitted. They are constantly discovering that gadgets that seemed wonderful in tests and demonstrations have minor glitches that basically render them useless until the relatively small problems can be solved with them can be solved.
"Given time we might even have overcome these difficulties, but the enemy ships were already attacking in thousands with weapons which now seemed centuries behind those that we had invented...."
Re:Time to give Apple a DOD Contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The soldier of the future... (Score:5, Insightful)
Advance of Ignorance (Score:2, Insightful)
Islamists, are not the problem it's the crazy ass people with guns that are the problem.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/when-the-soldie.html [wired.com]
Re:The soldier of the future... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's something to be said for numerical superiority, but only if you can project that power. In terms of supply lines, transportation, air cover, mobile communications, etc., China probably can't effectively "field" as many soldiers as the United States. (You haven't really "fielded" anyone if they're sitting in a bunker all day hungry and without enough ammunition.) And when you also take into account technological and strategic force multipliers, I wouldn't worry too much.
Re:Arthur C. Clarke's "Superiority" (Score:3, Insightful)
And there's also an issue, if you're fighting real wars against real opponents, that bigger guns and better armour aren't always the most effective choices. In a FPS, carrying 50 rockets and a launcher might make you the baddest guy on the level, but in real life, it just makes you slow and an easy target. Ask people who've been on the front lines whether they'd rather have a light pack and mobility or a whole bunch of extra armour but only be able to move literally at a crawl, and I imagine you'll get pretty consistent answers.
Re:Hear hear. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Moral neutrality of technology (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe that computers will ultimately possess high intelligence, then you had better prey they don't develop with the morality of the Dick Cheney and his neo-GOP friends. If so, the next day after the computers realize they don't need us and can defeat us will be the last day of mankind. We had better hope they develop with something more like the morality of Gandhi.
Indeed. I believe it was Gandhi who said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." For a nation with such Christian traditions, the leaders the US elect sure don't act like they believe in Christian values, and even as someone who isn't religious by nature, I'd rather people respected values like "thou shalt not kill" wherever realistic.
Re:Moral neutrality of technology (Score:4, Insightful)
So instead of neo-GOP racists we'll have Gandhi's racism? Sweet.
You look at Dick and the neo-Cons but you never look at actual REAL conservatives.
stupid, stupid, stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Four Ideas Arise From This: (Score:3, Insightful)
(2) As far as Iraqis (not foreign fighters) there's something to be said for knowing the neighborhood in urban warfare, knowing the language, and actually having local friends. That's why guerilla war works. And remember that the death of an Iraqi can be used to recruit more fighters there, while a US death will work *against* recruiting.
-b.
Re:Moral neutrality of technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though there are those that are trying that it won't work so let's look at the other questionable options. Chemical weapons? Iraq used those a great deal on Iran and still lost. Nukes? Pick a steep mountain valley and hope your nuke kills more than a few goats and that the guys you are after are not in the next valley (mostly talking about the problems of potentially using them in the Afgan campaign which is one reason they were ruled out in 2001) - or nuke a city and have nothing left to hold but a nuked city and your enemies spread out in the hills just got a powerful new recruitment tool and the goodwill of half the world.
You are talking about dropping nuclear weapons on the city of an ally. You really are not paying attention.
Re:Time to give Apple a DOD Contract? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the end, being able to fight more safely will end up with us killing more people.
---
However, the longer we put off killing people, the worse the mess is going to be when we start again. We will forget and at least one nation is going to start up something really nasty during the next 50 years. Probably a billion people will die.
Re:Moral neutrality of technology (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a naive philosophical ostrich. That level of civilization is not yet possible. It will not ever be possible as long as we have people such as:
- and of course, the people who listen to them
Please stop spouting off garbage until we can resolve the real problem (political greed).Re:hmmmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot make military equipment semi-disposable.
*There just isn't enough room in the supply chain to handle it.
Military logistics are not trivial matters that can be solved by waving a wand.
Consider two things:
1. The military has been building stuff to mil-spec for decades and has always had supply delays & shortages.
2. To make something semi-disposable, there will be significant increases in the main cost drivers of any "small" budget item: procurement, transport, storage, and tracking. Not to mention repair, which means a support staff.
Semi-disposable = more expensive
All your plan does is shift the costs around and not necessarily in a better way.
Pacifism leads to death ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pacifism leads to death unless you have non-pacifists around to protect you. Being reasonable and fair is fine and good, and we should strive for that path, but one must also be willing and able to use deadly force in defense. Even in modern times, over a small number of generations, we have seen a population split, the two halves become isolated, one become pacifist, and when the two halves reestablish contact the pacifists are murdered and/or enlsaved by their blood relatives. Sorry, read this in a book so I don't have a link handy, the people were Pacific islanders, timeframe 19th century IIRC.
Re:hmmmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hey, guys, could you stop shooting at me for a minute? I have to replace my eyepiece."
Re:Time to give Apple a DOD Contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
WWII started just over 20 years after WWI.
Since 1945, there has been no direct conflict between major powers, no use of nuclear weapons. My mother once told me that she seriously expected WWIII to begin in the 60's. It didn't happen; it still hasn't happened. Maybe we've learned - a little.
Re:A bit misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Just before the U.S. turned South Vietnam's "security" over to their own inept government, Americans were testing early "television guided" munitions, laser targeting systems and other outlandish items on North Vietnamese bridges and buildings. One shot, one kill. That was version 0.8b of what we have now. The Soviets wanted the Vietnam war to end more than anyone as they watched advanced battlefield technology, which they couldn't replicate, being developed and tested by the Americans.
All this came to fruition during the Gulf War nearly 20 years later with the debut of effective standoff weapons and "pushbutton warfare". That was somewhere around version 3 of these weapons systems. American forces were flying invisible bombers and could vaporize anything they put crosshairs on, mostly Soviet battlefield hardware. This dynamic was not lost on the Soviet leadership watching Iraqi forces on CNN abandoning Soviet tanks or getting blown up with them, or watching munitions fly through selected windows in office buildings. The Soviets quickly realized their forces would sustain the same 1,000:1 kill ratios if they ever made good on the threat of invading Western Europe with the same hardware. Generally, it is believed this technological edge accelerated the downfall of the Soviet Union.
Here we are at version 0.8b again developing these new battlefield systems designed for urban warfare by foot soldiers just before we turn "security" over to another inept government. Threat visibility and real time data to the individual soldier will help them survive and overcome some schmuck running around with an RPG and a walkie talkie. I'm for it.
Re:stupid, stupid, stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'm saying is that each dead American costs us a hell of a lot more than what a dead irregular costs the enemy. The whole bodycount game played in Vietnam was a sucker's game because we could not ever afford to trade lives at any ratio the enemy could match. We won every battle and still lost the war.
Going with all this high-tech horseshit is not the right answer. The best answer is to not get into a war in the first place. If it proves inevitable, the smart side is the one that fights it to win, not just the way they think will win. Our misguided war effort has done nothing but piss off the locals and give the radicals more credibility. "Hey, maybe these Americans really do suck. Where do I sign up?"
That's my point.
Re:Time to give Apple a DOD Contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:stupid, stupid, stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
So we boost our economy AND make our soldiers more effective. I'd rather pay taxes to fund this than to give out free breakfast and lunch to everyone who feels like being a lazy ass.
Re:hmmmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Moral neutrality of technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Four Ideas Arise From This: (Score:3, Insightful)
2 for 3. Armor adds weight, weight hinders mobility, and mobility protects you better than armor.
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
As for saving American lives... why does it matter if their American? I'm for saving lives period. I've lived on the other side of the great divide. I've been in the military. I've since decided that it's wrong to think about being just an American citizen and defending this country. To truly move forward we must think of ourselves as global citizens and care for all people. It's when we divide ourselves into groups (American, Iraqi, etc...) that we forget to see the humanity in others.
Re:Moral neutrality of technology (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the other bit - the context should be obvious even if you can use loony to describe other people with extreme and sociopathic views.
Re:The soldier of the future... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he will be a guy in "civilian" clothes, with maybe a few magazine pouches clipped to his belt, carrying an AK variant. When the Pentagon's soldiers come hunting, he will not be there. When they aren't expecting trouble, he will suddenly appear to cause them grief. He will deliver his bombs in old Toyotas, instead of planes so expensive that only a handful of them can purchased in any given year by "the world's only remaining superpower". This "soldier of the future" will observe the tactics of his enemies, and will think of cheap ways to thwart them. He will devote most of his waking thoughts to new ways of shorteinging the lives of his technological "superiors"—or perhaps of just making them miserable. Perhaps most importantly, he will keep fighting until he dies, and he is certain that his sons and his sons' sons will keep fighting because his belief in the moral superiority of his cause is unshakeable.
Oh, that's not what you were talking about? You wanted to talk about the gee-whiz high-tech "soldier of the future" because he's the one with the cool toys? Oh, sorry—my mistake. I thought the "soldier of the future" was the one who was going to m> win .
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you saying that the UN and EU haven't done anything to promote world peace? Or maybe you think it's better to just say it's impossible for nations to work things out peacefully. You think we should just disband all the various international organizations because war is inevitable, right? What's the point if there's always gonna be conflict, right?
I understand there will probably always be conflict. There is conflict at every level of humanity, from groups of nations down to sibling rivalry. That doesn't mean conflict has to result in bloodshed. We can learn to work things out peacefully, but a big part of that is a deep understanding that the people halfway across the globe are people just like you. They have sadness, pain, and joy. They have felt love, and felt anger. An understanding of their motives can help understand a path to peace.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
This also includes preventing fratricide as well as more precisely labeling enemy combatants. If you are calling in a grid from an old map with a radio and a set of binoculars, there is a margin for error that can lead to the loss of civilian life. Put a laser range finder, GPS, and a digital compass on the soldier and suddenly the individual soldier can call in pinpoint strikes reducing civilian loses.
Honestly, the average soldier over there doesn't want to kill anybody, they just want to help the country rebuild to give the people a better life and come home. I would say that the folks fighting the evil Americans kill more civilians who just want to live their lives like you and I than the US has in this conflict. I was blessed to never have shot at, or been shot at by anybody in the two years I spent over there, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
For the record however, given that the Militant Islamists have killed more civilians for not believing in their cause than the Americans have. Given the choice, I'd rather have their ability to make war diminished far more than ours because I want my children to grow up with at least some freedom and live with significantly less fear as opposed to what they would receive under a regime dominated by Militant Islam.
Re:More Gear, Drill Sergeant (Score:2, Insightful)
What racism of Gandhi? (Score:3, Insightful)