Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Dr. Know typo in my last posy 4/29/2002 7:29:06 AM

I mistakenly typed "I'm not not anti-semitic" What I meant to type was "I'm NOT anti-semitic" Thanks

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 4/29/2002 6:35:14 PM

D.N., I have a habit of throwing off a flip comment at moments of questionable appropriateness, too. Don't worry about it. And, btw, as far as typos go, my quote of Clauswitz ought to have read "diplomacy" rather than "politics". Re: Saddam & Iraq I agree that he is, even as we speak, trying to work the region to **prevent** the preconditions for a war with America to be created. This is an important observation, and needs to be made part of any general discussion of how regional countries are acting, and will act. We shouldn't be speaking, only, of abstract considerations concerning possible alignments, without taking this specific, timely factor into account. Indeed, in doing so, I think it is important to see that, since WW2, regional alignments in the Arab/Islamic Middle East have ebbed and flowed like the tide. There is ample precedent for countries whose leaders are virtually blood enemies to embrace and swear to help each other. (e.g. Egypt and Syria, in 1966-67). I also agree - to an extent - that Iraq, especially, is trying to play the Israeli card as part of a larger strategy to avoid American attack. I hasten to add that this in no way makes the present events a consequence of Iraqi international policy. But, the Iraqi element is most likely an exacerbating factor. OTOH, I don't quite agree that an ongoing Palestinian-Israeli fight **precludes** a contemporaneous American campaign in Iraq. It certainly complicates things, though. Generally, I'd be careful of how much I put on Saddam's head, specifically. He doesn't orginate or control much of what goes on in the Israeli sector. He can certainly almost always make things worse, but he didn't start things, he isn't anything remotely like the primary reason they keep going, and removing him from the equation would not end or settle things. The two areas of concern DO overlap; they're not identical. I agree that the *threat*, explicit or implicit, to use, somehow, WMD is a factor to be considered. I disagree that the threat will deter American action. Hussein's ability to cow the American public, in context, is quite limited. He'll find far more support in the media than in the public, and the media is pretty jumpy, these days, about turning around and seeing the public frowning at it over this constellation of issues. To the contrary, if there was any hesitation over whether or not to put Saddam's head on a pike, a public threat of use of WMD against America would create a groundswell of domestic anger which would justify almost literally the complete destruction of Iraq. Mr. Bush would be in the enviable position of being the *restraining* element on American policy. IOW, in effect, he would have a greenlight to make virtually any policy decision he thought necessary, secure that it would be supported by Congress and the public. However, I do see some room for Saddam to work the Europeans in this way, trying to create an overt split between Europe and America. The problem with this is that to the extent he succeeds, the results will probably be much more a long term problem for American policy than an effective impediment to action against Iraq, in the coming months. And, as such, would only strengthen American resolve against him, in Washington. Be seen, IOW, more of a scortched earth revenge than an effective counter, and, as such, make Hussein seem even more a barbarian, and even more necessary to remove. (I'll answer the rest of your note in my next note)

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 4/29/2002 6:55:11 PM

Re: "Crappy little country" That's a good alternative to "Shitty little country" which is more applicable to France (as well as, apparently, current official French diplomatic language). Nope. Iraq isn't. Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia; yes. Iraq, no. Indeed, the countries you propose as real medium sized powers are, arguably, less so, right now. In potential, certainly, there are at least four EU members significantly more powerful than Iraq. (Germany, France, Britain, Italy). The caveat is "potential". The level of effective military power in Europe, these days, is low compared to the potential. Iraq creates power much nearer it's real potential. The result is an Iraq which NO European power could beat in a real fight, right now. It would take YEARS for any or all the EU to create the real power to defeat Iraq. They could CERTAINLY do so. But, they simply don't have the effective power right now. That, alone, ought be a giveaway as to how powerful Iraq really is. (For now, I'm limiting this discussion to "power" in the military sense.) Indeed , of the whole list of countries you provided, only Israel is clearly the military superior of Iraq, IN IRAQ. India and China can't project power on that level, right now. Russia would be hard pressed to. It COULD, probably, if it was made an absolute national interest, but it would require them to focus the national effort in a big way. That's it. None of the other countries you mention are clearly superior to Iraq in the military sense even on their own territory, save Japan, which has next to no ability to project power. "Potential" superpowerdom is a lot like a "potentially rewarding date". Nothing more than hot air till you actually score. We've seen something like a whole generation of "potential" (western)European military expansion, which has always turned out to be nothing more than a series of speeches. Ditto, the "potential" Arab destruction of Israel (based on the undeniable potential of a nation which outnumbers the Israelis by something like 50 to 1, AND has some important economic resources and a lot of international political influence based mostly on that.) If you're getting NSC or cabinet papers on the Gulf War, things have changed since I was in school, when it was 30 years for these kinds of papers to be declassified. (I got a copy of NSC 68 the day after it was released.) I think you're looking at the wrong people when you refer to those you think will get the wobblies. The folks inside the beltway who have the jobs who count seem to have concluded that the matters really at issue more than justify this campaign. This is one time I strongly suggest people look, carefully, at the official and semiofficial statments which have come out since 9-11. Apart from some recent wobbling on ISRAELI actions, they have been remarkably consistent and clear about what they thought was happening and what had to be done in response. In face of that, I strongly doubt the Adminstration will hesistate at hypothetically weak knees in Hollywood, or Wall Street. And, as someone who lives in the NY area, and knew people who were in and around the towers on 9-11, let me assure you that Wall Street - meaning the people actually working there - will cheer, loudly, as things explode and burn in Iraq, and some other places. This is personal. Believe me; it's personal. For that matter, the way any audible whining from groups generally perceived to be spoiled and immoral, anyway, will play so badly in the country that it will quickly disappear from the public arena.

Quote Reply

pfd RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 6/14/2002 5:34:26 PM

Sure Ain't elektronik-but I have to put my tiny oar in. Iraq doesn't have the logistical infastructure to place itself in a ' better than Europe' position. Secondly Israel hs Nukes up the Pazoo. Kinda skews the picture...

Quote Reply

fred79 RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 3/23/2003 11:46:06 PM

this has gotten away from the real subject manned verses unmanned/remotly manned vehicle. frankly i can only see this as a good thing. a remotly manned vehicle like the predator is not a man replacement but a man multiplier. The greatest use of UAV's in the near future is the unmanned fighter using a combination of remote flight and automated flight you can effectively multiply the power of your trained men. if a man could fly a UAV off the runway, set it on a path towards the target area. and weight untill it got their to use it then turn it around and send it home. so this way while a pilot is waiting for the plane to get there he can rest, eat, or do other functions. 1 pilot could control three planes. one fighting,taking off, landing, and two in transit. security for the time being could be handled by space or high altitude based microwave communication. This is force multiplication. so less of your pilots are in the air and more of them get the rest they need to perform. they can also design planes not based on the limits of the pilots but on the limits of physics. I also think that Tanks maybe replaced by a RCV(remote controled vehicle) they could be wire guided or use infared,microwave, or laser comunication. then yoou build the performance around the mission not the soldier. so now you don't need a tank that has NBC capabilities, you don't have to carry really heavy armor to protect the inhabitants from sabot weapons that kill by spall molten metal and heat, systems like the abrams with seperated fuel and munitions bunker could survive a sabot strike to be rebuilt and no human to clean out. in fact it may keep running if it doesn,t hit a critical component. so you can lead in with RCV tanks and follow with IFV's and armored control vehicles. this solves a major problem now in the tank force and that is that high power defendable tank platforms are too heavy. this could greatly reduce the weight of tanks from the 70 tonners to 30-40 tonners. so a c-17 could airlift a RCV tank and a LAV control vehicle in one flight. and then drones for city fighting would be extremely helpfull the first rule of combat is make them die not you. If a platoon of infantry can use a armed man carriable vehicle to enter rooms rather than men you increase the power of a unit so rather than giving up my life or taking even non leathal hits i could not be effected at all and still clear a house. I also want to say that a real advantage of UAV's is that they can amplify a human beings abilities. humans are rather weak systems our real benifit is brains, and a UAV can group many systems into one. so a pilot could have a 360* view in one view all sensor systems could be inclusive so radar, ladar, infrared, and vision could be viewed at ounce. this could be applied for tanks also using all of your sensors together and even more sensors you could utilize sensors to smell and feel the area(sense diesel fuel, gunpoweder residue, feel sysmic activity ect). could they be overriden yea, can the computers on a tomahawk be overridden yep are we still shooting them off by the hundreds aha. I don't think that you can replace human beings but you can always overcome our limitations. that really why thing are developed, the machine gun wasn't developed to replace people but to make them more effective, planes were developed so people could fly, tanks were developed because infantry got killed trying to take out machinguns. we develope tools to deal with our limitations. also the belief that american are scared to die or some crap like that is just that crap. do we see any need to waste life, no! since almost always we a re now fighting against people who are on teh defensive we develope ways to take that advantage away from them. the defender always has the advantage since he knows were he is, and he knows were we are. so we develope technology to take that away. and developing something to protect us while we discover where the enemy is. and I think BSL said this that if saddam used NBC weapons Bush could do what he wanted and i think that is pretty close to teh truth if he used WMD against our troops he could use MOAB's all over teh place and eliminate every soldier. if saddam used WMD against american mainland he could nuke teh whole area. he could take out the saudis, iraq, iran, every one of our enemies there.

Quote Reply

robots RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 4/27/2003 2:16:07 PM

Here's an interesting article that refutes many of the claims that unmanned vehicles will replace humans. link "If a man?s trust is in a robot that will go around the earth of its own volition and utterly destroy even the largest cities on impact, he is still pitiably vulnerable to the enemy who appears on his doorstep, equipped and willing to cut his throat with a penknife, or beat him to death with a cobblestone. It is well to remember two things: no weapon is absolute, and the second of even greater import- no weapon, whose potential is once recognized as of any degree of value, ever becomes obsolete." - J. M. Cameron

Quote Reply

robots RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 4/27/2003 2:23:32 PM

another interesting quote from the article: "The notion that UCAVs could replace humans in warfare echoes of something out of a science-fiction novel. I think back to the time when a general told me that the movie Star Wars taught us three lessons: there will always be fighter pilots, there will always be fighter-pilot bars, and the dive toss never works. He was right."

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 4/27/2003 2:52:11 PM

I don't get that same answer. Forget the different abilities of the two. The main thing was that a human in the pit has the ability to 360 degree vision and process what he sees. So what happens when that UCAV operator has something mounted on his head so that when he turns he sees that view? Isn't that now giving him the same 360 degree vision without him having to actually be in the pit? Maybe thats not true today. But its coming.

Quote Reply

robots RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 4/29/2003 9:15:51 PM

<> You have still have not address the issue that by completely relying on a robot to fight wars thousands of miles from home, you leave the human controllers vulunerable to many guerrilla/terrorist style attacks on the human controller. Since the controller is no longer trained to fight in the conventional sense, they're more vulunerable. "Why attack the robot when you can take out the human controller? Why just destroy the robot, they'll just produce new ones?" Our enemies could be asking themselves. Attack the source, "the center of gravity". We all seem to realize the risks coming with human causualities, since that's probally the number #1 reason people advocate for unmanned vehicles. Why make our soldiers potentially more vulunerbale? This is will not be "Robot Wars" like you see on TV where the robots do all the fighting will the human controllers smile at each other, the human will still be a target because without the human controller the robot can't do anything. So the goal of sparing lives by using robots is offering a false sense of security. Do robots have a place on the battlefield? Absolutely YES! But as far as replacing human involvment completely is totally ridiculas. Machiavelli once said that a military establishment tends to reflect the the qualities of the civil society for which it is a part. A military that fights only with robots and seeks to replace human involvement altogether often tells you that the society its seeks to defend is one of cowards who will not fight to defend itself. A nation that cannot depend on own its citizens to defend their country is a nation of cowards. A nation of cowards that refuses to defend itself deserves whatever enslavement and tyranny comes their way. The Catholic theologian Fr. Benedict Groeschel once remarked that sacrifice was a lost art in the West. Well the discussions here seem to prove he's right! "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." Daniel Webster

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles 4/30/2003 1:31:03 PM

Interesting point about the controller being vulnerable. I would assume that the controller will operate from a base, the same one with the support infrastructure aircraft use now. Or else there will be units deployed to protect them. Either way the UCAV's will supplement, then replace pilots. I don't believe the UCAV drive is related to human losses. More a cost effectiveness issue. It sounds more like you are referring to "robots" taking the place of Infantry. Many, many years ago, they did in a way. Its just that we called them Tanks back then. I agree that a nation needs to be defended by its citizens. I'll even take it a step further and state that you really aren't a citizen unless you have defended your country. But the rhetoric you are talking about stopped working about WWI/WWII. There is no reason to throw away the lives of your citizens when there are much smarter ways for them to be of service.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT