WWlll
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2017, 06:44 AM
RE: WWlll
(27-03-2017 04:10 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  The next war will be fought with science. Biological or chemical warfare and Drone warefare.

Drones is the future. They can be more easily mass produced and are better/cheaper than manned aircraft. America completely has their priorities wrong. They are building 100 million/unit jet fighters that are already obsolete the moment they come off the production line.

Obsolete because unmanned aircraft can outmaneuver them. I'd like to see a manned aircraft pull off 15+ G maneuvers without injury or incapacitation.

China is better at mass production than America. America has sent all that expertise over there - all the manufacturing jobs that went to save a few $$$.

Drones can be produced at less than half the cost. They don't need cockpit shielding, life support, ejector seats. They don't need or risk losing pilots with specialised training.

They can navigate without gps if they have to. They can complete missions in radio silence. They automatically evade threats without people on the ground needing to micromanage everything. (Imagine if a missile was coming and there was communication lag.) That would make drones useless. Everything we have seen so far shows that drones are the way of the future.

Drones have faster reaction times and can anticipate/form strategies like humans without ground assistance. See this article about a Rasberry Pi powered AI beating a human in a dogfight



For drones to be viable they need to operate without communication or minimal communication to hq after launch. In war time it would be expected that most of the satellites would be taken out fairly quickly.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. That was a specific drone going up against a computer simulated aircraft. You put an F35 (admittedly way over priced) and the drone would never stand a chance since it could be fired upon long before the drone would ever know there was another manned aircraft in the vicinity. So, and this is just my opinion, drones will not replace human flight or advanced aircraft.

If WWIII happens (which I don't think it will be WWIII per-se) it will be more of a cyber attack, lone events to cause mass chaos, and easily created IED's situation. I personally doubt we'll see another "major" ground war unless China or Russia decides to get involved. I, of course, could be wrong but working closely with the FBI I get to understand the methods that are used to create just those types of situations.

The main goal right now is to keep nuclear products out of the possession of fundamentalist groups that would try to use them against us. Also to be mindful of the creation of sarin gas, mustard gas (which comprises of carbon, sulfur, chlorine and hydrogen and are all easy to get your hands on), ricin (which is extremely easy to make), and all different types of IED's. What fundamentalist want to do is cause chaos and so far they have been very good at it. It will be very hard to pull off another large scale attack such as 9/11. But you can bet they are looking at their options.

Remember... They are in a martyrdom state of mind and that is very hard to stop.

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2017, 06:50 AM
RE: WWlll
(27-03-2017 06:44 AM)RearViewMirror Wrote:  If WWIII happens (which I don't think it will be WWIII per-se) it will be more of a cyber attack, lone events to cause mass chaos, and easily created IED's situation. I personally doubt we'll see another "major" ground war unless China or Russia decides to get involved. I, of course, could be wrong but working closely with the FBI I get to understand the methods that are used to create just those types of situations.

The problem I see with Cyber attacks isn't that they could a lot of damage, but that they do contained damage. If I were to attack the US economy, there's a chance to bring it down. But what then? The Fallout, as has been proven in 2008, would hit the whole world. So, given China decides on bringing the US economy to it's knees, would fuck itself in the process.

Same goes the other way round. If China's economy took a near lethal blow, we all would feel it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like abaris's post
27-03-2017, 07:06 AM
RE: WWlll
(27-03-2017 06:50 AM)abaris Wrote:  
(27-03-2017 06:44 AM)RearViewMirror Wrote:  If WWIII happens (which I don't think it will be WWIII per-se) it will be more of a cyber attack, lone events to cause mass chaos, and easily created IED's situation. I personally doubt we'll see another "major" ground war unless China or Russia decides to get involved. I, of course, could be wrong but working closely with the FBI I get to understand the methods that are used to create just those types of situations.

The problem I see with Cyber attacks isn't that they could a lot of damage, but that they do contained damage. If I were to attack the US economy, there's a chance to bring it down. But what then? The Fallout, as has been proven in 2008, would hit the whole world. So, given China decides on bringing the US economy to it's knees, would fuck itself in the process.

Same goes the other way round. If China's economy took a near lethal blow, we all would feel it.

I agree with that. I was speaking in more general terms. Not taking down an entire system but causing havoc with systems in general. Cyber terrorism is a real threat when classified documents could be released by a few keystrokes.

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RearViewMirror's post
27-03-2017, 07:28 AM
RE: WWlll
(27-03-2017 07:06 AM)RearViewMirror Wrote:  Cyber terrorism is a real threat when classified documents could be released by a few keystrokes.

Or they can be food for thought for the population at large. It all depends on the nature of the documents.

But I agree, Cyber terrorism could hurt in a lot of ways. But I don't think that state to state attacks will be the big thing. Rather some real terrorists laying their hands on hacking. You could paralize whole hospitals or seriously harm air traffic. Not to speak of nuclear plants going rogue when attacked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2017, 07:32 AM
RE: WWlll
They say oil and water don't mix. Well, the upcoming wars are going to be about a mix of these things.

Don't want WWIII? Find another way to reduce the number of people fighting for resources.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like I'mFred's post
27-03-2017, 07:51 AM
RE: WWlll
Thinking about this thread for a bit over the last few days I've come to the conclusion of this: Most people want to live their lives in peace. We may all have our different views on religion, culture, ethnicity, etc... but in the grand scheme of things most people that populate this earth are relativity good.

The problem arises with the 10% (or so) of the population that are fundamentalist and wish to push their agenda no matter the cost. That may be a county or a fringe group of religious fanatics. Either way they pose a threat and can cause great damage. Maybe I'm an optimist but that's the way I see it.

After 9/11 Americans were one people. It didn't matter what nationality you were, your background, race, sex, etc... We had a common ground to stand. It should always be that way but as time passes things go back to the way they were which is unfortunate. We as a human species should be accepting of everyone whether we agree on certain things or not (as long as they do no harm to another). We should as a human species should find a way to come together to make the world a better place than fight over a belief system that I'm sure "most" of us here don't believe in. The world we leave for our children should be a better place than the world we lived in when we were alive.

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RearViewMirror's post
27-03-2017, 08:19 AM
RE: WWlll
(27-03-2017 07:51 AM)RearViewMirror Wrote:  The world we leave for our children should be a better place than the world we lived in when we were alive.

Indicators point in a different direction. That doesn't have to be something as catastrophic as WWIII. I rather see the problem on the economic level. Young people can no longer hope to see a better life than their parents had. It's going downhill with lobbyists and politicians rolling back on the achievements of the last century.

There's no longer the American dream, and by that I mean it very broadly. The dream of making a living that keeps you save from daily troubles and guarantees to live out your life in dignity. Especially when you're a worker or low level employee. I see that on a global level.

When I was growing up, a worker could provide for a family. Nowadays wages go down or don't even rise with inflation. There a numerous charts comparing wages to productivity, and they all show that productivity constantly rises while wages default or even are dropping.

In my mind that's what really will explode in everyone's face at some point. People won't sit idly by indefinetely watching the shiny lights on the hill. At some point this is going to get very ugly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
27-03-2017, 08:37 AM
RE: WWlll
Looking at many of the weaknesses of our infrastructure, sometimes I can't help but sit back and fantasize about how much damage a semi-organized insurgency could do if they had half a clue what they were doing. And I'm not just talking about cyber threats. I think people get carried away with the technology and underestimate the threats posed by much less sophisticated means within the context of a nation filled to the brim with easily accessible targets.

I often reference this example of a situation that could have been much, much worse. As it stands, a 19 minute attack using less than $40 worth of ammunition caused over $15 million in damages, and could have easily been much worse.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technolo...ower-grid/

In addition to that, it's worth mentioning a completely different form of indirect damage. In addition to that $15 million, many times more than that was ultimately spent to increase security in order to reduce the chances of something like that happening again. From the time civilization was composed of societies numbering more than a few hundred people, making feigns or seemingly insignificant attacks in order to force an adversary to spread it's resources thin has been an extremely effective tactic. And as spread out and vulnerable as our infrastructure is, we're simply not equipped to have it all adequately defended from attacks like the above mentioned. At least not with current technology.

I don't agree that we're at the point where conventional manpower has become obsolete in the face of rapidly advancing automated drone technology, but I think we eventually will be. Maybe not for another 20, 50, or 100 years, but eventually.

Insofar as resource competition is concerned, I'm all about promoting space exploration with the intent of ultimately making the mining of (relatively) close planets and/or other celestial objects practical. My (highly unpopular) opinion is that this should take priority over other generally considered to be important priorities like health care. A big feat, to be sure, but the potential reward is astronomical. The (within our reach) asteroid 16 Psyche, for example, is estimated to contain something to the tune of $10,000 quadrillion worth of rare metals. And I'm unconfident enough in our ability to get along and manage the limited resources we have here that, regardless of what challenges we face in the short term, I believe our best chance at a better long term word is to find ways to get enough of what we need elsewhere that we don't have the need (whether real or perceived) to kill each other over it here.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
27-03-2017, 09:32 AM
RE: WWlll
Quote:16 Psyche, for example, is estimated to contain something to the tune of $10,000 quadrillion worth of rare metals.

Wow. I know it's fiction but have you read Kim Stanley Robinson?

What you wrote makes me think of his book 2312.

That's what we need. Outside the box thinking. Our old ways and ideas (mine included) haven't worked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: WWlll
(27-03-2017 09:32 AM)ImFred Wrote:  
Quote:16 Psyche, for example, is estimated to contain something to the tune of $10,000 quadrillion worth of rare metals.

Wow. I know it's fiction but have you read Kim Stanley Robinson?

What you wrote makes me think of his book 2312.

That's what we need. Outside the box thinking. Our old ways and ideas (mine included) haven't worked.

I haven't, but maybe I'll pick it up. I have a lot of reading time at work.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: