NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed there's been a lot of crazy, high-tech military advancements lately. The thought was inspired in particular by this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509593

Sure, it's nifty stuff. For a video game player, these insane new technologies are heady. But as a pacifist (or even military) thinker, my question has to be: why?

The prevailing world climate is that the rich powers don't go to war with each other. They may attack poorer nations, they may make tiny contributions to UN Blue Helmet forces. However, the massive Power vs, Power confrontations feared in the Cold War did not come to pass, and now seem unlikely to.

The world's angry countries (such as North Korea or Iran) and angry groups (such as Al Qaeda) have no desire (and little capacity) for a stand-up, conventional battle. The West already possesses stunning air superiority, vastly more powerful tanks, and better command systems.

So what justification is there for spending more money and more effort on things that can't help in the asymetrical wars of the future?

To put fewer soldiers at risk on the battlefield and to decrease the chances of civilian deaths/fratricide/etc.

I do see that point. There are certain areas where improvements can actually help soldiers.

However, much of the research still appears to be in vain-how much threat does a third-world airforce pose to current American jets?

I do see that point. There are certain areas where improvements can actually help soldiers.

However, much of the research still appears to be in vain-how much threat does a third-world airforce pose to current American jets?

Ever stop to think that maybe it's not the third worlds that poses a threat? When dealing with War, you need the best of the best of the best. You need different tools to do different jobs. As time goes on and technology advances, you need to either update the tools or create new better ones.

I do see that point. There are certain areas where improvements can actually help soldiers.

However, much of the research still appears to be in vain-how much threat does a third-world airforce pose to current American jets?

That depends. There are some that aren't flying Mig-15's and have fairly decent planes. The goals of most improvements are not to still have to have say 10 of our planes to shoot down the 25 that the enemy has but to be able to do the same job w/ 1 or 2 w/ little risk to our pilots. At the same time, making these planes be able to successfully complete other types of missions (ground support/attack for example) in lue of having to have a completely separate type of aircraft to perform them. It's safer, cheaper, and more efficient.

Ever stop to think that maybe it's not the third worlds that poses a threat? When dealing with War, you need the best of the best of the best. You need different tools to do different jobs. As time goes on and technology advances, you need to either update the tools or create new better ones.

I wish to contend that point. I've thought long and hard, and I sincerely doubt that (in the forseeable future, at least) we will see two technologically advanced powers go to war with each other. When enemy technology is stagnated or developing slowly, shouldn't the military focus on improvements in training and (in the biggest crisis in many first-world militaries) recruitment?

Military funding, especially by the big powers, should be dramatically decreased. The money should be diverted to the broad causes of feeding the hungry, treating the sick, preventing global warming and eliminating the need for oil.

There are 800 million+ starving people in the world; it is nothing short of evil that so much money is spent on weapons.

I wish to contend that point. I've thought long and hard, and I sincerely doubt that (in the forseeable future, at least) we will see two technologically advanced powers go to war with each other. When enemy technology is stagnated or developing slowly, shouldn't the military focus on improvements in training and (in the biggest crisis in many first-world militaries) recruitment?

Well what the military is doing right now is finding out new ways to carry out War, with the littlest risk to the personal. That's why you have UMA (unmanned Aircrafts) like the Global Hawk. It's also why you have stealth aircrafts like the F-22 Raptors and the F-117 Nighthawk. Even right now they are working on a gun that has a television screen. You can actually hold your gun around a corner, and look at what on the other side through this television screen without having to expose yourself.

Also, to reduce friendly fire, or civilian deaths, the militatry is working on smart bombs like the Tomahawk, and bombs that are guided by radar and lasers.

Military funding, especially by the big powers, should be dramatically decreased. The money should be diverted to the broad causes of feeding the hungry, treating the sick, preventing global warming and eliminating the need for oil.

There are 800 million+ starving people in the world; it is nothing short of evil that so much money is spent on weapons.

You do realize that most of the technological advances that we have today, came from the military right?

I wish to contend that point. I've thought long and hard, and I sincerely doubt that (in the forseeable future, at least) we will see two technologically advanced powers go to war with each other. When enemy technology is stagnated or developing slowly, shouldn't the military focus on improvements in training and (in the biggest crisis in many first-world militaries) recruitment?

Training can always be improved. I agree w/ you there. However, it is also possible to improve the technology that goes along w/ the training to make them safer and more efficient.

For example. In the first gulf war, I'm sure you remember all the footage of the laser guided bombs. Only 10% of A/C had that capability. By the second, over 90% had it and was able to do the job w/ fewer planes and more accuracy.

Recruitment is always an issue. But w/ force multipliers (less A/C doing the same job for ex.) it becomes less of one.

Well what the military is doing right now is finding out new ways to carry out War, with the littlest risk to the personal. That's why you have UMA (unmanned Aircrafts) like the Global Hawk. It's also why you have stealth aircrafts like the F-22 Raptors and the F-117 Nighthawk. Even right now they are working on a gun that has a television screen. You can actually hold your gun around a corner, and look at what on the other side through this television screen without having to expose yourself.

Also, to reduce friendly fire, or civilian deaths, the militatry is working on smart bombs like the Tomahawk, and bombs that are guided by radar and lasers.

On the gun: my understanding is that the Israelis have already developed one-with a mirror. And despite the best intentions, specially guided bombs have not shown themselves to be especially effective in Iraq at reducing casualties. An explosion is an explosion. Short of making a smaller bomb, it's practically impossible to avoid harming the innocent if you target something inside an inhabited city.

But I'll confess: I'm no engineer. It just seems illogical to keep pouring all this money into new Vergeltungswaffen when the military (and the world as a whole) has other needs.

I wuld question the merits of saying conventional war doesn't happen, and won't happen again. What precluded a "conventional" war in Iraq was only the deficiencies of the Iraqi army, and, in any case, it is the very dominance of the West in conventional arms that preludes action against it. Admittedly, in the lamentable absence of a cold war, the fullest excesses of "star wars" and other technical doohickeys do seem unnecessary, however they appear to lead to incremental mechanisation of the armed forces, which would preclude further losses of manpower.

I wuld question the merits of saying conventional war doesn't happen, and won't happen again. What precluded a "conventional" war in Iraq was only the deficiencies of the Iraqi army, and, in any case, it is the very dominance of the West in conventional arms that preludes action against it. Admittedly, in the lamentable absence of a cold war, the fullest excesses of "star wars" and other technical doohickeys do seem unnecessary, however they appear to lead to incremental mechanisation of the armed forces, which would preclude further losses of manpower.

I don't want to be confrontational, but the point I was advancing was the low likelihood of conventional war in the immediate future. Can you see America invading China, or Great Britain trying to retake India? Both internal and external politics would make most first world vs. first world matchups ridiculous.

While incremental mechanisation is an interesting (and, I'll admit, an attractive) thought, I don't know if it's certain enough to warrant continued research in these specific doohickeys (as you nicely put it.)