posted
This is sort of an outgrowth from Hobbes' "Draft" thread.
The world is changing. The military system that won World War II is no longer effective. Future battles will be fought by fighters and warships, shooting at extremely long distances. Fewer and fewer soldiers will be required in the field, and modern technology will allow them to be more effective then ever before, reducing that number even less.
How will the Navy/Marine Corps, Air Force, and Army change to adapt to the future?
posted
Smaller more capable forces, stressing firepower and speed. To hold areas you will still need troops on the ground, especially with the ground being what most wars are fought over. Israel/Palistine - Holy Land Iraq/Coalition - Oil, under the Land Kosovo - Somebodies in thier Land
Push button warfare will only work in Clancy books and wars between super powers. Otherwise you will need troops defending/invading someplace.
As a new technology is brought in to play a counter technology will be brought in shortly thereafter.
The US and USSR both had their asses kicked by low tech forces, Vietnam and Afghanistan.
------------------ Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
posted
I don't think men is what we really need. We need equipment, and for that we need money. We had, what, fifteen aircraft carriers in the Pacific in WW2? How many do we have now?
We also need money for the personnel. Their salaries are worthless.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
Or you could just redirect it....maybe go from being able to nuke the world ten times over to only three times over and divert the saved money...
...or maybe stop pelting Irag or who knows where with several hundred thousand dollar Tomahawk missiles everytime a President has fun with an intern...
Or stop getting your White House blown up by aliens...wait thats just a movie..or two..or three....
------------------ Efficiency is a highly developed form of laziness. - anon (...and boy am I efficient...) A real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbour�s throat without having his neighbour notice it. � Trygve Lie
Yes, we had a lot more carriers in WWII. Two things: modern "super" carriers are able to carry a lot more fighters than those of the WWII era, not to mention modern day fighters are capable of a lot more than WWII era fighters.
Also, we were at war during WWII =)
But I agree that we could use a few more carriers. I don't think anyone did a very good job when the Cold War ended and the military was down sized.
posted
Ritten is right. The only thing that can hold land effectively is troops. Period. Machines are incapable of the adaptability of a human being. Armies still need to be as big as they are.
------------------ "I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
posted
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Omega ... ah well ...
Not to mention, new technologies, which will allow a single soldier to control a wider area. I'm talking HUD linked through soldiers' helmets to their M-16s, and new communication systems which allow for ... well, better communication.
If anyone read "Starship Troopers", the MI troops are what our soldiers will be in the future. One man armies. I'm not saying they'll be equipped with nukes, but utilizing various technologies, one or two men should be able to perform the tasks of a squad.
No, I'm not pulling this out of thin air. The History Channel keeps repeating a program about new technologies being put to use.
posted
Blasting your enemies from above will only work in clearly defined, unique situations. In the Gulf War, coalition forces could see anything that moved over what was, in many places, a flat, featureless desert. However, what happened in Southeast Asia where aerial bombardment had a limited effect, at best. America's enemies had deep cover and could hide and move with near impunity from American airpower.
Troops will always be needed to take and hold land. Aircraft can bomb land, but they cannot hold it. People must do that.
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
Yes, and people will continue to do so. But new technologies will make that job a lot easier, which will in turn require fewer soldiers on the ground.
Night vision -- for one. Also, fighters outfitted with a device that can identify allied from enemy tanks or troops. How hard would it be to fit a tranciever-type device onto a tank? If it doesn't got one, its an enemy, blast it.
Besides which, Vietnam was over 30 years ago. We've got better technology these days -- let's just hope we don't have to fight another Vietnam!
posted
Don't forget the saying, "For every action there is an equal and oppisite reaction."
The future will remain the same as the past as far as combat goes. Smarter weapons bring on smarter counter measures bring on smarter counter counter measures bing on smarter weapons.... Damned that cycle.
The man portable HUDs and the SINGARS can be defeated with radiation. Which doesn't mean from a nuclear blast, cell phones put out radiation. A generator that can develope an EMP can't be too far away, if not already out and used, this will eliminate a lot of hi-tech toys, turning the infantryman in to a basic sneak and shoot fighter, instead of an army of one.
Plus a lot of this fantasy stuff isn't light.
Unless you make the land useless technology will be a cycle that ends up putting the infantryman in a suit of armor again.
------------------ Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
posted
Some things under development (or that should be)
KEW (Kinetic Energy Weapons) AKA "Thor" or "Rocks From Space." Basically, a small rock or other hard device with a rocket engine and targeting system, orbiting high above the Earth (potentially, a by-product of a mined-out Near Earth Asteroid). Easier to use than missiles because they don't have to have a ballistic track. Easy to create various-yield weapons for everything from blowing up a highway intersection to destroying a city, and without radioactive aftereffects!
Battlesuits. Think Mechwarrior. An exoskeleton, a "one-man tank" mounted with rockets/chaingun etc.
Battlebots. A fully automated soldier. Never tires, can wade into far more hazardous situations, and requires less support (Robots don't eat!)
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Dude, like that Movie 'Universal Soldier' with Dolph Lundgren?
I liked that movie, although it was pretty corny. Why'd they have to bring in Goldberg and replace Jean Claude Van Damm? That guy was in Friends. And he's french, get it? French Friends? haha. Anyway, Dolph lundgren is a massive muscle man. He was He-Man, and Courtney Cox was in that. Oh another friends connection. Also, the guy who plays Tom Paris was in He-Man. So was the bald angry teacher from Back to The Future. Michael J Fox was in back to the future, and was replaced by Charlie Sheen on Spin City. Lundgren was in Rocky something or other. He was a big bad russian man, who killed apollo. DAMN You!!!!! You killed apollo!!! is what Rocky said, and he fought the russian, and won! And 'Eye of the Tiger' by Survivor, not the show, played, and there was a montage of Apollo footage. James Brown was in that. 'Hhhhooooaaa'. That's my best James Brown impersonation. I can do Sean Connery, too. "Bond. James Bond." Pretty good huh? Trust me, it's exactly the same, I'm not joking. The guy who played Tom Paris is Robert Duncan McNiel. I once got a book from the library about the US military, but it was old, so I didn't like it. PLus, there were guns, and they offend me. SO I took it back and got a book on how UFOs abduct human babies and make them smart, like Bill Gates or something. Babies are nice, except when they ooze. That angry bald prinicpal was stupid.
------------------ "Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry
posted
Yes, battlesuits ARE cool. (I luuv doing that ) That's exactly what the REAL mobile infantry had in the Heinlein book. The movie didn't do that part justice.
*looks up at previous post* My god, man! Just...injected that caffeine straight up, didn'tcha?
------------------ Here lies a toppled god, His fall was not a small one. We did but build his pedestal, A narrow and a tall one.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
