Thread: War study

Are new technologies bringing such a big difference in war, such as Irak or Aganistan?

Actually, seems that, it is all coming back to the base, which is building up information. And in this country, sattelites seem less efficient than being on the ground and getting informations.

Western and Far Eastern technology is far superior to that of the middle East's, more I'd say because they don't get on with anyone really, and thus would be unwilling to accept any others tech..

Yes technologies are bringing a big difference. It won't be long before we have satellites in orbit than attack an area on the ground, like if I may be so bold to say an Ion Cannon? Technology is the edge in war, but it cannot win alone, then again, nobody wins in war. But this day in age with all the technologies that are avaliable, war should have been a thing of the past a long time ago.

timel while I agree with you that Intelligence is a vital ingredient of warfare and that some information can only be gathered on the ground, the range, precision, timeliness and reduced risk to personnel make modern intelligence gathering techniques hugely valuable.

like if I may be so bold to say an Ion Cannon?

Someone's been playing too much Command and Conquer I fear...

It's very unlikely in the forseable future due to the lack of satellite defense systems. For example what country would risk 50 to 100 billion dollars on an Ion Cannon and have it at risk of ballistic missile that cost a mere 10 million dollars... and just look at how long/difficult it was to build the ISS which still isn't finished...

Space 'conquest' seems so slow to me.
We've been going so fast on computers and everything.

But space remains slow in process of developement.
I guess we haven't found any big economical interrest yet to invest more space wise.
There are project but they are being developed so slowly.


Ground information wise.
I was looking at those french Soldiers in afganistan on TV.

They all use ground informators and gather information on the ground.
They don't seems to use too much sattelites stuffs. I guess it's not as developped as we would like to think or way to expensive to operate on a daily base.

Anyways, think so, I'm speculating without knowing,
It would be interresting to have someone informed on the topic of sattelites?


I mean logically speaking, if sattelites were that good the would have found all those taliban since long time ago hidden in their montains and sent soldiers to kick the hell out.

Professing that I am not an expert on this subject, I do know that satellites have changed how we fight. The issue is not whether or not we can spot them. That we can do. But it is only for a limited time, since the satellites keep moving, unless they are in geosynchronis orbit. Regardless, we also have the UAV's, which act as an intelligence gathering system. Why we can't them get all of them is a break down with two separate problems. 1 is if we can accurately identify them. Just because we have a picture of the tops of their heads does not mean they are terrorists, or are even doing anything wrong. 2 is, once identified and stated as a target, we have to get to them. Dropping a bomb on them doesn't work if they are with innocent people, and by the time you get people there they have most undoubtably moved.

All this means that while, yes, we do still depend on gathering information on the ground, coupled with images in the air and space, we are being a lot more effective now than we ever have in history.

Oh, and don't think we aren't getting them either. That breakdown is just fot the one's we miss.

My uncle is an aerospace engineer that is working on the Polaris underwater satellite and rocket launching platform. I am sure he would have some valuable information on this issue. I think Aufbau's principle certainly applies here! Russia and the US are currently working on a satellite weapon.

well every one knows military intelegence is an oxymoron.

but yeah, from the books i have read in the Rouge Warrior ,i know that the best information is gained with human contacts. it makes sense though. satilites will tell you where things are going and whats there, but every knows that they are there and could be watching them, so it's not a very reliable source of info. only a really stupid opponent wont be able to fool you if you rely on satilite info alone.

When in doubt on military matters consult Sun Tzu. He remarked:

"Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is FOREKNOWLEDGE.

1. That is, knowledge of the enemy's dispositions, and what he means to do.

Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation.

Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men."

From The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

One major problem with Satellites is that all the enemy has to do is spot them once, and they know where they're going to go from then on. They can time their activities, and locations so the satellites always miss.

I don't know how hard they are to spot, though, but I get the impression that some are pretty easy, especially since they fly overhead at all hours of the day.

Originally Posted by Mars

like if I may be so bold to say an Ion Cannon?

Someone's been playing too much Command and Conquer I fear...

It's very unlikely in the forseable future due to the lack of satellite defense systems. For example what country would risk 50 to 100 billion dollars on an Ion Cannon and have it at risk of ballistic missile that cost a mere 10 million dollars... and just look at how long/difficult it was to build the ISS which still isn't finished...

You gotta ask yourself: what's the power source?

Unless those things have nuclear reactors on them.. (which wouldn't work anyway, because you'd need water to moderate the reaction, and a big reactor as well), they're not going to be able to do anything that requires a lot of electricity.

Originally Posted by Golasso

Why we can't them get all of them is a break down with two separate problems. 1 is if we can accurately identify them. Just because we have a picture of the tops of their heads does not mean they are terrorists, or are even doing anything wrong. 2 is, once identified and stated as a target, we have to get to them. Dropping a bomb on them doesn't work if they are with innocent people, and by the time you get people there they have most undoubtably moved.

So, one thing that might help would be to figure out a super-sonic way to deploy troops maybe? (And hope someone doesn't notice the sonic boom and give them a cell phone call before you arrive)

It makes you wish we *did* have laser satellites.

All this means that while, yes, we do still depend on gathering information on the ground, coupled with images in the air and space, we are being a lot more effective now than we ever have in history.

Oh, and don't think we aren't getting them either. That breakdown is just fot the one's we miss.

That's what they bank on. We're so proud of our kill rates, that we don't seem to realize that their plans aren't based on attrition.

I've heard tell of cases in Vietnam where the enemy would literally count up the amount of bullets estimated to be found at a given US military base, then just send more people than that number, to be assured of a victory.

Terrorists in Iraq are happy to bleed. (Or more accurately: to point a gun at someone else's family and compel that person to bleed for them). Our kill rate does absolutely nothing whatsoever to even hinder them. Maybe it inconveniences them a little.

Originally Posted by John Galt

When in doubt on military matters consult Sun Tzu. He remarked:

"Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is FOREKNOWLEDGE.

1. That is, knowledge of the enemy's dispositions, and what he means to do.

Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation.

Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men."

From The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

I agree here. If we could think from inside their heads, we might accomplish more than all our satellites are capable of.

Sattelites have no utility unless they catch all the bad-guys single handedly? If that's your measure of a good weapon, you're awful hard to please.

Laymen like to have the debate "boots on the ground" vs. "high technology". Neither are dispensible and that's all there is to be said.

yeah i guess he's got a good point. where as the satilite isnt doing much fighting it is enableing you to keep in contact with a HQ.

and where as the good ol' 5.56 isnt exactly high tech, it easily does 70% of the fighting that goes on.