F-35's

[sanjuro_ronin]

The more "civilized" you make war, the less reason NOT to go to war.

[David Jamieson]

The more "civilized" you make war, the less reason NOT to go to war.

we'll eventually evolve away from warfare.
war has changed all through it's history in regards to how it is waged.

Huge changes came in the 1500's (guns and formations etc)
Then again in the 1800's (skirmishing a guerilla warfare)
The again in the 1900's (gas, armour, air superiority)
Then again in the 2000's (drones, stealth, smart weapons)

It will eventually become a situation of strategic limited engagements that target the specific threat only.

You won't see a WW2 again where 25 million soldiers are killed and double that in civilians.

You will see mistakes, but moving forward, "karma" is going to be a drone putting a red dot in the middle of your head because you built a bomb to blow up a mall.

International warfare will be a thing of the past and regarded as barbaric...because it is.

[sanjuro_ronin]

we'll eventually evolve away from warfare.
war has changed all through it's history in regards to how it is waged.

Huge changes came in the 1500's (guns and formations etc)
Then again in the 1800's (skirmishing a guerilla warfare)
The again in the 1900's (gas, armour, air superiority)
Then again in the 2000's (drones, stealth, smart weapons)

It will eventually become a situation of strategic limited engagements that target the specific threat only.

You won't see a WW2 again where 25 million soldiers are killed and double that in civilians.

You will see mistakes, but moving forward, "karma" is going to be a drone putting a red dot in the middle of your head because you built a bomb to blow up a mall.

International warfare will be a thing of the past and regarded as barbaric...because it is.

Perhaps, hope so.
The thing is that the more civilized you make war, the less people see it as "war".
They see it as a "conflict" or a "per-emptive action", whatever.
We may never have a world war that claims 25 million in 5 years, but we still have "conflicts" that claim more than enough.
just from 2003-2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...3%E2%80%932010

Making it easier and less personal to kill is NOT gonna make wars less "attractive" to those in power that view war as a viable option.

[David Jamieson]

Perhaps, hope so.
The thing is that the more civilized you make war, the less people see it as "war".
They see it as a "conflict" or a "per-emptive action", whatever.
We may never have a world war that claims 25 million in 5 years, but we still have "conflicts" that claim more than enough.
just from 2003-2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...3%E2%80%932010

Making it easier and less personal to kill is NOT gonna make wars less "attractive" to those in power that view war as a viable option.

I agree that by diminishing the horror in favour of marveling at the precision of technology is an error on our part. especially here in the cozy virtually untouched west.

But I also think the construct of power is going to change.
Having a single leader for instance. I don't think that is going to survive the future. I don't know what the new model will be, but people even now are no longer satisfied with placing power into one persons paws. And definitely we've pretty much had it up to our eyeballs with using violence to get sorted.

It diminishes the image and power of a person now to declare war on someone else. It makes them look stupid and incompetent when they do it. Diplomacy and working through things is the only reasonable way and war is more and more seen as unreasonable. However, I don't think there are many who think sending a special unit in to kill OBL ws a terrible idea. Maybe killing him was and perhaps they should have captured but hey, heat of the moment stuff happens.

[RenDaHai]

Making it easier and less personal to kill is NOT gonna make wars less "attractive" to those in power that view war as a viable option.

Even more so if AI gets really good and we don't even need humans back home piloting the drones, they just pilot themselves. Then we just need a few people at the top making decisions.

[Drake]

Even more so if AI gets really good and we don't even need humans back home piloting the drones, they just pilot themselves. Then we just need a few people at the top making decisions.

Bad idea, for obvious reasons.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that the only people that are "gung ho" about automated stuff on the battlefield are people that have never been on one.

[Syn7]

I think that the only people that are "gung ho" about automated stuff on the battlefield are people that have never been on one.

Word. And people who want war.



BTW - I dunno the details in the OBL thing, but I'm sure orders were to capture if possible. Pretty scary mission tho, to drop into a compound like that. I'm not surprised they iced him. I mean, with all the fear and adrenaline, all he had to do was look the wrong direction and somebody would take it as a threat. And all the emotional **** doesn't help either. It's not like these guys were hunting some little known warlord they never heard of. It was the most wanted man on earth(from an american perspective anyways). Him dying was almost inevitable.

IMO capturing the man would have sent a bigger message than killing him. No trial, no tv cameras. Just a deep dark hole and all those wonderful techniques the intelligence community loves so much, but ofcourse never use.

[Drake]

I think that the only people that are "gung ho" about automated stuff on the battlefield are people that have never been on one.

If a machine was in my place while deployed, a lot of innocent people would have died over stupid mistakes and misunderstandings.

[Kellen Bassette]

we'll eventually evolve away from warfare.
war has changed all through it's history in regards to how it is waged.

Huge changes came in the 1500's (guns and formations etc)
Then again in the 1800's (skirmishing a guerilla warfare)
The again in the 1900's (gas, armour, air superiority)
Then again in the 2000's (drones, stealth, smart weapons)

It will eventually become a situation of strategic limited engagements that target the specific threat only.

You won't see a WW2 again where 25 million soldiers are killed and double that in civilians.

You will see mistakes, but moving forward, "karma" is going to be a drone putting a red dot in the middle of your head because you built a bomb to blow up a mall.

International warfare will be a thing of the past and regarded as barbaric...because it is.

The world powers are positioning themselves for the acquisition of the world's resources. The U.S. does it through coercion and economic strong arming where possible, war where it is not.

The need for oil, minerals and arable land against the population trends makes it inevitable. Stronger countries will either coerce or invade developing countries. The other alternative is biological warfare, mass reduction in populations, then seizing control.

There is no coming Utopia.

[Drake]

The world powers are positioning themselves for the acquisition of the world's resources. The U.S. does it through coercion and economic strong arming where possible, war where it is not.

The need for oil, minerals and arable land against the population trends makes it inevitable. Stronger countries will either coerce or invade developing countries. The other alternative is biological warfare, mass reduction in populations, then seizing control.

There is no coming Utopia.

Because Afghanistan is such a cornucopia of natural resources?

And the stuff A-stan DOES have, the Chinese already own.

Kellen, that's a weak argument based on assumptions and a sense of paranoia. As far as history has shown over the last few decades, the superpowers don't invade weaker countries over resources.

It is far cheaper and profitable to simply build strong relationships. Notice how we don't invade Kuwait, but instead have a deep friendship? Or how China doesn't crush Taiwan, but is instead playing the diplomacy/waiting game?

Even NK, as bat **** crazy as they are, have left SK alone for the most part, because they know how war doesn't create resources. It consumes them.

[Kellen Bassette]

Because Afghanistan is such a cornucopia of natural resources?

And the stuff A-stan DOES have, the Chinese already own.

Kellen, that's a weak argument based on assumptions and a sense of paranoia. As far as history has shown over the last few decades, the superpowers don't invade weaker countries over resources.

It is far cheaper and profitable to simply build strong relationships. Notice how we don't invade Kuwait, but instead have a deep friendship? Or how China doesn't crush Taiwan, but is instead playing the diplomacy/waiting game?

Even NK, as bat **** crazy as they are, have left SK alone for the most part, because they know how war doesn't create resources. It consumes them.

I think we do use economic means as often as possible, I also think when we can't do it diplomatically we tend to strong arm...aid, sanctions, political pressure, labeling groups terrorists or funders of terrorism, ect...

I also feel this is why we have such intense interest in the Middle East. If were not arming a country then were backing a coup. If we don't have military bases there were probably engaged in propaganda against them. If we don't have oil contracts were helping them set up new leaders. I may be cynical but I doubt this is all about protecting us from terrorists. We've been active in the Middle East for better than 60 years.

Now with the world superpowers involving themselves more heavily in Africa's resources, seems "Al Quida" is expanding faster than Wal Mart. Time to get more involved in the Sub Saharan front.

It's not paranoia, it just math. Resources will become more scarce, prices will rise, at some point demand will exceed supply. To think otherwise would require an incredible feat of denial. Anyone who follows current events can plainly see China, The U.K., the U.S. and Russia are positioning themselves for both trade and military options.

Just seems like a rational conclusion that control will be seized by those with the power, whether by signing a contract, or finding a reason to invade and occupy.

[David Jamieson]

I think there are more players than that Kellen.
The European union acts as an economic unit ...well, it's supposed to. So they are probably going through some adjustments but still have a lot of economic power as the community they are.

As for resources, the change over to reuse and recycle has to be factored in as well right alongside innovation. Not to mention the very real probability of commercialized resource gathering beyond earth.

Humans themselves recycle all the time in that sense. I mean we get born, consume and live, then die and consume no more and the hard resources we leave behind us are dispersed and used or converted, traded etc.

I think we are clever enough to get new energy sources or alternate and even probably to the effect of using as of yet undeveloped sources that are sustainable and renewable, such as solar, tidal, wind, and even gravitational or helium 3 tech which will come into play after we are able to mine our moon and asteroids.

There is no doubt we need to consume, but I think we change before we run out of anything.

@Drake. I think it will be another 10 or so years before we really understand what Iraq and Afghanistan are as far as reasons were and are for those wars. Right now what is told to us in Canada is that it's a fight the good fight type thing against oppression. But that is obviously hypocritical and people on one end buy it and on the other reject it out of hand and see it as corruption. Meanwhile soldiers do their job and people pay their taxes.

[Syn7]

I'm not too worried about the discovery and/or cheap production of cleaner energies. I am more concerned with the "free market" interfering in developments that better us all but will gut certain industries. Like a carb that gets 5000 km/l. These things are suppressed and beaten on by well established industries that have a vested interest in NOT moving foreword in those directions. Thankfully we have many higher learning institutions that have open patents. Schools like MIT have basically dragged us onto the right paths when we steer off in order to chase fantasies. Partisan thinktanks are a direct response to these universities. And now we are in the information age and it is polarizing us like crazy. Literally tearing us apart. But ultimately I think this is a good thing. As long as the intellectually curious stay friendly, we're good. Nerds run this. Spoiled old money twits just pay for it. Despite the fact that the largest redistribution of wealth in human history peaked in 08, in the big picture, wealth is slowly but surely starting to level out. There are more non violent self made men than any other time in human history. We're doing okay. We just can't let our guard down, because this is a war, make no mistake. The enemy is our own expectations and those who presume to lead without permission from all of us. Like large corps that are "too big to fail" or in the case of HSBC "too big to jail". Apparently if you are big enough, funding Al Quaeda and Drug Lords isn't a crime. A small fine of one months profit and a small percentage off bonus cheques for the next five years. Hardly a punishment IMO. We should gut that bank and let it die. Making 100's of billions off illegal funds then paying a 9 billion dollar fine is a freakin joke!

[Kellen Bassette]

@ David, I don't doubt we have the ability to innovate and adapt, but I doubt we have the political will. The US government is so in bed with Big Oil that any meaningful changes have little chance of being implemented. I know, I don't sound like it, but I do remain hopeful...

I don't think the problem is necessarily, running out of resources....the problem is the exponential increase in consumption tied to China and India's rapid development. Resources consumed by these and other developing countries will quickly exceed what is being used in industrialized countries where the population rates have stabilized. When demand exceeds supply, driving up the cost of everything oil related, (which is everything) the natural response of the powerful countries will be to exert pressure to ensure they continue to receive their share.

I find it troubling when it's suddenly profitable to extract oil from Canadian tar sands, where it takes 2 barrels of oil to produce 3, or interest becomes more intense in Rocky Mountain Shale and extreme deep sea drilling which was previously considered unrealistic because of the prohibitive costs. You'd think if they read the writing on the wall they would aggressively pursue other avenues...but it seems to me the unholy alliance between Congress, the MIC and Big Oil will remain until it has run its' natural course.

On a side note, you mentioned 10 years from now what we may or may not know about Iraq and Afghanistan...we've already been in those countries for 10 years. It seems our wars used to run about 3 years. The U.S. desperately needs to change the way it approaches these endeavors.