• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Sewell

Monday, December 16, 2019

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I'm afraid that most armies will stop needing brainwashed automatons for grunts only when they switch to real robots.

Real robots are at this point still very overrated.

Don't think humanoid robots like terminator. Think drones.

... their use might be still limited, but it doesn't look completely impossible ...

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Proper hard training is however harder for the "trainers" (sergeants I suppose) to do. Abuse and cruelty is easy.

At least in the US, training instructors do not get a lot of training how to be one; months. Also, they tend to be the top tier - of the ones that did not qualify for a skilled need.

Yup, there seem to be problem here ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

While I want to agree with you, and wish things worked that way, my experiences say that a fair amount of harsh training is necessary to get the target demographic of 18/19 year olds in the prime of their rebellious years to conform.

Hm. We may simply be working from different definitions here. I agree absolutely with the 'harsh training' part. It is the 'breaking down' part I am not so certain about because it can be interpreted very widely. We did not exactly get treated like tender lambkins while I was in Basic, but the methods used all fit well within what I personally would call acceptable limits. Our sergeants were very professional and if they stepped beyond their parameters, they would get disciplined. (I did hear of that happening once. But only once.)

I would also consider it that there is a great difference between volunteers and conscripts when it comes to training. I was a volunteer. I don't wish to get too much into the politics of that except to say that I profoundly hope that the use of conscripts will eventually fade into becoming a thing of the past. (Yes, here in Denmark we still use conscripts. As few as possible, but nonetheless.)

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Having a moral compass is very important for a soldier, although that's my opinion, and obviously not every world leader agrees with me. How your soldiers behave is extends to how your culture will be viewed. When your post teens do stupid $#!% worldwide, it tends to make enemies for you.

If it is any consolation, former general Stanley McChrystal seems to agree with you. At least that is my impression from his book 'My Share of the Task', which I am currently reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I would also consider it that there is a great difference between volunteers and conscripts when it comes to training. I was a volunteer. I don't wish to get too much into the politics of that except to say that I profoundly hope that the use of conscripts will eventually fade into becoming a thing of the past. (Yes, here in Denmark we still use conscripts. As few as possible, but nonetheless.)

My father was conscripted during the US/Vietnam War, and he had often said that he felt that it would have been less unpleasant to serve the prison sentence for refusing military service than to have actually served in the US Army. A government is probably doing something wrong when people would rather go to prison than serve in the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Hm. We may simply be working from different definitions here. I agree absolutely with the 'harsh training' part. It is the 'breaking down' part I am not so certain about because it can be interpreted very widely. We did not exactly get treated like tender lambkins while I was in Basic, but the methods used all fit well within what I personally would call acceptable limits. Our sergeants were very professional and if they stepped beyond their parameters, they would get disciplined. (I did hear of that happening once. But only once.)

I would also consider it that there is a great difference between volunteers and conscripts when it comes to training. I was a volunteer. I don't wish to get too much into the politics of that except to say that I profoundly hope that the use of conscripts will eventually fade into becoming a thing of the past. (Yes, here in Denmark we still use conscripts. As few as possible, but nonetheless.)

If it is any consolation, former general Stanley McChrystal seems to agree with you. At least that is my impression from his book 'My Share of the Task', which I am currently reading.

We currently don't use conscripts, but selective service registration is still mandatory in case it is activated. Last couple of wars we had a volunteer force, but folks were involuntarily extended when their commitment was up.

One consequence is that a major segment of our force is folks who lack a better option. That's going to be always somewhat true, not conscripting enhances the effect. It means that our military is manned (so to speak, I mean 'populated')  to some extent by people who didn't market themselves elsewhere for various reasons; lack of marketable skills, inability to function in society, etc. Military service is viewed as a place people who have failed to mature by their post teen years can go to have someone complete the job for them. Of course, it's not across the board, and the Army in particular gets more than its fair share of these; the Army is least restrictive on who can join.

It works, after a fashion. People come out with some skills, and some semblance of how to function in life, but generally with some emotional damage as well.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Don't think humanoid robots like terminator. Think drones.

... their use might be still limited, but it doesn't look completely impossible ...

We use drones, excessively. Great for surveillance, lousy when you arm them and hunt individuals. At present. Too many mistakes. Facial recognition software is getting better, mmm, maybe. Mistakes are bad. A human in the loop is still a good thing.

In the long run, humans are still going to be humans, cybernetics will advance, so robots should outperform baseline humans. The fusion of the two is still in its infancy, but may be significant; I expect fielding cyborgs will extend the viability of humans in combat. I don't think I'd want to be one of the guinea pigs. We're going to get it wrong a lot before we learn how to do it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

We use drones, excessively. Great for surveillance, lousy when you arm them and hunt individuals. At present. Too many mistakes. Facial recognition software is getting better, mmm, maybe. Mistakes are bad. A human in the loop is still a good thing.

There are certain situations where distance controlled drones are truly superior. Defusing IEDs or unexploded bombs in general springs immediately to mind, especially if the drone possesses sophisticated microwaldoes and is piloted by an explosives expert. All else being equal, a drone is typically easier to replace than an explosives expert. But in general terms, we are nowhere near the point where drones and robots come even close to being able to fill a common soldier's shoes. At best they can provide some helpful support.

As to terminators, I just had a really odd dream where I was being chased by a terminator and someone was complaining that whoever set it at us hadn't even decorated it properly for Christmas. Until now I had not realised that if you deploy your heartless hunter-killer unit during Christmas season, it should at least be festive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

There are certain situations where distance controlled drones are truly superior. Defusing IEDs or unexploded bombs in general springs immediately to mind, especially if the drone possesses sophisticated microwaldoes and is piloted by an explosives expert. All else being equal, a drone is typically easier to replace than an explosives expert. But in general terms, we are nowhere near the point where drones and robots come even close to being able to fill a common soldier's shoes. At best they can provide some helpful support.

Yes, there are niches where they make sense. Hkmaly was contrasting robots with grunts. I took that to mean, "replace soldiers in general, particularly infantry."

Also, a lot of current "robots" are not autonomous, or at least not fully, beyond locomotion. He seemed to mean autonomous as well, otherwise you aren't replacing grunts. Although in the example you cite, you are keeping them out of harm's way.

Do you know where the term waldo comes from? Its not quite as colorful as Thagomizer.

A problem with remotely piloted drones that can shoot is that the young people that fly them, that grew up on video games, are very good at it, but are desensitized to video game violence. Making it too easy to take the questionable shot, since they are trained by experience that there are no consequences to taking the shot, but there may be some if you fail to take out the enemy.

 

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

As to terminators, I just had a really odd dream where I was being chased by a terminator and someone was complaining that whoever set it at us hadn't even decorated it properly for Christmas. Until now I had not realised that if you deploy your heartless hunter-killer unit during Christmas season, it should at least be festive.

At least replace one of the red eyes with a green one and make them blink, right?

Have you seen Santa on Futurama?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Do you know where the term waldo comes from? Its not quite as colorful as Thagomizer.

Yup. It comes from the short story Waldo. I know my Heinlein, thank you. ^_^

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

A problem with remotely piloted drones that can shoot is that the young people that fly them, that grew up on video games, are very good at it, but are desensitized to video game violence. Making it too easy to take the questionable shot, since they are trained by experience that there are no consequences to taking the shot, but there may be some if you fail to take out the enemy.

I had not considered that. It fits all too well with Colonel Grossman's work, though. I can well believe it. :(

(On an unrelated note: Once, when I was really tired, I got my abbreviations mixed up on a game sheet I was writing and came up with IAV and UED. I discovered the error the next day. I decided that I was really impressed with the improvised aerial vehicle and that I hoped that as a rule, explosive devices remained unmanned. At least to the point where they do not require an actual term to distinguish them from suicide bombers.)

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Have you seen Santa on Futurama?

No. Santanator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Yup. It comes from the short story Waldo. I know my Heinlein, thank you. ^_^

 

My parents were somewhat aloof. There was a time in my preteens where Heinlein was somewhat of a father figure through his juvie stories. I have not read everything he's written; near the end of his life, some of his works seemed off, and there's a few I've missed. The ones I eventually got around to reading were better than I expected. Grumblings from Beyond the Grave was tedious, though, I never finished it.

The posthumous one Spider Robinson finished from notes is pretty good. It feels like Heinlein wrote it, almost a derivative conglomeration of his other works, which indeed it may be. Variable Star. Gotta say, 's a pretty good trick, releasing a new novel years after you've shuffled off this mortal coil.

 

25 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

No. Santanator?

Robot Santa Claus

 

 

25 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

(On an unrelated note: Once, when I was really tired, I got my abbreviations mixed up on a game sheet I was writing and came up with IAV and UED. I discovered the error the next day. I decided that I was really impressed with the improvised aerial vehicle and that I hoped that as a rule, explosive devices remained unmanned. At least to the point where they do not require an actual term to distinguish them from suicide bombers.)

I saw some write ups for Darwin awards involving IAVs. The one involving rocket assisted motor vehicle acceleration was a winner, but the guy with the lawn chair and balloons failed his attempt.

A somewhat obscure movie, Darkstar, has an AI bomb as a character. You could say he (male voice) has a big role in the plot. I guess he's in a gray area in between MED and UED.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

A somewhat obscure movie, Darkstar, has an AI bomb as a character. You could say he (male voice) has a big role in the plot. I guess he's in a gray area in between MED and UED.

So...was gonna link a video from Red Vs Blue about Andy the Bomb, I had totally forgotten the transphobic comments that were part of his dialog, so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Scotty said:

So...was gonna link a video from Red Vs Blue about Andy the Bomb, I had totally forgotten the transphobic comments that were part of his dialog, so....

Shit.

And I even liked Red vs. Blue. Now I don't think I want to watch it again. I have developed a real dislike for getting surprise helpings of transphobia with my entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Shit.

And I even liked Red vs. Blue. Now I don't think I want to watch it again. I have developed a real dislike for getting surprise helpings of transphobia with my entertainment.

It's more like jokes at the expense of. In this case Andy's making comments towards Tex "pretending to be female",  also some misogyny in there too.

I mean Andy was intended to be extremely offensive, which is crazy considering the voice actor for him was said to be completely the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ijuin said:
17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I would also consider it that there is a great difference between volunteers and conscripts when it comes to training. I was a volunteer. I don't wish to get too much into the politics of that except to say that I profoundly hope that the use of conscripts will eventually fade into becoming a thing of the past. (Yes, here in Denmark we still use conscripts. As few as possible, but nonetheless.)

My father was conscripted during the US/Vietnam War, and he had often said that he felt that it would have been less unpleasant to serve the prison sentence for refusing military service than to have actually served in the US Army. A government is probably doing something wrong when people would rather go to prison than serve in the military.

Government is CERTAINLY doing something wrong in such case, only question is if the prisons are too comfortable or the service too hard.

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

There are certain situations where distance controlled drones are truly superior. Defusing IEDs or unexploded bombs in general springs immediately to mind, especially if the drone possesses sophisticated microwaldoes and is piloted by an explosives expert. All else being equal, a drone is typically easier to replace than an explosives expert. But in general terms, we are nowhere near the point where drones and robots come even close to being able to fill a common soldier's shoes. At best they can provide some helpful support.

Yes, there are niches where they make sense. Hkmaly was contrasting robots with grunts. I took that to mean, "replace soldiers in general, particularly infantry."

Also, a lot of current "robots" are not autonomous, or at least not fully, beyond locomotion. He seemed to mean autonomous as well, otherwise you aren't replacing grunts. Although in the example you cite, you are keeping them out of harm's way.

You have it half right: I was meaning replacing the grunts, BUT they don't need to be autonomous - as I was comparing them with brainwashed grunts who blindly follow orders. Having a sergeant directing those grunts - I mean, controlling the drones - is totally ok.

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

A problem with remotely piloted drones that can shoot is that the young people that fly them, that grew up on video games, are very good at it, but are desensitized to video game violence. Making it too easy to take the questionable shot, since they are trained by experience that there are no consequences to taking the shot, but there may be some if you fail to take out the enemy.

That is only problem when you don't take the war seriously. I mean, the "war against terror" is not balanced war. US can AFFORD to protect civilians and boast in news about it. In balanced conflict, where invasion into US is real possibility and enemy is not hiding between civilians, those desensitized youngs would be what the military would need - or at least WANT.

... of course, assuming such balanced conflict wouldn't be decided by nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, the military may want those youths even in asymmetrical conflict because it doesn't really care about civilian causalities as much as you would like to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

That is only problem when you don't take the war seriously. I mean, the "war against terror" is not balanced war. US can AFFORD to protect civilians and boast in news about it. In balanced conflict, where invasion into US is real possibility and enemy is not hiding between civilians, those desensitized youngs would be what the military would need - or at least WANT.

... of course, assuming such balanced conflict wouldn't be decided by nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, the military may want those youths even in asymmetrical conflict because it doesn't really care about civilian causalities as much as you would like to.

This sounds very naive. The first thing the guy who hides among his civilians does when he comes into your territory is he hides among your civilians. You still very much don't want careless potshots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:
7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

That is only problem when you don't take the war seriously. I mean, the "war against terror" is not balanced war. US can AFFORD to protect civilians and boast in news about it. In balanced conflict, where invasion into US is real possibility and enemy is not hiding between civilians, those desensitized youngs would be what the military would need - or at least WANT.

... of course, assuming such balanced conflict wouldn't be decided by nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, the military may want those youths even in asymmetrical conflict because it doesn't really care about civilian causalities as much as you would like to.

This sounds very naive. The first thing the guy who hides among his civilians does when he comes into your territory is he hides among your civilians. You still very much don't want careless potshots.

The guy who hides among civilians on your territory is not doing invasion, no matter what some politicians says. May be preparing for one to occur later, maybe.

Invasion is large scale military offensive which is impossible to hide and any civilians would be running from it as fast as they can.

Do you think someone cared about possible civilians on Tuesday, 6 June 1944 on Normandy Beach? And that was LIBERATION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

The guy who hides among civilians on your territory is not doing invasion, no matter what some politicians says. May be preparing for one to occur later, maybe.

Invasion is large scale military offensive which is impossible to hide and any civilians would be running from it as fast as they can.

Do you think someone cared about possible civilians on Tuesday, 6 June 1944 on Normandy Beach? And that was LIBERATION.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think the Nazis cared very much about French Resistance and saboteurs. That they were at the moment busy elsewhere does not mean they had forgotten this other threat. You are similar; you may be hungry, but if you fall in a lake, your efforts are going to be about getting out and not drowning. You'll still be hungry when you get out.

The guy who hides among civilians on your territory, as the commandos parachuted into various points immediately prior to D Day is very much doing invasion. In this case hindering reinforcement.

While not exactly hiding it, they did a decent job feigning and misdirecting as well; or Normandy would have been even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think the Nazis cared very much about French Resistance and saboteurs. That they were at the moment busy elsewhere does not mean they had forgotten this other threat. You are similar; you may be hungry, but if you fall in a lake, your efforts are going to be about getting out and not drowning. You'll still be hungry when you get out.

The guy who hides among civilians on your territory, as the commandos parachuted into various points immediately prior to D Day is very much doing invasion. In this case hindering reinforcement.

While not exactly hiding it, they did a decent job feigning and misdirecting as well; or Normandy would have been even worse.

I was specifically talking about the beach because I did realized that it became more complicated the more into inland they got.

And, as I said, the guy hiding between civilians might be preparing for invasion, but is not actively doing it. I would definitely count those commandos into "preparing for invasion, not doing it".

And, BTW, were Resistance fighters really classified as civilians? I would assume they classified them otherwise when they were executing them.

(Still, saying that they didn't cared about civilians at all would be exaggeration. Just ... it would be less priority than in the asymmetrical warfare.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

And, BTW, were Resistance fighters really classified as civilians? I would assume they classified them otherwise when they were executing them.

(Still, saying that they didn't cared about civilians at all would be exaggeration. Just ... it would be less priority than in the asymmetrical warfare.)

No, actually they would have specifically classified them as civilian saboteurs to avoid violating the Geneva convention. The Nazis more or less chose to honor the Geneva convention. I'm not sure why, it would seem in character to me to burn their bridges and go for all out brutality, but it paid off in the long run. NOBODY honored the Geneva convention in every case.

They also massacred whole villages in reprisal for individual killings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I was specifically talking about the beach because I did realized that it became more complicated the more into inland they got.

In spite of it being June, that would have been a sucky day to go bathing anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And, BTW, were Resistance fighters really classified as civilians? I would assume they classified them otherwise when they were executing them.

(Still, saying that they didn't cared about civilians at all would be exaggeration. Just ... it would be less priority than in the asymmetrical warfare.)

No, actually they would have specifically classified them as civilian saboteurs to avoid violating the Geneva convention. The Nazis more or less chose to honor the Geneva convention. I'm not sure why, it would seem in character to me to burn their bridges and go for all out brutality, but it paid off in the long run. NOBODY honored the Geneva convention in every case.

Interesting.

47 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

They also massacred whole villages in reprisal for individual killings.

Even in France? I though only we were so unfortunate.

21 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I was specifically talking about the beach because I did realized that it became more complicated the more into inland they got.

In spite of it being June, that would have been a sucky day to go bathing anyway.

True. Partly sunny sky, 59 degrees Fahrenheit with force 4 winds ... not good for bathing. Maybe surfing, though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
5 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Maybe surfing, though?

Sure, as long as you didn't run into mines like the one that sank the Susan B. Anthony.

Hmmmm ... were naval mines there really both so sensitive and so close to surface to endanger surf board?

(I suspect the major reason why civilians were unlikely to be on the beaches would be that german soldiers would shot them when they would be getting near the fortifications. Possibly after warning. Possibly.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this