Long range missiles cost a lot of money and you can only carry so many on a war ship.. Aircraft and the ability to bomb are better suited for lower level targets.

The advantage of the drone vs the plane, as I mentioned.. When a drone gets shot down you aren't losing the pilot. The drone can be replaced in a short time just as the airplane can, however it takes years of training to replace that pilot.

Got an answer yet?

We will always need planes - wars are won with planes, not missiles. Air superiority is the key to everything.

We do not have an unlimited supply of pilots. It takes years to train a pilot. Although, I would imagine in the future with unmanned planes.... They will become a lot easier to fly.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


oh fuck this is classic. :1orglaugh


i'm in stitches.

The years of training may explain why, in fact, hardly any pilots are killed by being shot down by enemy forces. That and the fact we never take on anything more dangerous than a bunch of peasants in pajamas armed with AK47s.

Post a few more ":1orglaugh", some people might not be convinced.

ok. 1 more for you, but only since you haven't figured it out yet.

:1orglaugh

Figured what out? Why you're calling me "francis"? You're right. But it's funny.

i saw that unmanned/piloted flight btw.. very cool

think the benefit of remote/computer is the maneuvers that can be done.. only limits to planes atm are the pilots.. no pilots, a lot less limits

question is why it took so long to switch?

dehumanising war will turn out to be a very bad thing.



http://current.com/1kf8okc

6 Technologies for Dehumanising War

Aerial Drones: Surveillance drones and weaponized drones have taken center stage, bringing death from above via remote control, often from thousands of miles away. The video game culture surely has lent a hand in creating the disconnect from buttons pushed and real lives lost. The latest offering are backpack-sized suicide drones that can fly autonomously, or via remote control.

Robots and Unmanned Ground Vehicles: Human troops on the ground already have partnered with thousands of robots to secure roadside bombs, conduct surveillance missions, and serve as battle-ready auxiliaries or autonomous agents. Unmanned tank turrets have been introduced to strafe the enemy, as well as an assortment of vehicles and even navy vessels to patrol the seas without on-board operators.

Cargo delivery: Lockheed Martin has just announced a resounding success with their K-MAX system of ?autonomous and remote control? helicopters that can re-supply troops. This cargo delivery system could potentially merge with robotic forces on the ground, completely eliminating the need for humans on either end.

Nanotech: The miniaturization of drones seems to have no end. Literal swarms of cyborg insects can surveil the most impenetrable locations. With President Obama?s 2011 Nanotechnology Initiative (pdf) having been fully funded, this has been signed on as the future of non-human war. DARPA has tested nano-enhanced hybrids for body and vehicle armor, paving the way for the likelihood of full-fledged human augmentation to merge nature and machine.

Cyborgs: Modern science has merged with the unending military budget to make the cyborgs of science fiction a near-term reality. Insect cyborgs are well-established as a recognizance tool, while Bullet-proof skin will augment any humans that might be left on the battlefield. Human augmentation has reached a new level with the XOS exo-skeleton that creates a real-world Iron Man with superhuman strength and abilities. Augmented Cognition Technology programs have been spearheaded by defense contracting giant Honeywell, which offers a full-spectrum computer-body interface to analyze and potentially program soldiers? physical and mental states via computer.

Computers and Cyberwar: The merging of the virtual landscape with the real is where humans could become redundant. The Department of Defense and Homeland Security have made it clear that cyber terrorism is the next great threat. Furthermore, they have announced that the cyber battlefield will be a representation of the real one, with computer attacks prompting real-world response. This could be the last step of full integration, as computers and communications networks connect in one overall web of attack and response ? with humanity left only to wonder how things could have spiraled so far out of control. Are we facing future wars conducted only between drones? How long before their autonomous capabilities go too far?

The benefit is you don't have a pilot who may have issues about bombing a school. A problem you don't have when someone like Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld has his finger on the button in a Pentagon control room.

doesn't seem to be much of a problem :disgust

however it was interesting reading about how many canadian 'non completed sorties', cause, from what i interpreted, pilots were refusing to fire

While I'm not knocking the skill of pilots of any nation... The only way to take down an aircraft is either by air to air missile or ground to air missile. Take out the command and control and the defender cannot use either.

You have that backwards. We have issues with dropping bombs on schools, etc, while the other side intentionally uses them to hide in.

The technology being applied to warfare today is beyond frightening.

We will get to a point where one man will issue a command, and thousands of unmanned fighters and bombers automatically lift off, travel half way around the world, seek out targets, attack, return and refuel, and continue to patrol a country's airspace for months until all targets are destroyed....

That's some scary shit - and we might just see it in our lifetime.

Do you mean "lend lease"? I have no idea what Stalin did, but I was learning about it when I was a soviet schoolboy. And yes, the USA don't just simple "helped" Russia with the weapon etc. They just did their business on that war and supplied everything in exchange for gold.

When exactly the second front was opened? Where the Soviet army was at that times?

yea i am inclined to agree.

and with this development:

http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/...s-into-effect/

yes. scary shit.

You are, and a very brainwashed ones if you consider the successful manned Moon landing as winning of the whole space race.

Not mine (I wasn't even born at that times). However it's better to kill a dog (actually I love dogs a lot because they our best friends) rather to fry a whole shuttle crew (or even two of 'em) :2 cents:

isn't that what happened every time the russians tried to get people through the belt?

not much of a tease..

Didn't get it. Sorry.

'or even two of em'

that was a dig at blown up shuttles yes?

Russians, trying to get astronauts through the van allen belt, fried at least 3 crews :2 cents:

Really? Any sources?

http://static.neatoshop.com/images/p...3-l.jpg?v=4733

sure, lets play

the first person who comes up with a government issued detailed report on failure outta the USSR wins

you go first.

There's a documentary called 'The Truth About Killing' (actually it's on Youtube, I may watch it again) which is about how, in the wake of the Vietnam war, the US military (successfully) attempted to stamp out soldiers' normal, innate aversion to killing other people.

Apparently in the Vietnam war, WWII and other prior wars, something like 90% (or some equally surprising number) of soldiers either didn't shoot or deliberately missed the enemy.

Whereas we bravely stay in subs and drone operations rooms thousand of miles away.

Out of curiosity, where would you stand if you were resisting a powerful enemy that invaded the US? The middle of a parking lot?

And it becomes self-aware 2:14 am Eastern time, August 29th. :winkwink: Not sure which year.

Probably murdering officers at Katyn, Poland, which you invaded with your Nazi allies.

Whaaaat??? :upsidedow

yea i was reading about that.. came across this:

http://www.historynet.com/men-agains...ietnam-war.htm

which talks about that entire theory and its source.. still, the 'after interviews' of this article writer still claims that 20% don't fire

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:upsidedow

Not me, but Stalin and I believe it was a small revenge for this :2 cents:

This is still a problem in the military. Every one thinks they can just shoot another person in cold blood for no reason because they are "told to do it". This is what gun nuts don't understand - not every one has the balls to shoot and kill another man when suddenly faced with that decision.

I don't understand the question. Why would I stand in the middle of a parking lot?

I am a former US Marine who taught combat tactics to officers, I have multiple assault rifles, enough food to last months, and two four wheel drive trucks....

I'm ready!

http://icdn6.digitaltrends.com/image/red-dawn-650x0.jpg

i like pooo

Yep. Richard posted a link which suggests the research has been discredited, but I'm not so sure. Plus I like the idea that even soldiers find it difficult to kill. In the documentary I mentioned I think they said something like only 2% of people had what it takes to be a bad ass killing machine who you might want on your side in the heat of battle. 1% was the professional hero type, and the other 1% were flat out sociopaths.

Okay how about a military base. Is that where you'd hang out if the North Koreans came to town?

Why not use a(n unoccupied) school building, if it's a strategic location? I don't buy the idea that they "hide behind" "human shields". If a battle takes place in an urban area then obviously there are going to be lots of civilians around. It's hardly the right of the aggressor to be moralistic about that, or cry about the enemy "hiding", just because they're not out there like sitting ducks. Not killing citizens is easy, you just don't drop bombs on cities.

Wolverines!

didn't they all die in the end? after their group went coocoo on each other and the 1 dude shot and killed his best friend/traitor?

not a second front - a first front, while the UK stood alone against the Nazi's the Russians had a non-aggression pact with the Germans.

^ Ironic, really. The only country Hitler wanted to be allies with, or at least didn't want to fight, and the country he had the greatest admiration for, was the one country that had the cojones to stand up to him.

If you'd allied with Hitler you'd have remained a superpower, alongside Germany and Japan.

You'd have your Empire, the Krauts would have their lebensraum in the East, the Japs would have whatever parts of Asia you hadn't already carved up, the Italians would have Italy, and we'd be speaking Canadian.

yes, you are right. WW2 destroyed Great Britain and we are still feeling it even now. It cost us immensely to ensure the freedom of Europe and it brought us to our knees only for our greatest ally to shaft us good and proper.

what history is this called?