Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

MilSpec Biotech 82

Posted by michael from the into-the-outdoors-with-gun-and-camera dept.
Glurx writes: "The US Army commissioned a report so they could explore how the biotechnology revolution can enhance their ability to execute their missions on battlefields in the next few decades. The SF Chronicle has a story about it. You can read the report here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MilSpec Biotech More

MilSpec Biotech

Comments Filter:

  • US good guys. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just for the kooks who didn't know, biological weapons are potentially *much* more destructive than nuclear or chemical weapons. I think it's great that the US military is developing these weapons. I mean, its not as though they're the bad guys or anything. Or are they?

    The UN Truth comission reported that 90% of all terrorist acts in the 1980's were committed by the US, a futher 5% were sponsered by them. Don't take my word for it. Stop watching the television/newspapers and do some research. Listen to some Chomsky mp3s, read some of his books, get educated.

    Have a nice day.

  • The problem is that in major conflicts it seems that the outcome is always worse when the US doesn't intervene. The first world war was extended by several years because the US did not want to be the worlds police. The second one was caused because the US could no longer support a country being distroyed by the French.
  • This is the present world. we can send a missle anywhere in the world by pointing to it on a map (not that we SHOULD be able to, just that we can).

    We dont HAVE to send ground troops anymore!

    The world economy is so intertwined that not even China, a country I find more irresponsibly than most in regarding its citizenry (freedom, human rights and such), is willing to make agressive maneuvers, because its economy is so heavily dependent on the 'western world'. Global war is LESS likely than 20 years ago.

    the groups that seem to be making the most noise these days are like fringe Islamic groups that consider the USA as 'The Great Satan' or whatnot, countries in which we like to practice our 'foreign policy'. We should leave them the hell alone and *SHAZZAM* they stop getting pissed at us!

  • That's a 300 level critique? Good grief! The US education system is in a worse state than I imagined.

  • great. (Score:2)

    by pb ( 1020 )
    So... once we crossbreed humans with cockroaches, we'll have the perfect soldiers?

    Don't get me wrong, biotechnology might have some interesting applications here, but it's easy to see how this could be taken too far. Quite readily taken WAY too far.

    Personally, I'd be more in favor of CLONING the perfect soldier than actually creating something non-human. Somehow I find that less frighteningly creepy.
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
  • Actually, if you look at the history of modern armies in the last 200 years, you will see that the vast majority of the time spent by the vast majority of soldiers is spent in the barracks or training.

    Enhanced abilities to execute a mission, is simply another way of saying, "We are more capable than anyone else's army, so don't mess with us."

    Nice try at trolling though, or perhaps it's a lack of understanding of how a modern army works. For a better understanding of that, look into military history books by Keegan, he always does a good job and he taught military history at Sandhurst.
  • Wouldn't it be easier to just pour a much smaller fraction of their budget into discovering ways to, oh,-I-don't-know, maybe find ways to reduce the need for armed conflict in the first place??!?

    That's exactly what they are doing. Technology like this will enable problems to be dealt with quickly and efficiency, with minimal loss of life and collateral damage. And it will act as a deterrent. If you want peace, you must prepare for war.

  • Yes, but we are ALREADY paying for the military, so why not let them get some free training while helping.
    Having a small(which even today translates into 'weak',) is one of the fastest ways to become the victim of aggression.
  • And I sure hope that no one on Slashdot considers bacteria to be intelligent on any level.

    I'd consider bacteria more intelligent than the average slashdot poster...

  • they have those already, they are just technically illegal. of course, killing is illegal also, unless it's wartime and you are a soldier. i think it would be to the soldier's advantage to load themselves up with some cocaine or PCP (cocaine for the speed effect, PCP to "feel no pain").

    couple that with some armour, and maybe a biological MechWarrior[TM] suit, and you'd be set.
    of course, a single well placed explosive can neutralize almost any situation. why not just genetically engineer a beetle to be able to carry a small payload, and then remote explode it? that's some biological warfare.
  • That doesn't make sense. The Army's job is to do the fighting, period. The politicians are the ones who should worry about how to not fight. Any studies or research into this area would not be done by the Army, for obvious reasons.

    Anyway, do you know that such research is in fact not being done?
  • Beautifully written troll.

    Actually, I would liken it more to the use of animals to pull wagons, chase down criminals and fight to the death for our amusement in Tiauana.

    --
  • . . . After all, what ELSE would explain Microsoft's urge to conquer and ability to withstand all attempts to exterminate them ???

    Sorry, couldn't resist the obligatory jab at M$...

  • If you can heal a soldier that would have died, temporarily so he can kill 5 more of the enemy, before dying a more excruciating death than the otherwise would have, do you do that?

    Well, you have to consider this from the military point of view. One of the primary issues involved in military planning is the question of Morale! This is of extreme importance to a commanding officer because troops with bad morale do not fight well -- if at all.

    You also have to consider that wounded men going back are, when all is said and done, trained killers.

    Doctor: Here son. Let me slap some of this Wound-Be-Gone (TM) goo on that big ol' hole in you, and you'll be healed up, lickety-split!

    Wounded Soldier: What?! No way, man! I saw what that s*** did to Danny! Four days after he got back from the MASH, he was scramin', man, SCREAMIN! . . . Mutha- - -

    [S.E.] "BUDDA-BUDDA-BUDDA-BUDDA!!"

    As I used to tell my Corporals when I was a Sergeant, "You can't just throw your weight around. You need them to believe in you. After all, if we go in the dill, you will have men following you who all all carrying loaded weapons!"
  • Perhaps you should consider looking for positive uses, rather than concentrating only on the bad possibilities?

    if only he could use his trolling for good instead of evil...

  • The Main benefit of this, in addition to Friend or Foe ID, is in the event a US soldier/airman is a POW. This would enable the ability of our soldiers/airmen, etc... at risk of capture to ingest such a device prior to a mission, and assist in identifying location, initiating recovery, etc...

    Encoding a low powered signal would be the best way to conceal the device from the enemy's reception equipment, while having more sensitive reception abilities would be the way to acquire the signal.

    A potential for POW status, such as in special operations where exposure is greater, also explains the need to have it ingestible for at-risk personnel, as opposed to externally worn. Such a device would have enabled the recovery of our pilot in Mogadishu and the pilots and others who were captured during the large desert warfare exercise we had a few years back.

  • Re:If they're so sophisticated... (Score:4)

    by Bob Uhl ( 30977 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @06:33AM (#130571)
    Reducing war is exactly in the military's interest, and it knows this. Who is it who dies in wars? Not politicians. Not mindless twits like the above poster. No, it's the soldiers and sailors who get their legs blown off, who are blinded, who spend the rest of their lives in pain and agony. The less killing and maiming, the happier the military is. Believe or not, some of the staunchest pacifists are in the military. Unlike some pacifists, though, they are realists: they know that if one wishes war, one prepares for peace, and that if one wishes peace, one prepares for war. They wish peace, and hence hone their warmaking skills.

    War is a fact of life and of history. It is inevitable. But it can be controlled and the likelihood reduced. The only way to reduce it, though, is to make warfare cheap for oneself and expensive for the other guy--this means that he would be a fool to start hostilities.

  • "-- Bioengineered tracking agents soldiers would swallow before going into the field, which could help the Army follow troop movements and maybe allow sensor-equipped snipers to distinguish friend from foe."

    It also allows enemy sensor equipped snipers to have a field day...
    But no enemy could possibly be so advanced as to have the technology to detect it, would they? After all, the U.S. only goes into battle against overmatched opponents like Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Bosnia, not technologically comprable opponents like China, Russia, or Germany.
  • Wouldn't it be easier to just pour a much smaller fraction of their budget into discovering ways to, oh,-I-don't-know, maybe find ways to reduce the need for armed conflict in the first place??!?
    I'm sure that someone is working on the orbital mind control beams as we speak. Until that is done, there's not much that can be done about the perceived "need" for armed conflict, since most of it has its roots in ethnic and religious animosity. Even when there are actual resource issues involved, the ethnic and religious differences tend to prevent agreement on an "equitable" division of the available resources. Then there's the basic human nature of wanting more than one has, even if it isn't necessarily "needed". All in all, until the orbital mind control beams are operational, there's going to be those who want what someone else has, and you can choose to either let them take it, or try to discourage them from doing so.
  • Nothing wrong with that, as long as the Department of Defense focuses on defense. However, most of the resources seem to go towards making better weapons for offense.
    There's not really much of a difference. Better "offensive" weapons tend to discourage potential enemies from starting a conflict, or help to keep the conflict away from the U.S. if one does start. On the other hand, better "defensive" weapons can be more threatening than offensive weapons - look at the reactions to a possible missle defense system - and the result of defensive weapons can be less security than was started with.

  • not for everyone (Score:3)

    by Illserve ( 56215 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @07:52AM (#130575)
    The higher ups aren't the ones doing the dying, but they're the ones calling the shots. Some of the brass spends their entire lives preparing for war, and you can bet that can sometimes create a desire to have one. They want to prove themselves, their theories, their plans, it's human nature.

    Naturally this isn't a generalization about everyone in the upper echelons.

  • On Dept. of Defense... Implants (Score:3)

    by joq ( 63625 ) on Sunday June 24, 2001 @08:09PM (#130576) Homepage Journal

    Applied Digital Solutions, an e-business-to-business solutions provider, acquired the patent rights to the miniature digital transceiver it has named "Digital Angel®." The company plans to market the device for a number of uses, including as a "tamper-proof means of identification for enhanced e-business security." ... One inquirer was the U.S. Department of Defense through a contractor, according to Zhou. American soldiers may be required to wear the implant so their whereabouts and health conditions can be accessed at all times, said the scientist.

    [source [antioffline.com]]

    Some technology they're looking at ...
  • Brain implants? I knew a Captain who could have used one of those...

    don't you mean cmdr?
  • Armor as flexible as skin, tough as an abalone shell and enhanced with "living characteristics," such as the ability to heal itself when torn.

    brain implants, real- time monitoring of gene expression and performance-enhancing drugs.

  • What jumps out at me is

    maybe allow sensor equipped snipers to distinguish friend from foe God help the poor soldier that takes a shit and leaves the device behind. Even worse, someone suggested tracking POW's with it. I can see our special forces going in to rescue POW's as their unerring soldier tracking devices leads them directly to a latrine.

  • ... but unfortunately, sometimes their politics override their common sense. "Just what circumstances might warrant tracking a soldier's DNA, for example, were not spelled out in any detail. " Um, we're already doing this, and have been for some years: if nothing else, it's useful for identifying badly mutilated corpses. The idea is that there will be no more Unknown Soldiers. Modern warfare doesn't just kill people, it destroys them. Families have both a right and a need to know if anonymous body parts recovered from the battlefield belong to their sons and daughters.
  • Hell, what better way to get the smart CS and Engineering college graduates to sign up for 7 years:

    Grad: Hmmm, well MegaTech Inc are offering me the chance to work on cutting edge technology, a massive salary, pension, health plan, car and other benefits, so why should I sign up for the armed forces?

    Captain: We can make you bionic!

    I know I'd be tempted ; )

  • Nothing wrong with that, as long as the Department of Defense focuses on defense.

    Sorry but this begs the obvious quote:

    "The best defense is a good offense." - Vince Lombardi

    Offensive deterence is a way better defense than any kind of literal defense, IMHO.
  • From the Chronicle article:
    Bioengineered tracking agents soldiers would swallow before going into the field, which could help the Army follow troop movements and maybe allow sensor-equipped snipers to distinguish friend from foe.
    How exactly would something like this work, without allowing the enemy to also track the troop movements.


    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
  • These new "machines" are actually living organisms, going through many of the same basic chemical processes that happen within each of our cells. Taken as a whole, these organisms must obviously be intelligent on some level, or else they would not be useful for computing purposes.
    No, an organism that does computing isn't necessarily be intelligent. Consider some integrated circuit that is "useful for computing purposes". Lets say you make a duplicate of it, but with all the transistors replaced by living cells that act like transistors. Is this new biological creation, which is "useful for computing purposes", intelligent at some level? If it is, then the original integrated circuit must also be intelligent at some level, since what makes something intelligent is not determined by it's form; this would mean that we're all ruthlessly exploiting all the Pentiums, which should be liberated to... do something or other.

    Also, if you'd have looked at the Army report, you would have seen that the things they're talking about using aren't living organisms, but proteins, DNA, RNA, antibodies, and such. I didn't read the report fully, but the most that they might have been considering using living organism was using bacteria to make holographic materials with some interesting properties (and even then I think it was probably using proteins from the bacteria). And I sure hope that no one on Slashdot considers bacteria to be intelligent on any level.


    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
  • "-- Bioengineered tracking agents soldiers would swallow before going into the field, which could help the Army follow troop movements and maybe allow sensor-equipped snipers to distinguish friend from foe."

    It also allows enemy sensor equipped snipers to have a field day...

    -- Wrist-top biosensors to guard against germ warfare, combined perhaps with vaccines that could be developed rapidly in the field and "functional food" rations laced with edible vaccines."

    The anti-ebola tastes best when you add the reto-virus ketchup.

    -- Armor as flexible as skin, tough as an abalone shell and enhanced with "living characteristics," such as the ability to heal itself when torn.

    This damn armor healed itself when I went to the latrine and now my **** is stuck!

    -- Even more far-out possibilities fall under the general heading of biology- based "performance enhancement" for soldiers, including brain implants...

    Brain implants? I knew a Captain who could have used one of those...

  • Don't be silly. Ground forces are vital to any armed conflict, for reasons too numerous and obvious for me to detail here. Besides, Great Britain already tried to commit to a "missiles-only" military (and failed). But I'm sure your implementation is far superior to whatever feeble plan those silly Brits came up with.

  • ... develop and use weapons to serve it's own best interest (or at least the best interest of the ones in the right places or with the right influences) both inside and outside de US territory.

    And the best thing is: Everybody else is doing exactly the same

    It's just a fact of life!!!

    <RANT>
    Now WHAT REALLY GETS ON MY NERVES is all those self-righteous (US; non-US; martians; i don't care) that come around saying

    Oh, we're all goody-goody and our weapons are only for show so that all those mean foreign baddies don't do us any harm...

    Please ... either you're a fool or you think everybody else is a fool
    </RANT>

  • The brain implant idea might cause a little trouble for their recruiting, or maybe they can cut a deal with the prison system.

    The US Army have already tried this. They did it the wrong way round with Mr McVeigh though.

  • I don't know about anyone else out here, but I've seen almost everything mentioned in the Chronicle article before. Be it in one of the CP Chrome Books, Shadowrun's "Shadowtech" or "Man and Machine", or various other supplements or websites relating to near-future role-playing games. Still, nice of the military to summarise it all for us ;-)

    On a slightly more serious note, it's not really any surprise that a large number of things being considered have already been seen in speculative fiction of one sort or another. Consider Arthur C. Clarke's (et al.) visionary contribution to the space program. Other fields certainly aren't immune.

  • and if there is a thief / killer on the loose we all expect the police to be a little more on the offence ... not just "guard better"

    Same with the military ... the neighborhoods just a little bigger.
  • "Benine?" Do you mean "benign?"

    Anything compound that emits enough radiation to be easily detectable though trees and such is unlikely to be BENIGN. I wouldn't want them injecting me with that crap. (I did a lot of biochem work with radiation, I know a bit about it.)

    And anything that you can detect, they enemy can too. "Ivan! Am picking up gamma radiation burst from due south." "It's probably nothing, Yvgeny."

    Even changing something like the IR reflection profile seems risky. It's not like a cypher that you can change on the fly.
  • Some things that were mentioned in the article are permanent/semi-permanent. While it is laudable to "improve your fighting capabilities," does anything think that these things are going to be implanted through volunteering only?

    I sure as one dont think so. In the armed forces mentality, these enhancements would probably be an "all-or-nuttin" bid -- every soldier under their command will have it done. How could this actually be forced on them? Instead of talking to their buddies in 50 years about this shot they took in their arm, they can talk about the permanent "brain enhancement" they experienced...
  • "Join the US Army...
    We infect more people before 6AM than you'll infect all day!"

    -OzJuggler

  • Yes, good ol' Vince did say that... but Mike Ditka did say "The best offence is a good defence." I dunno; take your pick ;-)

  • "I think the US has done it's share of good in shortening conflicts by intervening,"

    With Nagasaki and Hiroshima being the prime examples on how to cut short the agony.
  • *TSZST* "Ohh yeah, that's the stuff!"
  • "enhance their ability to execute their missions on battlefields"?

    more like "enhance their ability to execute their enemies on battlefields"
    ----
  • I really just wanted to find something that translated "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori". I didn't look at the page I ended up with very hard though -- it just translated it as "it is sweet to die for one's country" and not "it is sweet /and proper/..." (et decorum).
    ~

  • "Conclusions and recommendations" (Score:4)

    by 3-State Bit ( 225583 ) on Sunday June 24, 2001 @08:05PM (#130599)
    I realize almost no one is going to even look at all those pdf documents, but here's a sentence I liked from the final pages [nap.edu] of the report:
    In keeping with national policy, the study did not consider offensive biological weapons; however, the committee believes that all biotechnology development should be undertaken with defenses against such weapons in mind.
    God bless America. [utexas.edu]


    (a little explanation [utexas.edu])
    ~
  • *cough* *cough* Army Corp of Engineers *cough*

    Kierthos
  • I particularly like this priority they mentioned:
    the military was told it should focus research: "self-replicating systems for wound healing,"
    Soldier to army medic: "Sir, My wound healed fine, this new Biotech is great!!! But now I have this giant melignant cancer where the wound was..."
    Army Medic: "Yah. It's a self-replicating system. It's still in the testing phase, but since we suddenly found ourselves at war, we had to avail ourselves of every advantage. Sorry."

    If you can heal a soldier that would have died, temporarily so he can kill 5 more of the enemy, before dying a more excruciating death than the otherwise would have, do you do that?

    I think this is the big question of biotech medicines in military applications...

    --CTH

    ---

  • In the early desert dawn... (Score:3)

    by corvi42 ( 235814 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @12:24AM (#130602) Homepage Journal
    Capt:
    "Ok men, we're moving in on the enemy positions in a few hours, and I repeat what I've said before, I don't want any of you shooting people who are trying to surrender."
    Gomer:
    "But Cap'n, I don't speak no Eye-Rack-EE"

    Capt:

    "You don't need to son, just stick this fish in your ear"

  • The problem is that in major conflicts it seems that the outcome is always worse when the US doesn't intervene.

    Yes... Think how much worse Vietnam could have been if the US wouldn't have intervened... Oh wait...

    Seriously though, I think the US has done it's share of good in shortening conflicts by intervening, but this is by no means always a good idea.
  • Some of the brass spends their entire lives preparing for war, and you can bet that can sometimes create a desire to have one

    A good dramatized example of this is in "The Thin Red Line" which the colonel demands his men continue up the regardless of the risk or physical limitations. I saw this movie as exactly what not to be as an officer. Further, in my experience with flag officers, they would agree. Remember that all those admirals and generals were once ensigns and 2nd lts, who take the same risks along with their men: a lesson one does not easily forget.

  • I guess the plan is: 1. Recruit soldiers to defend America. 2. Invent weapons of mass destruction to defend America. 3. Invent vaccinations against effects of weapons of mass destruction, to be used by soldiers that were recruited to fight and defend America. 4. War breaks out. 5. Weapons of mass destruction deployed. 6. Vaccinated soldiers have no one left to defend.
  • Apparently Digital Angel combines a muscle-activated power supply, a GPS receiver, and some sort of transmitter. (If it didn't have a transmitter, it couldn't broadcast your location.) For most civilian purposes, that could be a cell-phone transmitter. But remember, holding a cell phone near your head for a half-hour a day has been neither proven safe nor proven dangerous. Having it implanted under your skin and on 24x7 is rather more likely to be dangerous. And it will need a little extra transmitting power to get the signal out.

    But for military applications, this thing has to work where there is no cell-phone network (or the USAF has just targeted all the towers to make sure the other guys aren't using encrypted cell-phones to communicate or even to tie together detection networks). So you need a transmitter powerful enough to reach a satellite. I don't know, but I suspect that is quite a few watts, as compared to the 5mW peak signal of a cell phone. That burning sensation? It's your tracking device cooking your biceps...

    Do I even need to comment on the stupidity of having our troops walking through the woods while broadcasting a signal anyone with a $25 radio receiver can home in on?
  • I have a hint for you: The army is trying to promote peace!!! If we have the best weapons, no one will attack us. If they do, the war will be quick and they will be dead with minimal losses on our side. How is that wrong?
  • I bet you are one of those people from Greenpest or similar organization who spout nonsense about anything that is modified by humans. By your reasoning, an ameboa is intelligent on some level and we would be slave owners if we made it, or any other animal work for us. You are also implying that humans are not any better than or worth more than an ameboa either.
  • Trolling aside, there are vital missions carried out by militaries other than just random killing.

    Elimination of, and retribution for, terrorist activities.

    Emergency rescue situations.

    Aid to struggling areas (hurricaine relief, etc).

    These actions can all be helped by improved biotech engineering. It's a fact of life. Perhaps you should consider looking for positive uses, rather than concentrating only on the bad possibilities?
  • This relies on the assumption that the US military have superior equiptment, which is generally the case.

    Chemicals already exist that can produce substantial amounts of benine radiation. Swallowing such a chemical could cause a person to emit radiation with certain characteristics, which would not be detected by the naked eye. Friendly soldiers could have radiation detectors that know precisely which frequency a "friend" emits. Thus, they could easily see their "friends" through dark brush, thick trees, or other similar conditions.
  • If this gets modded up, I'm outta here.
    --

  • How stupid are you? Let's see shall we?

    The problem is that in major conflicts it seems that the outcome is always worse when the US doesn't intervene.

    Oh yeah, you're so right. I guess I just imagined Korea and Vietnam then.

    The first world war was extended by several years because the US did not want to be the worlds police.

    The US played 'see no evil, hear no evil' for almost four years before it got involved in WWI. Even when it did decide to get off its apathetic butt it was slow to commit troops and resources to the field, and arrived in just in time to hear the final whistle. Way to go Uncle Sam.

    The second one was caused because the US could no longer support a country being distroyed by the French.

    And which country would that be? France, like Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, etc was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany. The French didn't destroy anyone, they were the ones being destroyed.

    And the US involvement in WWII didn't come about because of any humanitarian sentiments felt by the American people towards their oldest allies (the French provided the fledgling US with a lot of military aid during the US War of Independence) but because of a certain butt-kicking by Japan at Pearl Harbour. Germany declaring war on the US shortly after Japan kind of sealed the deal.

    If you must insist on spouting so much revisionist crap, at least make it sound plausible

  • And my point is what kind of crack are you smoking? If we reduced our military to one percent of its current levels we wouldn't be able to protect Hawaii let alone the rest of the US. 30,000 troops can't defend crap. From the days of the founding fathers till now the defense of this nation has depended almost entirely on our ability to project our forces onto foreign soil. From Tripoli, to Germany, and to Tokyo, we have protected out interests and sovereignty by our ability to project our forces. You may not like it but in the modern world instability anywhere is a threat to our country. We have made mistakes in the past but it can be argued that in our fear of interfering in some instances we have done more harm to ourselves and others than would have been done by stepping in in the first place. If we had been prepared and willing to step in WWI and WW2 would have been much shorter with less loss of life and property on all sides. In evey major conflict we have been in we have been unprepared when it started. That is the most costly mistake a nation can make.
  • It is not the militaries job to start or prevent war. Their job is to go, fight and try not to die when told to fight. It is the politicians that are supposed to make those decisions. Then the politicians should get out of the way and allow the military to do what it is trained for. The only real way to avoid war is to have the capability and willingness to use that capabilty to make any nation decide that attacking you is suicidal.

  • >Wouldn't it be easier to just pour a much smaller fraction of their budget into discovering ways to, >oh,-I-don't-know, maybe find ways to reduce the need for armed conflict in the first place?

    Well, no. Not since President Carter outlawed assassinating heads of state.


    Think of all the lives that could have been saved over the years by a couple of good headshots.
  • Yes... Think how much worse Vietnam could have been if the US wouldn't have intervened... Oh wait...

    Oh yeah, it was a regular worker's paradise in Vietnam when the US left town.

  • Those barrels were heavy and strong enough to penetrate several hundred feet into the ground (through reinforced concrete) to destroy a bunker.

    Several HUNDRED feet?? Do you have a reference for this?

  • Coastal forts, anti-air defense, domestic air force, and a reserve-based army, navy patrols, sub patrols, border patrols should go a long way towards defending U.S. All those blitz wars in foreign countries has nothing to do with defense.

    OK, let's say the US withdraws to its borders. It's now a sitting duck. Take out its foreign oil imports and the US is starved into a pre-industrial economic state.

    "Coastal forts"? Jesus, what will you recommend next? Cavalry saber charges?

  • All those blitz wars in foreign countries has nothing to do with defense.

    No, we wouldn't want to protect any foreign interests like, say, oil, upon which we are dependent.

    Don't be naive. The United States doesn't get into a war or battle or peacekeeping missions just because it believes thats "the right thing to do." Most of the time, such participation is sparked by a very specific interest. With regards to middle-eastern countries, you can rest assured that the interest is in oil. The United States depends upon it. Take that away, and we are crippled. Why do you think there is a strategic oil reserve that people are reluctant to touch? It's not really there for consumers.

    GreyPoopon
    --

  • Bacteria can be engineered to "eat" toxic chemicals in contaminated areas, thus cleaning the place up after an attack from Saddam's illegal stock-piles. There was an army project to do this some years ago, and it was shown to be fesible. (I don't know if they followed through with the idea.)
  • Though I suspect the original accusation of a double-standard was just a troll to begin with, it's a fair question nonetheless, and somebody had this great rebuttal censored:
    ----------
    " I'm not sure what you're not understanding about it. Back during the Gulf War, Iraq was tired of the coalition forces kicking its ass, so it agreed to certain sanctions in exchange for a cease-fire. The UN Security Council later decided that Iraq would have to destroy its chemical weapons (among other things) before it would consider lifting the sanctions.

    The Iraqi goverment only brought the restrictions on itself by being a destabilizing force in an already shaky region.     "
  • Obviously the mindset of military professionals has not changed at all, Glasnost, post-cold war, or whatever. When I was in the (mandatory) army (not US), we were learnt about nuclear warfare, and were equipped with gas masks, some special clay to use for uniforn cleaning, and even a special 'atom-brush', to sweep atomic downfall off the uniform. The uniform had a seamless flaps over the pockets, so-called atom-flaps. We knew that if someone dropped a nuclear bomb, we'd be screwed anyways.

    All those old useless gadgets are no different from what the hawks are planning for future recruits. It is supposed to give them a false sense of security as they are being fed to the cannons. A soldier with his legs blown off won't have much need for automatic band-aid.

    Gotta give them some credit for their openness. The brain implant idea might cause a little trouble for their recruiting, or maybe they can cut a deal with the prison system.

  • I have a hint for you: The army is trying to promote peace!!! If we have the best weapons, no one will attack us. If they do, the war will be quick and they will be dead with minimal losses on our side. How is that wrong?

    Nothing wrong with that, as long as the Department of Defense focuses on defense. However, most of the resources seem to go towards making better weapons for offense. Coastal forts, anti-air defense, domestic air force, and a reserve-based army, navy patrols, sub patrols, border patrols should go a long way towards defending U.S. All those blitz wars in foreign countries has nothing to do with defense.

  • I have to say that your crack dealer must be a chemical genius.

    The military of this nation's primary purpose is to protect the borders of this nation and what lies within them, but their secondary purpose is to protect American interests abroad.

    Just like every other military force that has existed throughout history, there is more than one use for our military.

    If the military were cut back to 1% of its current size, it would have trouble defending a playground.

    Our military's best tactic is intimidation. People who are inclined to cause trouble with us have to think twice because of what our military is capable of. On the whim of the president, any building, any place on the planet can be reduced to rubble within 24 hours.

    Even Saddam Hussein's underground bunkers couldn't protect him from our airforce. Having more spare parts than we currently need lead to the development of a bomb built with spare howitzer barrels. Those barrels were heavy and strong enough to penetrate several hundred feet into the ground (through reinforced concrete) to destroy a bunker.

    Without that extra inventory some weapons might have been on the drawing board for several years, and some of the conflicts that we've had would have been drawn out, costing many more lives.

    Remember you don't have to kill them all if they know that you're capable of doing it.
  • Are you kidding?

    After about a decade or two of this I'll happily line up.

    I couldn't imagine how my CS kill/death ratio would improve if I could decrease my reaction time by 20-30 ms.

    Where do I sign up?
  • Several HUNDRED feet?? Do you have a reference for this?

    I saw it on the discovery channel.

    I could not tell you the name of the program however.

  • Funny, I thought Saddam Hussein was still in power...

    It was not our goal to unseat him. What we wanted was for Saddam to withdraw his forces from Kuwait. Funny, last time I checked, he had.

  • Biotech is godzilla! Ok two things come to mind, does the military really have this much free time to invest in all the goofy stuff they do, the video games I can understand, but the SUV, and this amongst other things, couldn't they do something more worthwhile, like promote peace, love, and linux?
  • Thats a very common misconception. The "Fear Of God" theory, yuck.
  • "The US Army commissioned a report so they could explore how the biotechnology revolution can enhance their ability to execute their missions on battlefields in the next few decades."

    Wouldn't it be easier to just pour a much smaller fraction of their budget into discovering ways to, oh,-I-don't-know, maybe find ways to reduce the need for armed conflict in the first place??!?

    'Course, that'd probably not exactly be in the Pentagon's best interests... ($$$)

    --

  • "The Army's job is to do the fighting, period."

    The term 'national defense' means protecting a nation. It may involve some degree of fighting, but it need not be synonymous with 'fighting'.

    I certainly wouldn't be surprised if such research were indeed being done, and things like diplomacy and encouraging peace have probably been researched further back than recorded history. Failure to implement such measures can often be traced to political or bureaucratic obstruction.

    --

  • "If we have the best weapons, no one will attack us. If they do, the war will be quick and they will be dead with minimal losses on our side. How is that wrong?"

    What if the USA does what it has historically done in all wars they've been involved with ... underestimate the so-called ENEMY. Let's rephrase that for a moment ... "no one will attack us" (

    ok so terrorism - or retaliation - never happens right?) and the rest of the world is in the dark ages right? No other nation has nuclear capability, they're just the ENEMY ... faceless, nameless, non-humans on the other SIDE of the conflict.

    Let's examine our high school grads to let's say ... Japan's or China's or those in the Arab nations? Scary thought.

    and "they will be dead with minimal losses on our side"

    Or we will all be dead because the pompus USA has again underestimated the other side.

    Sig: Join the military, travel the world, meet nice people, Kill them.
  • pretty things like to be stolen, gigantic crazy military and republicans make us sleep better at night. Kinda like when Homer says, "To alcohol: the cause of - and solution to - all of life's problems."
  • Being more machine then person would be intersting. Just think of all the cool things darth vader can do. Not to mention if they get that brain implant working, that might lead to a cable to a computer so I can surf the web and play video games by just thinking about it. Actualy I read some where that the older you get, the more exhausting it is to think. So maybe scratch half of that last idea. I'm not to sure about those tracers that you injest though, seems like it would be to easy to kill a soldier, gut it, and duplicate the tracer or use the dead soldier somehow. But I didn't realy read the details on how the thing worked.

    -------------------
  • "From the days of the founding fathers till now the defense of this nation has depended almost entirely on our ability to project our forces onto foreign soil."

    No mate, thats called 'invasion'. 'Defense' is what you do when you stay at home.
    ------------------------------------------- -------

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close