1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paying the fair share

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by KenS, Mar 16, 2019.

  1. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,580
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Russia and China wages for soldiers are 1/4 of the US. Consider that factor before you look at blind stats.

    Also neither China nor Russia even attempt to maintain international laws. In fact China is trying to get around international laws regarding the South China Sea with man-made islands. A few times China's military has tried to bully the USN with it's claims of "sovereignty" over the area. The USN gives China the bird. What do you think would happen if the USN was not around to keep China in check?

    "Other nations" have jokes of a military as those nations are protected by the USA.
     
    #81 Shad, Mar 17, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    2,241
    Ratings:
    +1,524
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Perhaps the figures are not accurate for those countries. In any case, it's clear that our country could be sufficiently defended against any foreign threats while spending much less on the military. The vast majority of what the military is doing in the world today has nothing to do with "defense." The US military is currently deployed in more than 150 countries around the world. This is ludicrous.
     
  3. Falvlun

    Falvlun Earthbending Lemur
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    12,516
    Ratings:
    +2,311
    Completely agree. There’s a huge issue with various departments (like DOD but I’m sure it happens in others- heck, it happens in my private hospital) where if they don’t use all their budget then their budget gets cut for the next year. So to avoid that they spend money they don’t need to spend just so they maintain their budget. Such a waste.
     
  4. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,580
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Toss in stuff like R&D contracts going over budget, costs when a product is not up to par as the developers claim like the F-22.
     
  5. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,012
    Ratings:
    +38,947
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    Why do you think the F-22 wasn't up to par?
     
  6. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,580
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    It wasn't up to par. It's avionics were outdated in the design and production phase. It's computer system was based on designs from the 90s. The USAF has already moved on to fully modern designs. F-22 production lines are closed thus replacement parts must be fabricated by the USAF.
     
  7. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,012
    Ratings:
    +38,947
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    It did have a ridiculously long development time, but it was continually updated as time went on.
    A big reason for the delays were changes in its mission by Congress, ie, design objectives were
    moving target. (It started out as an air superiority fighter, but became multi-role after the Soviet
    threat changed.) This aspect of the problem is hardly the fault of the contractor.
    I'm not a fan of the F-35 either. One plane for multiple roles? That hasn't worked in the past.
    I'd prefer that several similar designs be created, with fewer compromises for commonality.
    Moreover, I see UAVs as the future.
     
  8. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,580
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Minor updates. The USAF ruled out the massive upgrades as too costly. Upgrades which would make it state of the art. The USAF has moved on to true state of the art designs for 2030.

    It is still an air superiority fighter. It is not a multi-role Fighter/Bomber. Any purpose designed Fighter/Bomber can fulfill the ground support role better than the F-22 on any day of the week.

    Fighter/Bombers designs have been successful since pre-WW2. The Hurricane, P-41, Spitfire 11, P47D, FW190. Multi-purpose, which is the continued warfare philosophy of the F/B has the f-16 and f-16. Those are just commonly known ones. Russia has had successful Mig designs for the role as well.

    You would need a massive air force for non-war times (I mean a real war) as dedicated equipment means you need more equipment in general.

    A UAV as this time and in the foreseeable future will never combat a real plane with a pilot. UAVs are useful in our current wars against forces that have kites for an air force. The US military has to stay competitive with real powers such as China and the Russia. Both of which are catching up. In some areas, such as the T-14 Arma for Russia, have leaped current US equipment.
     
  9. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,012
    Ratings:
    +38,947
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    Setting aside your other points, I still see the future as quickly becoming predominantly
    UAVs for fighters & bombers. (Electronic warfare & ground support would lag.)
    A major hurdle I see to their use at the moment is public squeamishness about
    software making kill decisions. I doubt our enemies have that reluctance.
    They have some important advantages over on-board manned aircraft....
    - Cheaper because no on-board pilot requiring space, life support, ejection, protection.
    - Cheaper & safer because remote pilots are fewer & need less training.
    - Can be made in greater volume because of lower cost.
    - More maneuverable because no human limitations or burdens.
     
  10. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,580
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Lag time has not been resolved yet.

    Software does not make that call. UAV are controlled by people still

    Which means no reaction time nor a mind which makes UAV unsuitable for as fighters.

    Which means less hands on experience in the aircraft.

    Sure.

    UAV's are still not as maneuverable as fighters.
     
  11. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,012
    Ratings:
    +38,947
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    By "lag", I meant that some planes would likely have on-board humans longer than others.
    That situation is what will change somewhat.
    The human roll will move away from micro-management, & towards
    specifying mission objectives. The UAV would thn act autonomously,
    with humans watching at times, no doubt.
    The UAV would have a fast reaction time, so that's not the issue.
    It would be confidence that what it decides to do is the right thing.
    (Gotta kill the bad guys, & protect the rest.)
    And as its "mind" is improved, it would require less & less human
    oversight & action.
    Aye, hands on experience (in the plane) is very spendy & risky.
    Methinks that too many people are mired in ye olden times,
    wherein warriors kill each other directly, fights are somehow fair,
    & humans want the illusion that they're in total control.
    Eventually, machines will make ethical decisions.
    Current ones generally aren't (F-4 drones being one exception),
    but that is entirely by design for the roles they play, ie, surveillance
    &/or bombing. Note that missiles, a type of UAV, are faster than
    any fighter, & highly maneuverable. But the whole nature of air
    superiority will change....I'll wager no dogfighting.

    Now, imagine an F-22 without a pilot....
    This would allow a large weight savings, providing & enhancing
    the ability to pull more than the typical 9G limit. (No pilots to keep
    alive & conscious.)

    I'm not alone in this view.
    I searched, & found....
    Revealed: America’s Lethal Stealth Drones of Tomorrow
    I guarantee (money back) that the Chinese & Russians
    are thinking this way.
     
    #91 Revoltingest, Mar 19, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
  12. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,580
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    K.

    Do consider my point about lag time between operator and the UAV. That is a major issue atm.


    Which works in low intensity warfare right now for CAS

    Again the lag issue (my use of the word)

    Problem is morality can not be programed.

    My point was about computer systems not being as capable as a human mind is.

    Dog-fighting is with guns not missiles. Dog-fighting was phased out once during Nam via removal of gun systems as per the Phantom. This backfired in combat and mission goals. Combat-wise pilots had no backup system once all missiles were depleted forcing the craft would be forced to leave the combat zone. If engaged it left pilots vulnerable as with only speed and defensive systems providing an escape with no chance of any kills or forced withdraw of the enemy craft.

    Flight systems already account for this. A lot of combat tactics involve pilots blacking out.. Sure the human limitation is removed but so is the human mind.

    It states the limitation I have brought up already. It still uses CAS as the primary example of it's use
     
  13. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,012
    Ratings:
    +38,947
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    This is because they use dumb telepresence. I don't know how
    big a problem lag in the human-UAV system is, but incorporating
    intelligence & autonomy into the UAV would mitigate it.
    How is a fast reaction a "lag"?
    Of course it can.
    Much experimentation will be required, & it won't be perfect.
    But then, human soldiers are also imperfect.
    And software won't get angry or sadistic.
    They need only be capable enuf to do the job.
    Not entirely. Air to air missiles are integral.
    I'd say dogfighting wasn't phased out until production cancellation of the F-22.
    That strikes me as a watershed moment, even if the F-22 does some day
    see such an application. It'll go the way of trench warfare.
    Nonetheless, an on-board human limits G forces.
    And blacking out poses obvious risks.
    If indeed greater maneuverability is needed, UAVs are the way.
    A synthetic mind can handle higher Gs.
    This is about how the military has chosen to use them.
    This will change in order to meet Chinese & Russian threats, which
    will result in loss of (our) human life...something which traumatizes us.
    Protecting life in a war machine which is also a very attractive target
    is expensive....really expensive. Protecting an unoccupied attractive
    target which exists in greater numbers is cheaper. And we don't feel
    bad when these die.
     
    #93 Revoltingest, Mar 19, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
  14. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,580
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    We have no such AI capable of that.

    I was talking about lag between operator and UAC.

    No it can't as it requires a sentient mind. AI does not have that.

    It also will not have compassion, empathy, nor pain. The AI will never see a human as a being like another human can. If some child has an AK-47 the AI will kill that child. The human may not.

    Which is why UAVs are in low intensity CAS and Recon

    No it isn't. Dog-fighting is gun combat. Air combat is any form of combat which is what missiles fall under. Guns have a limited range far below missiles.

    I was pointing out the idea was already tried and failed.

    We have no such technology.

    China and Russia still have yet to catch up to US current UAV use let alone using in a fighter role.

    Do consider deployment targets if it came to a conflict with China or Russia. Those types of wars UAV will save a few lives in a conflict that will claim millions.
     
  15. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,012
    Ratings:
    +38,947
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    I say that is unknowable for us ordinary folk.
    We don't know what is currently being worked on in secret, just waiting in the wings.
    This is normal in the industry.
    So without info to the contrary, we must look at what current AI in the public sector
    can do, & envision how it would be applied militarily. A computer has already
    thoroughly beaten a top professional go player. This was an AI hurdle jumped
    decades before expected. An autonomous UAV would be similar in difficulty, &
    relatively cheap compared to a replacement for the F-35 or F-22.
    It's a natural direction for development to proceed, therefore it's already in process.
    I addressed that. Telepresence has no lag if the UAC has sufficient autonomy.
    With no objective (relative to an autonomous weapon) definition of "sentient"
    this cannot be argued. But whether it's AI or something more predetermined,
    computers could do the job. It's all about how soon the can (or already do) &
    how soon we'll accept their deadly autonomy.
    Weapons don't need compassion, empathy or pain.
    They need only do their job.
    As for child soldiers, it would be possible to identify them as not adults.
    Children are smaller & have different proportions. But this is a choice.
    If a child is fighting against us, trying to kill us as a combatant in war,
    then I find it acceptable to kill them.
    That they're limited to a particular function, doesn't mean they're inherently so limited.
    There's no point arguing about the definition.
    I define dogfighting as combat between fighters by whatever means work.
    guns, missiles, ECM, chaff...they're all part of the mix.
    And....
    Air-to-air missile - Wikipedia
    What failed?
    While I don't see a UAV needing it, a missile can pull 60 Gs (IRIS-T).
    As for the synthetic mind (software), I can't say whether we do or don't
    have current technology. But again, it appears achievable.
    Their being behind could give them an advantage. We're wedded to our current
    view of things, & our major weapon inventory is geared towards threats de jour.
    To be cost effective, the enemy could focus upon leap frogging us in not entirely
    predictable ways. We have the advantage in conventional warfare, eg, naval
    power, air force, littoral force. But if attack is on their minds, it would be a different
    battlefield. Think in terms of missiles, UAVs, space, electronic & warfare....&
    perhaps nuke, bio, or chem warfare.
    I consider that, thus advocating a more peaceful foreign policy.
    But not in weapon system design, which is about winning.
     
Loading...