|
Post by newageofpower on Nov 5, 2017 16:32:21 GMT
So you're asking me to admit that the infantry man will become obsolete right around the same time that the human race does? No. In a total war, human infantry are already obsolete. Of course, total war starts with ICBM launches, so... Already, naval warships don't use naval infantry for things other than getting rid of pirates in the equivalent of upgunned rowboats; they're basically more like cops than main battle weapons.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Nov 6, 2017 0:09:30 GMT
So you're asking me to admit that the infantry man will become obsolete right around the same time that the human race does? No. In a total war, human infantry are already obsolete. Of course, total war starts with ICBM launches, so... Already, naval warships don't use naval infantry for things other than getting rid of pirates in the equivalent of upgunned rowboats; they're basically more like cops than main battle weapons. Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory. - George S Patton. As I said earlier, fighting men will become obsolete as soon as the human race does. One position follows inseparably from the other.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 6, 2017 3:52:34 GMT
I think the question that no one really has asked (and which must be asked) to properly speculate about the future role of various tactics, weapons, organizations, doctrines, etc.:
What will the first violence in space be?
Obviously no one has a crystal ball, but once you have a reasonable estimate of that (along with an approximate date), then I'd say you are off to a reasonable start in projecting more years/technologies/economic cycles/resource-production-watersheds into the future.
Any supposition based strictly on how tech might work is utter nonsense. Tech does not determine national policy, it is the other way round. Humanity is not going to go from its present state (no weapons in space) to sophisticated coil guns and long-range lasers and point-defense weapons in the blink of an eye. Violence, and collective violence, and warfare in space will evolve just like it always has.
Thus, I would say that, at some points (particularly early), thugs with can-openers and machetes might well be the most effective military unit in space. 10 or 50 or 100 years after that? Yes, it might be more akin to dismounted rifleman trying to tackle a passing fighter jet (the "sending soldiers to against a US Navy destroyer... swimming" analogy doesn't really convey the point you were trying to make I think because . . . this is precisely one of the missions which SEALS and Spetsnaz, etc. carry out . . . granted, they don't "swim" out to intercept warships in the middle of the ocean and attach demolitions to their hull while the ship is cruising at 25knots, but men destroying warships "swimming" is precisely what they DO do, as long as they can sneak up on it while it is at anchor).
Of course there will be "infantry" in future space military. There will ALWAYS be infantry (counting police as infantry)! We do not yet have robots that can properly clean houses, much less stand guard at checkpoints, effectively distinguish friend and foe, and exhibit rapid improvisational thinking in response to dynamic situations. In 10,000 years, we may all BE robots, but I think that in 500 years "Artificial Intelligence" is likely to still be pretty damn stupid, unless it is hyper-specialized in which case it might only be fairly stupid.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 6, 2017 4:20:07 GMT
When you say "infantry in space" I think of either Adeptus Astartes or Kerbals with M16s.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 6, 2017 4:40:51 GMT
I think the question that no one really has asked (and which must be asked) to properly speculate about the future role of various tactics, weapons, organizations, doctrines, etc.: What will the first violence in space be? Obviously no one has a crystal ball, but once you have a reasonable estimate of that (along with an approximate date), then I'd say you are off to a reasonable start in projecting more years/technologies/economic cycles/resource-production-watersheds into the future. Any supposition based strictly on how tech might work is utter nonsense. Tech does not determine national policy, it is the other way round. Humanity is not going to go from its present state (no weapons in space) to sophisticated coil guns and long-range lasers and point-defense weapons in the blink of an eye. Violence, and collective violence, and warfare in space will evolve just like it always has. Thus, I would say that, at some points (particularly early), thugs with can-openers and machetes might well be the most effective military unit in space. 10 or 50 or 100 years after that? Yes, it might be more akin to dismounted rifleman trying to tackle a passing fighter jet (the "sending soldiers to against a US Navy destroyer... swimming" analogy doesn't really convey the point you were trying to make I think because . . . this is precisely one of the missions which SEALS and Spetsnaz, etc. carry out . . . granted, they don't "swim" out to intercept warships in the middle of the ocean and attach demolitions to their hull while the ship is cruising at 25knots, but men destroying warships "swimming" is precisely what they DO do, as long as they can sneak up on it while it is at anchor). Of course there will be "infantry" in future space military. There will ALWAYS be infantry (counting police as infantry)! We do not yet have robots that can properly clean houses, much less stand guard at checkpoints, effectively distinguish friend and foe, and exhibit rapid improvisational thinking in response to dynamic situations. In 10,000 years, we may all BE robots, but I think that in 500 years "Artificial Intelligence" is likely to still be pretty damn stupid, unless it is hyper-specialized in which case it might only be fairly stupid.*pissed off noise from AI researchers and futurists* You greatly underestimate humanity's technological advancement speed, whoever you are.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Nov 6, 2017 4:54:48 GMT
The "most advanced" "AI" known so far . . . can last about 5 minutes in a Turing Test! A 10 year old can probably last for years! I got into a discussion about "AI" with some dreamer type on another board some months ago, and I made a long list of "show me an AI that can . . . [insert thing which some or many common 'primitive' animals on Earth do everyday]" and I'll accept your view that "we are on the verge of miraculous breakthroughs in "AI." I can try to recall which board that was on and dig it up if you want. ADDIT: and no, I DO NOT underestimate humanities pace of "technological development speed." Our processing power, storage space, transmission speed and fidelity, will continue to evolve in line with Moore's Law for a very long time to come. But here is the thing: lots of speed or the capacity to do lots of operations per unit time has only limited relationship with "intelligence." Humans are already far, FAR slower than common place machines in "processing speed" and signal tranmission speed. Hell, the time it takes me to send a signal from my frontal lobe to my forearm to type these keys is probably an order of magnitude longer than it will take my machines to transmit this entire packet of bytes and show up on your screen. No I don't underestimate our "technology." Our technology is astounding and will continue to get more astounding. What I do is: I don't confuse speed or volume or accuracy or precision with the emergent property of "intelligence." Computers are no less stupid than hammers or screwdrivers, they merely have the capacity to store instructions and carry them out dutifully as they were "told" to do. The bottlenecks on "AI" are two (or perhaps three fold): 1. The psychoneuro people still do not have a fucking clue what "intelligence" is in terms of the actual neural networks and organelles of nervous systems. I retired a couple years ago after 25 years in academia doing research in a cross-disciplinary position that straddles these fields, so while I wouldn't claim I'm completely up-to-date, I am almost certainly more up-to-date than 97% of "computer science people" and 99% of AI dreamers in general. Until the psych and bio people have some idea of the actual mechanisms of "intelligence" any prospect of the engineering people "creating" it is quite literally impossible. Bit like engineers creating "artificial compassion" or "artificial conscience" or "artificial pride!" 2. Even once the BASIC mechanisms of nervous systems and bodies which "comprise" intelligence are understood at a level that can inform computer science, there is no guarantee that any of the fundamental design elements of existing computers will be sufficient to "replicate" those biological mechanisms. Modern computers depend on a binary information system. It is almost assured that biological systems do no such thing, so adapting existing computer technology to try to create artificial intelligence could be more analagous to "adapting" pottery making technology for creating warp drives. 3. Lets suppose that the mechanisms of actual biological "intelligence" eventually get ironed out (they will eventually, I'd say no longer than 10,000 years, maybe only 1,000 . . . heck it could even occur in 500!) and the necessary adjustments to create proper cybernetic hardware and software are achieved pretty readily, the proverbial "libraries" of perception, analysis, decision making and reward-seeking/punishment-avoidance which are common to even one species will likely take the biological researchers another generation or three to sort out as they relate to the hardware/software designs.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 6, 2017 5:23:48 GMT
The problem with your argument is, you don't need a human level AI to operate a war machine. You just collect previous battle data, put them in a computer and make it learn from simulations and battles. Deep Blue style, but more advanced. Certainly possible within maybe 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 6, 2017 6:08:36 GMT
The problem with your argument is, you don't need a human level AI to operate a war machine. You just collect previous battle data, put them in a computer and make it learn from simulations and battles. Deep Blue style, but more advanced. Certainly possible within maybe 50 years. Ever heard of ALPHA? It is an artificial intelligence that is often tested against Air Force veterans in simulations, and ALPHA seems to get slowly the upper hand..
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 6, 2017 7:04:36 GMT
The problem with your argument is, you don't need a human level AI to operate a war machine. You just collect previous battle data, put them in a computer and make it learn from simulations and battles. Deep Blue style, but more advanced. Certainly possible within maybe 50 years. Ever heard of ALPHA? It is an artificial intelligence that is often tested against Air Force veterans in simulations, and ALPHA seems to get slowly the upper hand.. THAT'S IT, THANK YOU. But how long until actual employment?
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Nov 6, 2017 13:05:36 GMT
The point is that the first space armed conflict will be infantry based. Like... duh. The first war not fought on earth won't be be a war so much as a rebellion, and it will be fought in either a dirt side colony or space station by people living inside the habitat. The war will as brutal as it is short. And then if the victors haven't pissed off earth in their destructive rampage they live, otherwise the die of either being cut off from earth's resources or die from exposure after earth breaches their habitat with a missile strike. So will go the first few rebellions until a colony is self sufficient enough that it can do 3 things: exist without resupply from earth, intercept missiles from earth with munitions whose entire process of manufacture was without any support from earth, and build and deploy those munitions faster than earth can send missiles.
Thereafter, wars between planets will be fought in space, and the loser of the ultimate high ground gets nuked, repeatedly, from orbit. I still believe the space marine will exist, if only to ensure those who surrender stay suppressed during the surrendered takeover. But battalions of infantry in space are just not a thing in the near future solar wars. You can have specialized remote operators to pilot combat drones into stations, and they'll probably be guarded by armed and armored personell as a last line of defense should everything go pearshaped and their soon to be prisoners decide to instead mount a counter attack. But the winner of the ultimate high ground ultimatly holds all the cards and only ever offers and accepts surrender to asuage their own consience; and any infantry counter attack ends with the ship (already at a distance from the habitat or in orbit) perforating the habitat with lasers or kinetics or nuking them from orbit.
It gets weird if earth loses the ultimate high ground, because the colony can't send the infantry necessary to actually pacify earth. Earth is simply too big and too habitable. Earth would either acquiesce to the colony's demands or every single population center on earth would be systematically nuked until every identifiable means of production was destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Nov 6, 2017 15:08:44 GMT
That argument relies on humanity colonizing mars to self sufficiency before going the Dyson sphere route. I highly doubt that’s going to play out like that however, since the technology for a self sufficient mars and a Dydon sphere are practically identical and resource gathering and building are easier and cheaper up the well than down one.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Nov 6, 2017 15:15:04 GMT
First 'space combat' is likely to be an extension of terrestrial conflicts, with missiles and satellites playing an important role. So it's most likely to involve ballistic missiles, ASAT missiles, recon and communication satellites and perhaps the odd laser or kinetic rod platform.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 6, 2017 15:15:21 GMT
That argument relies on humanity colonizing mars to self sufficiency before going the Dyson sphere route. I highly doubt that’s going to play out like that however, since the technology for a self sufficient mars and a Dydon sphere are practically identical and resource gathering and building are easier and cheaper up the well than down one. All that breaks down when you have two not too distant technology, advanced robotics with compact building machinery (very advanced 3D-Printer) and DD Fusion reactors, these could build a dyson sphere in a few decades max.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 6, 2017 15:43:15 GMT
That argument relies on humanity colonizing mars to self sufficiency before going the Dyson sphere route. I highly doubt that’s going to play out like that however, since the technology for a self sufficient mars and a Dydon sphere are practically identical and resource gathering and building are easier and cheaper up the well than down one. All that breaks down when you have two not too distant technology, advanced robotics with compact building machinery (very advanced 3D-Printer) and DD Fusion reactors, these could build a dyson sphere in a few decades max. Yes, I still highly doubt that we, with only near-future tech, will be able to actually construct a dyson sphere in a few decades. It just sound too strange. Anyways, I'll have a chat with the guys at OAUP chat.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 6, 2017 15:53:02 GMT
All that breaks down when you have two not too distant technology, advanced robotics with compact building machinery (very advanced 3D-Printer) and DD Fusion reactors, these could build a dyson sphere in a few decades max. Yes, I still highly doubt that we, with only near-future tech, will be able to actually construct a dyson sphere in a few decades. It just sound too strange. Anyways, I'll have a chat with the guys at OAUP chat. It also sounded strange when some said back then that the telegraph could allow near instant communication across continent and oceans within a few decades.
|
|