US military claims ground warfare is on the cusp of being fundamentally changed

Nukes are no use weapons now, besides being a terrorist organization.

>> yahoo.com/news/m/94ce064e-838f-3ab6-974d-3a86ea373b5a/ss_us-army-says-ground-warfare.html

Russia could probably fire one nuke at the US. You really think the US is going to unleash total hell on earth and cause the apocalypse? Fuck no, they'll just fire one or two nukes back.

>advance behind shields
remember this robot is somewhere in the city waiting for an opportunity, not necessarily standing on the front line.
And his minimum delay between shots is just long enough for the bolt to cycle and the vibrations to be dampened

After the first dead few, we'll get a pretty good idea of where to go.
Lasers are shit right now, give it another 50 years.

I don't know if we will, but I hope we do.

This pleases me.

I think fundamentally, if you're on the ground in the next major war and you're not: fast moving, stealthy or heavily armored you're fucked. Artillery and air support is longer ranged and more accurate than it has ever been in history. The days of being a dumbass with a rifle guarding a checkpoint or sitting in a foxhole are quite over. If somebody wants you dead a JDAM, artillery missile or even theater ballistic missile will be inbound to fuck your and your buddies shit up.

You're forgetting defensive measures friend.

Such as patriot, thaad, standard missile, CRAM? no those will be increasingly important in the future but will be reserved for important defenses, not keeping the lowly infantryman or armored column from being blow the fuck up. There are simply too many missiles for us to afford a counter missile for every man

>Gen. Mark Milley, the Army Chief of Staff, says the world is on the cusp of a fundamental change in the character of ground warfare.

He's full of shit.

This is an attempt to drum up funding for his branch of service.

Nothing about small unit tactics will change until we start fielding the following items:

1) Individual thorax protection systems with integrated full-face helmets and onboard sustainment systems.

2) Featherweight weapons using caseless ammunition that can reliably penetrate all forms of cover.

3) Wearable concealment technology that renders users nearly invisible to the naked eye in most weather conditions and environments.

Any one of those three things will permanently change the game for infantry, and we aren't even close to having any of them.

The lowly infantry have the advantage of being a waste of missiles, they don't have enough for all of us anyway.

when do we get exo suits and walking robotic sentry droids and turn this shit into black ops 2?

So what kind of Change are we talking about? Hover infantry? Segway troopers? All soldiers in armored cars with drone support?

Or is he talking out of his ass looking for more funding?

>This is an attempt to drum up funding for his branch of service.

this.
war never changes.

Well, not literally every infantryman. But those who decide to hunker down and hold an objective in moderate numbers without pretty advanced air and missile defense will be made short work of. Say a company of soldiers holding a small town would be a good example. Mobile forces will mop up

>You will never run around in stealth coated power armor blapping niggas with a caseless SMG

>David Icke

...the reptilian aliens guy?

hmm

get spotted by enemy
> get insta-fucked
> robots do the target acquisition, aiming and firing

Also, nuclear weapons are old-school. "Glasshouse" and other sci-fi novels explained that the REAL way to fuck up a civilian population is to send in robots to rape everyone. Costs a bit more than a nuke, but they'll surrender when all the men's anuses are shredded and prolapsed and all the women have been robo-impregnated with retard sperm.

I'm getting my ass to Mars ASAP.

...

>yahoo pushing the "ww3 with russia and asia SOON" narrative
>ground warfare with nuclear superpowers
the meek african tribesman shall inherit the irradiated wasteland world.

the military promises a lot of things.

I'll believe it when I see it.

They'll write stories of our heroism.

Thing is, 1st-world (nuclear armed) powers will never fight each other.

Well, they might, but that battle's over within an hour, once the nukes land and no one wants to fight anymore because both countries are dead and irradiated.

As income inequality increases, so too will weapons inequality.

The situation will be a small fully robotic team of drone operators, running ops from a secure safe base a thousand miles away, fighting a medium-sized town that's 5 tech generations behind.

Realistically, the conquerors will just give everyone smartphones and Facebook and let them incriminate themselves.

>40 Million Russians To Take Part In "Nuclear Disaster" Drill

Drill to take place from 4 to 7 October

en.mchs.ru/mass_media/news/item/32915549/

I refuse to fight white people

holy shit

youtube.com/watch?v=959puZddZxo

Translation:
>More SHAARP briefs, more diversity, more women in SF and Ranger Batt

Be honest goys, if the US military came up with some futuristic shit like power armor would you enlist?

I would gladly fight but only if someone murders all the finance-bros first.

Rail gun has introduced cheaper ballistics.

We've found out we can launch rail gun projectiles conventionally with minimal impact on performance.

Javelins cost upwards of 1mil IIRC
Solid metal composites cost a couple thousand.

rail guns didn't introduce themselves into the battlefield, they introduced their missiles.

This. Hell I wouldn't fight nips either. I could only fight if I knew the other side was genuinely evil but how many countries like that actually exist?

No I don't want to die for Israel. I was already appalled how many people wished happy new year to jews today.

the only time i would enlist to gain power armor it would be to serve the glorious emperor and his primarchs

>military brass saying some dumb shit
next you're going to tell me that grass is green and the Earth is a sphere

>no scope on the M1A

wtf nigger?

we're finally going to weaponize memes
>Implying that hasn't happened already

Now 'they' have to find a way to counter weaponized autism.

recite that from your textbook?

that's a good leaf

beautiful group of battle rifles user

Iron sights require whites

level the city, like we always have and always will

The music makes this video fucking kekworthy

Wirty

Robots meet EMP

Back to standard infantry again.

The Googles will be in the power armor killing every last remaining white in America in the mountains trying to barely survive.

>the Earth is a sphere

It's egg-shaped.

Ahaha, fucking millennials have no idea.
If nukes are used we are ALL dead. Don't fool yourselves into thinking other wise.

By the way there won't be any post apocalyptic world that people romanticise about

Name the last war where a nuclear power was invaded by a major world power.

Great paint job. Do it yourself?

>mfw I'm Mulatto
I'd prefer if that doesn't happen, but I think I'll be fine.

For a 7.62 round? I highly doubt it.

Your mom is egg-shaped.

Everything has a weakness. Eventually, if not right off the bat, robots will be too expensive to field conventionally due to production costs and constant upgrading because of enemy countermeasures against your robot. A 2 million dollar robot guarding a corner might not be fast enough to protect against a two dollar molotov. I can see the same type of doctrine applied to combat suits as tanks. Infantry to look out for it. If the brass were smart theyd apply the automation and robotics to logistics to free up manpower to fight.

success
get fucked Cherokees

I've said it once, I'll say it a thousand times.

Hot glue animal skulls to these things, splash red paint on them, and give them a loud speaker that sirens the end times religious doctrine of the local area.

The noise and horror of seeing things like this crawling, bounding, or digging the streets at 3 in the morning as gas and explosions fill the airwaves will render opposition too disoriented to fight back.

Real Spartan-II program when?

>The Googles will be in the power armor killing every last remaining white

they'd kill each other first

>armored truck drives up, stops on outskirt of city in some sand people country
>sand people wait in their city, snipers ready to ambush the Americans
>armored truck opens
>a loud hum fills the air
>hundreds of basketball sized drones come out one by one
>they swoop through the city zeroing in on heat sources, firing one shot kills on all sand people

Guys, what if the EU has a secret development lab that's weaponizing humans, like, walking time bomb type shit, and in order to get enough subjects without anyone noticing/caring about disappearances, they've been importing waves after waves of immigrants to use quietly...

So, Civil War II then?

>I've never heard of NUTS

You know what happened to the Thunder Warriors, user?

Should probably look that up before being the first to sign up.

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!

I think I read somewhere that if a full scale world war 3 was to break out the average life expectancy of a soldier was something crazy like a few hours.

shut the fuck up red button nip monkey

The military has learned how to control inner energy?

I hope it's red states vs blue states. We'll just pillage way through the liberal cesspools while their dindu and beaner mercenaries get slaughtered by our army of mall ninjas and rednecks.

>a lot of the US military structure is based off of starship troopers
>US is now trying to recreate more things from starship troopers

Nuclear grenade launchers when?

Gott mitt uns

You're talking about forms of asymmetric warfare. And the US is vulnerable to that.

That's more plausible than I want to believe...

>X amount of people go missing a year and stay missing
>Maybe 1000 were kidnapped
>They are drugged beyond comprehension
>Have bombs/bioweapons surgically placed into their bodies
>Send them off into Y location with a handler and a trigger

>not using manhacks instead
nigga what

1 2 and 3 aren't happening especially with Western civilization about to plunge into civil war and anarchy

>hack sexternally
Heh.

>use a nuke when it's not necessary
>world turns against you
>use a nuke when it's too late
>world and your people turn against you because yours will be suffering the consequences of enraged enemy military
>use a nuke on a smaller country
>other countries get fallout and hate you, join war against you
It won't happen. Nobody wants to lord over ashes

>tfw you will never have a man like Johnson in your squadron

I'm sure they said that about WW1 and 2.
Don't get your hopes up.

Raise your hand if you're a Veteran and kek every time you see these stories because you're so happy you jumped ship from our shitty military

>Raises hand

What branch?

>Implying there probably isn't already an exo-suit program that is being administered to Navy SEALs.

I would not be surprised if the elite of the elite already have some über cool futuristic armor.

Soon

Who enlisting here?

Me. I've been workout out the past year to get my PSTs scores to a competitive level for BUD/S.

This is basically just hype to get funding

Anybody can be.
I'll even go so far as to say to that robots won't happen like people think, not for a long time. You'll just see implementation of robots/computers to increase the battlefield efficiency of soldiers and airmen. As well as muhreens and navy.

SEALs get air dropped by helicopters a mile or more off the coast of their mission.

They have 5 foot long flippers to help them swim to shore.

Only if Trump wins.
Otherwise...

Just don't threaten to /annihilate/ the enemy, and they won't use nukes.

You'll see them just become another military objective. Capture the stockpiles and king of the silos.

YO

WARS ARE FOR THE BANKS

TO FIGHT A WAR YOU MUST SPEND MONEY

1. SOME OF THAT MONEY IS TAXXED FROM THE CITIZENS

2. THE REST IS BORROWED MOSTLY FROM CENTRAL BANKS

3. THE MONEY GOES TO BILLIONAIRE ARMS MANUFACTURING CORPORATIONS

THE ONLY DOWNSIDE IS DESTRUCTION AND DEATH FOR ALL THE PEASANTS

WAR IS THE MOST PROFITABLE ACTIVITY HUMANITY COULD EVER DREAM OF DOING

DONT FIGHT WARS UNLESS YOU HAVE TO AND NEVER FIGHT A WAR FOR A GLOBALIST OLIGARCHY

>a mile or more off the coast of their mission.
I'm pretty sure it would have to be more than 3 miles off the coast since the enemy would be able to see the helicopter approaching thus the helicopter would have to be beyond the horizon.

This.
No matter how advance a military is, they can still be taken out by lowtech creative tactics.
t. Former pawn

youtube.com/watch?v=gJU5DDh0DEc&list=PLR8X5I0C1LF5kaxAE2z_pPy6RMSr89tBx&index=5

>1983 Fulda Gap
>Tank squadron OC: Our life expectancy in combat would be about 2 hours.
>Tank squadron 2i/c: "Our life expectancy would be minutes, once fighting begins."
>Their Battalion commander: "I think whoever you spoke to that said 2 hours - I think they were being unnecessarily gloomy."

Watch this video for the real answer. As soon as the first shot is fired, the nukes will fly. This is just another general trying to suck Congress' dick from behind.

>or more
I'm not a seal.

>5 foot long flippers
No they don't, they have to carry them around their wrists once on shore and if they were 5 feet long they would get in the way.

More specifically, I mean that the US is especially vulnerable to it. Our cutting edge gear costs some serious $$.

>modernized militaries

Look, heres the deal fellas, this is coming from a comissioned officer in the USMC.

1 line of software code, a handfull of anti satellite missiles, a dozen saboteurs, and an EMP and we all go back to 1949 A.D.
After approximately one season of logistical non existance we revert back to 1860s levels of technology, and 4/5ths of the world's population starves to death. This is before we get to the release of WMDs by the way.

There will NEVER EVER EVER EVER !!!!!MOTHERFUCKING!!!!! EVER be a conventional war again because the costs are simply too high. The only winning move is not to play.

At least until Muslims take over the governments of France and Britain in approximately 2 generations and let loose with their MRBM tactical and strategic nuclear delivery systems while screaming Allah Snackbar. They have no concept of consequences with an average IQ of 89, And, yes, that is going to happen, and yes, we are planning for it. The United States will likely go to war with Europa to confiscate nuclear payloads in the mid 2030s to early 2040s when they decale sharia law. And by the way there will be a MASSIVE civil unrest in the United States at around the same time. What do you think those millions of bodybags and FEMA camps are for? Enjoy.

Take it from an "insider"

>you'll live long enough to see AI-operated spider-tanks on the battlefield
>and then you'll die

It's time to update The Terminator - you listening, Hollywood?

It'll just be flying drones with automated targeting systems. Think Amazon, but delivering lead injections or small explosives.

American ground warfare basically consist in shooting carelessly at the general direction of the enemy to keep them engaged until air support kills them
Less than 10% of US soldiers who saw action in Iraq and Afghianistan actually killed an enemy with their gun

Put your money on 2020, schedule is accelerating.

WHY KILL YOUR ENEMIES WHEN YOU CAN CONVERT THEM WITH MEMES?

UNTIL THE INTERNET GOES DOWN WE ARE ALREADY FIGHTING WW3

youtube.com/watch?v=QoLywiaM6PA
>Good morning. In less than a year, shitposters from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest memetic battle in this history of mankind.
>Mankind -- that word should have new meaning for all of us today.
>We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore.
>We will be united in our common interests.
>Perhaps its fate that today is the 1st of October, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom, not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution -- but from annihilation.
>We're fighting for our right to live, to exist.
>And should we win the day, the 1st of October will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice:
>"We will not go quietly into the night!
>We will not vanish without a fight!
>We're going to meme on!
>We're going to survive!"
>Today, we celebrate our IndePepes Day!

I think drone tech will be perfected to be mildly cheap alternatives to their human equivalents. Maybe mobile turrets and micro-aircraft before power armour.

>4 isolate points of contact on tank treads
Wow I didn't think someone could actually take all of the disadvantages of a design decision while throwing away all advantages

But they'll fight you user

All you need is die

...

Sure. Considering we now accept every fucking nationality with open arms it would not be hard to do some serious sabotage focused on those areas.
Unmanned ground drones are a long way out. That's because while those things may be very smart, and the soldier may not be so, he does have the innate human desire for survival ingrained into him. He will have the instant reflexes and gut intuition that a robot will never have.
Also, our gear is porked up too.

It took over 100 years of conquest.
That first round of SM are still around as based Chaos Warriors.

This desu

I wouldn't refuse fighting the bankers / corrupt cabal government - white / jew / reptilian it'd be a worthwhile fight.

White vs white in general though is nothing more than inviting extinction of humanity at this point.

Kek wills it

>Now 'they' have to find a way to counter weaponized autism.
Do you not know what happened in the Finno-Kwan Hyperwar?

Why is everyone falling for the "they're just going to instantly use nukes" meme?

Are you guys retarded? Do you think that world leaders are thinking "wanna go to war? lets just nuke them and risk destroying ourselves with it :D." ? Fuck no, nukes are a last resort retards.

>NK Military
>Modern

in what fucking sense

even the chinks know better than to give them anything.

This guy is talking out his ass.

Also

>Iran modern

is a meme that needs to die.

China and Russia, Sure, but the other two are bullshit.

You have obviously never been to an Oppenheimer thread

aw yee

Iran is much better then you expect user. They are on par with Israel at least except the lack of nukes (yet)

WAR HAS CHANGED

bullshit story from a army chief of staff trying to boost his appropriations vs air force and navy

this.

the idea of hivemind death swarms of armed drones autonomously navigating terrain on Shoot-on-Sight hunter-killer missions is more terrifying than anything from the past 100 years.

quadcopter hives are already fucking terrifying, worked at a uni where they were trying to put simple learning/problem solving neural networks into Drone hives and the results were . . . striking, to say the least. they couldn't into self-navigation or true autonomy, but their navigational problem solving was remarkable.

I miss him already

I don't think the technology is available yet to make practical powered armor suits like that, I'd guess mechs would be the first development and they'd later be scaled down to human size.

>risk destroying ourselves with it
Large bunkers for the continuity of government have been around since the 50's m80, several have been decommissioned over the years and made public, so you can bet there are under-mountain shelters for representatives and their families right now.

...

fuck that. fucking gundams, when?

Actually banned.

So effective it would be one of the first technologies on a 'new' battlefield.

ignore the idiots jap user. you are correct

...

And that's supposed to mean what? Logic doesn't matter anymore?

>So hey, we got bunkers man, lets make the earth uninhabitable for thousands of years cause we are fighting over some land :)

Right now all soldiers are in armored cars with drone support. That isn't new.

they've actually developed synthetic muscle material thats straight out of battletech. all we need is compact reactors and really great gyro systems

People are already modifying their personal drones to carry and fire handguns.

Fuck gundams, we need proper mechs.

isolate points of contact on tank treads
>Wow I didn't think someone could actually take all of the disadvantages of a design decision while throwing away all advantages

I'm thinking quad-track tanks (using electric drives) is the wave of the future, as it allows a tank that has hit a mine or IED to still limp away from the battlefield.

because every war game involving Nuclear powers has always resulted in rapid escalation to nukes. Because military necessity demands it.

You have to realize you are arguing against the whole of military history. Codes of chivalrous conduct in wartime have never, ever withstood the first sword strike, cannon shot, or hellfire missile. Wartime factions will do whatever it takes to win, even if winning means losing 40-50% of your population to nuclear bombs (acceptable, manageable losses according to DoD in the 80's).

The "new warfare" will be 4th Generation warfare.

4th Generation Warfare is essentially about non-uniformed unprofessional ideologically-driven soldiers blending in with the local population and killing at will, then disappearing into the crowd again, making existing counter-terrorism efforts moot. Not only will the locals protect the attackers, they will materially support them. We know this is going to happen, because it's already happened. In Paris. In Brussels. In Malmo. Europe just got done inviting in all the IED makers from Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria to come live down the street from them. Don't worry, Ahmed. Background checks are for racists.

Anyway, since traditional armies are useless in a police setting, governments will obtain more undemocratic power and use it to put troops on every street corner. This makes the police state permanent. But don't worry: The police state powers will only be used against you to keep you from attacking the people plotting to ethnically cleanse you from your own land.

Starting to sound familiar, France, Belgium, and England?

Anyway, the end-run of 4th Gen war isn't just the necessary incorporation of local militia to fight against the hostile guerrilla force the government is unwilling or unable to confront, but a necessary war against the government itself for allowing the situation to exist in the first place.

The technology has been available for a long time; the fuel source has not. Once somebody solves the energy problem, they'll start mass producing those fucking things the next day.

>Future enemies may achieve overmatch in key areas, such as precision and hypersonic weapons, electronic warfare, high-yield conventional strategic weapons, and unmanned, self-contained and robotized arms and equipment.

>self-contained and robotized arms and equipment

Powered armor is possible...with a big-ass power cord or a very short usable time. The problem is the energy density of your fuel and whatever kind of motor/engine you are using, and there are some physics issues there. This is beyond an engineering problem.

No, I no exactly what to expect - 1990's ex-soviet heavy hardware, backed by 1970's American hardware mingled with some contra-era replacements, with some naively developed small arms, anti-materiel and electronic warfare capability.

Their training is good and thier military is dedicated, fine, but to say that they are the paragons of the new-war is fucking ludicrous. if anything, they're more of the traditional Large-army-vs.-large-army than the shit we're dealing with now.

correct

currently limited by treaty but fully capable of frying anything biological or cmos based with a lens.

Laser scaner an multispectral war means that as soon as you even look towards and enemy you will be blinded.

Anyone who has worked with IR laser knows that warfare as we know it is over.

None of those videos even comes close to how urban warfare was fought in Vietnam. wtf? Are you shitting me? It's barely anything to urban warfare fought in WWII, to even compare is ridiculous and insulting to those who fought in WWII. Guck off, OP.

even piloted, drones pose a dramatic threat to the mobile infantry. A rifle in a factory test, that is, with a vicegrip setup, always shoots further and more accurately than what the soldier can provide. Quadcopters in large enough amounts, even with very minimal materials, could flank dug-in infantry during firefights where the flanks of the battle are already in play. Forget autonomous ai, they just need to be agile, robust, and to have a small profile.

I would give up anything for this

You just need to depopulate the enemy before they depopulate you, defeat as many incoming warheads as you can and hunker down, 90% population loss is acceptable compared to 100%. Point being that the governments of the world have long-since planned to survive fallout in a WWIII scenario, while attempting to avoid it. The contingencies exist, user, don't think they stopped building these things for the worst-case scenario.
npr.org/2011/03/26/134379296/the-secret-bunker-congress-never-used

It isn't just losing 40-50% of your population. You're making the land you were fighting for unusable. Literally the opposite of what you'd want.

>4th Generation Warfare is essentially about non-uniformed unprofessional ideologically-driven soldiers blending in with the local population and killing at will, then disappearing into the crowd again, making existing counter-terrorism efforts moot. Not only will the locals protect the attackers, they will materially support them. We know this is going to happen, because it's already happened. In Paris. In Brussels. In Malmo. Europe just got done inviting in all the IED makers from Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria to come live down the street from them.

You mean just like Northern Ireland in 1972?

Not new

the next war will be another ww1 scenario. All battle zones will turn into what Syria has become and not much will show for it. We'll continue to use 30 year old tactics with future tech. I think over 1,000,000,000 will die in the next war and no more than 1 nuke dropped

>The technology has been available for a long time; the fuel source has not.
>Powered armor is possible...with a big-ass power cord or a very short usable time.

That's my point; you can't (so far) power a human sized suit of armor in a practical way but a large mech is capable of carrying it's own power source.

Nothing wrong with Jews making a bit of money if killing Muslims is the objective.

I'd do it for free.

Man sized drone tanks. Not news. Scary as hell tho.

auto-aim gun emplacements
swarms of drones with grenades attached
etc

Infantry is going to be useless.

>4th Generation Warfare is essentially about non-uniformed unprofessional ideologically-driven soldiers blending in with the local population and killing at will, then disappearing into the crowd again, making existing counter-terrorism efforts moot. Not only will the locals protect the attackers, they will materially support them. We know this is going to happen, because it's already happened. In Paris. In Brussels. In Malmo. Europe just got done inviting in all the IED makers from Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria to come live down the street from them. Don't worry, Ahmed. Background checks are for racists.

And there is one solution that is bound to happen in Europe for that kind of shit. It negates a lot of the advantages of asymmetrical and guerrilla warfare. It starts with a g and ends with an enocide. Regardless of what you think about the solution, it will be on the table in Europe if they don't figure out another way to get the muzzies under control.

This is retarded.

As several others pointed out there have been multiple wars since then.

Realistically there are very few cases where using a nuke makes sense.

For starters the person you are nuking MUST NOT HAVE NUKES. This more or less prevents us from nuking Russia and vice versa.

Secondly if you are going to nuke something then you better not care about the land, economy or people of the place your nuking. In a globalized world there would be instant repercussions in the stock market that make it nigh impossible.

Basically your retarded, but your also a leaf so its expected.

All that means is they're going to stop training COIN

The mad man, they made the weapon to surpass metal gear holy shit

>insider
>some boot-tenant

It would have all been excusable if you didn't say some stupid shit about the US going to war in Europe. We bomb brown people and slanty eyed people, dumbass.

>tfw just signed a contract for the Marines

Take a look at war futurist speculation prior to each of the two world wars.

The general trends and most impactful technologies were identified correctly for the most part, but the actual effects of those technologies in action and their outcomes in war were wildly exaggerated and invariably misunderstood.

For example, conventional bombing runs post WW1 were envisioned in a similar way to current nuclear warfare, where it was expected that wars would be fought and won from the air inside of a few hours by bombing enemy civilian populations into submission.

The only reliable way to see how new technology impacts a war is to have a relatively even-sided war with it, and even then understanding enough for proper effectiveness will usually only come at the 11th hour of the conflict after a lengthy period of trial and error.

A retarded statement coming from a war junky and the black budget has been increased.

>You're making the land you were fighting for unusable
city.hiroshima.lg.jp/english/

you can buy a key-interlock watt-level laser """"pointer"""" off shady internet sites today, running on AA batteries they have enough power not only to permanently blind you instantly if they shine or even reflect into your eye but they can burst blood vessels around your retina and you will have to get the eyeball itself surgically removed.

After reading this thread, I must admit I'm gobsmacked at the flippant way some people seem to imagine war being some great fun time out with your buddies blowing away bogeys at 8 o'clock, literally as if it were a video game.

Unsurprisingly, most of them are posting from the states. Yeah now there's a big surprise.

> Stupid. Stupid never changes.

Again, name the last war where a nuclear power was invaded by another global power. We either avoid WWIII all together, or there is significant risk of nukes flying. And things like major wars have a way of unintentionally getting started.

bullshit. you niggas need to look up something called "coherence length"

why do you think an 10 kW industrial laser can cut through an inch of armor-grade steel, but an anti-missile laser that only needs to cut through ~ 2mm of aluminum requires over 100 kW?

mostly true. close combat drones with lasers are the real deal. you're missing the point though -

>why would the drones need to send back data when a swarm of 100 small,fast drones armed with knives and suicide-charges would be just as effective at fucking literally everything up.

More expensive? I don't think so. nukes are a billion apiece lifetime cost, easily.

Fucking terrifying

If Trump wins, I'm seriously considering dropping everything and doing it. Otherwise, I'm dropping everything and getting my gun. Either way, I haven't got much going for me, so it's a win/win for me.

This.

The Brits were successful in Malaya because the insurgents were an entirely different race from the populace.

In a war of survival, which is what the eventual conflict in Europe is going to be, nobody is going to give two shits that Ahmed is brown. Ahmed will be killed because he is brown. If the Governments won't do it, the people sure as shit will. If the people start doing it, be sure that it will not be easy to control by any pro-migrant government.

They're almost always absurdly optimistic about the changes, too. Having more complex equipment=more weight. When you're weighed down in combat you can be put at a lethal disadvantage.

>inb4 no moar infantry dudes lol

No. We were supposed to have electric cars in the 1950s. The Army just loved getting assloads of money to waste on stupid shit

>see the Army's BDU vs USMC

The funding and result are laughable.

Did you miss the part about a police state that only stops you, not the guerrillas? "Bin that knife" taken to its nightmare maximum.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were air bursts. A lot of the would be fallout stays up in the atmosphere for quite a while and gets distributed widely enough to be much less of an issue. A full exchange will involve ground bursts in many areas, and those lay down a lot of much more concentrated fallout and a lot sooner.

people say robots would be good soldiers. sure.. on a flat plain with no cover. if ther is cover and you know its a robot. ye ole helmet on the stick routine would probably work wonders.

hellu cant even build an AI to solve these stupid fucking captchas. you think you could get a robot in the next 20 years to snipe people in an enviroment where the first thing that would be jammed to uselessness would be the 4g?

the other thing that could happen is a big increase in actuation power/actuator mass ratio if this happens then the need for a more compact power source becomes far less pressing.

given that a new soft magnetic material is 2 - 5 years away from coming online, I would say you need to look for this very soon.

I knew it would come to this. WW3 won't be like fighting brown people with AK-47s.

We are seeing a similar situation as the start of WW1 where people have been killing brown people for so many years that if an actual war broke out between two powers nobody would know how to fight with the new technology.

Future war will be fought with drones.
youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU

In fact, why hasn't the army deployed 1000 of these things in Syria already?

You'd still need elite operators to get complicated tasks done.

Could you also imagine a police force with small caliber resistant body armor?

>You're making the land you were fighting for unusable.

Irrelevant. Arable farm land is not a priority target. they will remain unstruck. There might be fallout to from neighbouring regions, but no one will be nuking Lethbridge, Saskatchewan or Grass Creek, Wyoming, I dare say you are making the mistake of thinking we would fight over land. In this day and age, it is and always will be wars of ideology going forward.

As always, big population centers, industrial centers, military/governmental targets will be the priority. Fallout from the blasts is still considered manageable but our military and civilian leaders.

im jelly of the m1

No shit stain, look at the second part of my fucking post.

>oh gee there's some edgy people in a thread oh no!

That's like pointing out how retarded posts from Aulstralians are. It's appropriately taken for granted.

>ground bursts in many areas
For what purpose? All that does is decrease the radius of damage, the strikes on Japan were airbursts for a reason user, it's more efficient at leveling the fuck out of everything. I guess a ground strike would be useful to hit a deep metro system full of sheltering people or something, maybe more for military targets though?

Dub dubs. KEK has spoken!

That's a Spartan lll you fag, Spartan lls are children kidnapped and completely brainwashed and trained from young ages to be killers, modified genetically at 14, shoved in power suits that are tailored specifically for them, and shoot.

Spartan llls are cheaper versions of Spartan lls, more expendable, and are less deadlier than an Sll, save for Noble 6

Smh, made my autism come out.

Something more probable.

IDF and Hezbollah fight in 2023.

Suddenly drones en masse fly from Lebanon, and start firing lasers, not to cause damaged, but blind 5% of Israel.

The economic and budget damage alone would be devastating. It can be counter-acted by military, but it lowers the effectiveness of troops.

Look at the last part of mine, pig fucker.

I think that they will be at leat partially autonomus. the idea of "piloted" drones has already changed - sure, you give them "commands," but most of the mincework is done by the drones themselves.

This is when they become true force-multipliers.

though don;t think I'm disagreeing with you, I;m not. you're absolutely correct.

I'm just splitting hairs on how hard we're fucked.

Any hardened underground target is something that you should assume is going to get a ground burst if hit. Look at where the missile silos are and understand that you probably don't want to be downwind of those in a full exchange. I have one hardened target near me that would probably get a ground burst, but fortunately for me, I'm upwind and outside of the likely blast radius.

was noble six a spartan II?

Lasers to maim would be considered a war crime IMO if used en masse as an offensive weapon. I don't understand why anyone is jerking off over lasers. They have some pretty specific and narrow uses but they aren't putting holes in things fast enough yet. Especially in comparison to a chunk of hot steel.

Please tell me those right-arms-of-the-free-world are either Belgian or Brazilian

if so

>Sploosh

fucking jelly

Why is the US army gearing up to fight land wars with military superpowers when the real enemies only need a gun when no civilians have one?

How many countries are majority nonwhite? About that many are evil

No, but Jorge was.

>I have one hardened target near me that would probably get a ground burst
Yeah, military targets like that I can see being victims of ground strikes, but any strike on a regular population center would still be an air-burst I think. Hope you're fallout-free user, due to my geographic irrelevance I'm really only in trouble if (((someone))) decides the Great Lakes are too great a resource to leave unfucked with.

what this general is really talking about is that his bitch ass isnt going to be able to send aircraft to loiter in combat zones any longer. basically what this means is that the amount of time a infantry or even pilots will survive in the area of operations is no longer equal to their expenditure value.

6 was a lll, Jorge was a ll.

I know this autism because of me being in Halo Reach UNSC clans.

If you actually obtain the energy density required, every other aspect of war might change so radically as to make your precious mech idea infeasible still.

From what I've seen/read from thinktanks on modern combat it goes something like this:

>People are risk-adverse and generally try to engage without getting killed in the process
>Drones and network integration with artillery allows your average platoon to effectively engage other footsoldiers from 500+ meters with extremely accurate artillery / missiles / whatever
>Personal firearms won't be used nearly as much as they have been in the past

>Infantry will evolve in two big ways:
>They will become more lethal and carry their own lightweight artillery in the form of mortars and ATGM's for rapid engagement of enemy forces at distances beyond the effective range of their rifles
>They will become significantly more mobile in order to avoid incoming artillery from the enemy
>That mobility will come from either greater integration with vehicles, or powered armor; either form enabling the soldiers to move constantly for long periods of time - standing still for 2 hours means being dead

>There will be even less focus on centralized command centers, depots, or forward bases

All in all, it'll be incredibly lethal and require significant decentralization of infantry in order to reduce the effectiveness of modern artillery / bombs / etc. in killing masses of soldiers. If the enemy has to waste 5 artillery shells to kill 1 infantryman, rather than 1 artillery shell to kill 25 infantrymen, that's a massive improvement.

There'll also be huge introduction of drones / robots.

The first rule of Future Change Club, is don't talk about the changes specifically.

I don't think you understand the fragility of something kept in the air. Drones are a great asset because they stay away from the fight. Not in it. If you're going to put a drone into a firefight it's not going to make it out. Or really even be combat effective for long. The best they've managed so far is for recon.

Putting a rifle or some kind of lethal platform forces the drone to become exponentially bigger. Which means a bigger target, more money lost when it gets shot and smashed into the ground, and a waste of a soldier that was probably needed more in the fight.

Keep them up high or keep them small. Or put them on the ground. Who knows how that's gonna go.

\tbqh famalam

if this became a thing the Israelis would probably make broad spectrum ocular implants mandatory

> Gibson, my body is ready, transhumanize my shit right up

Shouldn't it get better with robots humping more of their gear? I mean ballistic shields are just too heavy to be practical for a squad but once the robots can hump gear, it will make them even safer to have ballistic shields for raiding compounds and when they are under fire. Robots can carry extra meds and two robots could practically evacuate the injured much easier than a squad having to sacrifice 2-4 guys carrying someone hit on a stretcher with the rest providing covering fire. Instead, the whole squad covers the robots carrying the injured person.

Drones would give a better and more accurate picture as well as gps coordinates. Too bad government anything always turns to shit. That's why we still get blue on blue fire even with all the technology and support positions we have that should communicate with each other and we still get friendly fire.

>Sweden evil

getting easier to believe

1st generation power armor isnt going to protect you from a .50 probably wont endure 7.62 drum magazine either.

>Russia could probably fire one nuke at the US
HAHAHA! Millennials!
>see flag; Australia
HAHA! Nice one, Australia ;)
Agreed, the full effects of nuclear war will set us back nearly a 100 years.

It's going to be a new dark age.

Not a war crime if they are officially aimed at "legit" targets.

"The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, "

It simple why it being brought up. lasers exist already that can blind and require eye removal (that really do not require that much power. they can be counteracted by specific googles, but that lowers the ability of those to fight. Just like modern militarizes would not have much dead from a chemical attack, but it lowers their effectiveness since they are in suits.

Since you want it to be more specific.

Set up a laser to blind pilots as they are about to take off a airfield. One scan, 2 planes, 3 million of training down the drain.

>tfw non deployed
>tfw picking up Sergeant soon
>tfw chance lost as deploying as a line medic

Fug

I think the Young Samurai was refering to man controlled sniper turrents. I hope you don't believe UAVs and drones are autonomous.

Yeah, we should really listen to a nips ideas on combat guize

>All in all, it'll be incredibly lethal and require significant decentralization of infantry
Good to know the only threat sandniggers pose will continue to be insurgency

EMP meet (lead)shielded circuits

but for the time being the drones definitely need a lot of logistics in order to be effective. They can't stray too far from resupply lines. I would imagine that infantry still make pushes in order to secure territory,they're still cheap after all, and versatile. But drones are going to decide where the areas of denial are. You don't need to sortie expensive jetfighters, they shouldn't be designed to give the opponent any intel, but they should be able to engage from further distances than humans.

I don't believe we're going to have a "robo-war", where the entire front is automatons. But too much reliance on wireless tech is hazardous since the signals could be hacked

They told us the same shit in basic training.

Actually a lot of the Great Lakes area is on the list of places to blow to oblivion. There's an insane amount of shipping that goes through Chicago and it comes mostly along I94. Tons of places along the way manufacture large amounts of steel and military equipment that are pretty solid targets. Theres some formal info out there somewhere on it.

>tfw shipping to navy basic in 6 days

I just hope there's enough 18-25 year olds willing to serve so my nearing middle aged ass at that time won't get drafted.

I agree, I think they have to be small for now, probably with very limited ammo capacity.

Surely it would be merely a secondary target though.

I'm ~20 miles upwind of the target. Well not quite directly upwind, but close enough. There is another target probably 60 or 80 miles north that would sure as fuck get hit, but I don't know what kinds of underground shit it has. The one near me is an underground storage facility for nukes, so, yeah. There are some other above ground facilities close to it, so whether it is one nuke or two or three depends on the Russkies and their strategy, but either way, I'm out of the blast zone(s) and the likely fallout zones.

Nukes will definitely be used in all out war between major powers. Who are you kidding? In total war, all options are used. Always. It will become a part of conventional warfare and thus the battlefield will react to it, and not the other way around as people seem to think here. As a result, everything will become highly mobile with no front lines, and central leadership will constantly relocate.

I ment like, permanently in armored cars, like one small car with a 20mm turret per two people with quad copter drones for clearing out buildings

I don;t think you appreciate the fragility of the meat-bags we fight war with now. doesn't take much to fuck that up, and we barely give a shit about throwing those into firefights.

the point is that losing a shit drone to kill a single enemy is still cheaper and more effective than losing a 18-years-to-grow-1-year-to-train meatbag to a remotely detonated IED. the economy of scale alone makes shitty armed drones the preference.

youtube.com/watch?v=P7nq-r7QWW0

You don't need lead shields, just faraday cages, which an endoskeleton / exoskeleton will provide, and some hardening (not with lead) of the internal circuits in use so higher voltages don't damage them.

EMP effects require long antennas to wreak havoc on anything - it's mostly a meme that they'll do anything significant to things like your car. It's stuff hooked up to power lines, radio antennas, electrical wiring in a house, etc. etc. - anything that conducts electricity and can act as an antenna is at risk from an EMP

Anything relatively small and isolated - e.g. self contained computers not hooked up to the electric grid won't be affected much.

fuckin /thread

Drones are an interesting addition to combat but many people overestimate their ability as of now. That may change soon but here me out.

Drones as of now need to be fed information on where to go and what needs to be done from a centralized location. US electronic warfare spends much of its time jamming anything it can to prevent systems like drones, anti-air, coms, from being effective. The US is currently developing drones for the exact purpose of lingering that launch from fighters.

The drones that you propose flanking an infantry unit are very small, add a weapon to them and they become much easier targets for the average joe. On top of the chance the signals could be jammed

Oh man I forgot about these!

Fair point. I guess it depends on the degree to which it changes. Some sci-fi zero point shit would change everything about human existence, yet some new super fuel/battery that has 10x the energy density of gasoline would simply make a lot of shit more convenient.

interesting. does this apply to Russians and north Koreans as well or just your more successful neighbors?

You're taking a kind of insurgency now and not a conventional war if you're blinding pilots on take off. They've done this in Afghanistan. It's not nearly as consistent or effective as you think.

Also it is forbidden by many counties to use them offensively. There's a wiki article on it.

The wide use of lasers is a pipe dream. Kind of like the move to caseless ammo or standard issue dedicated grenade rifle things.

You know what my superiors always told me made the best soldiers?

Landmines

It needs no water, food, training, breaks, or resupply; has no fear, and is perpetually ready to carry out its mission without command directive.

You need soldiers to place mines, until you develop a handy dandy robot to place them. You need soldiers to hold down enemy in minefields and kill-zones, until the already huge amounts of area-coverage technology phase them out.

>EMP takes it all out

Sure, but then enters all of the HUGE amounts of over-the-horizon missile and rocket technology. Before you could put in a good punch and advance all the way to the enemies artillery lines and then regroup and form a defensive. Now the rocket artillery is going to be firing from 5km+ away, essentially just pummelling the shit out of any large formation as they advance.

What I mean to say is that it would be back to attrition warfare, but Russian WWII style attrition on both sides

>but for the time being the drones definitely need a lot of logistics in order to be effective. They can't stray too far from resupply lines. I would imagine that infantry still make pushes in order to secure territory,they're still cheap after all, and versatile.
>But drones are going to decide where the areas of denial are. You don't need to sortie expensive jetfighters, they shouldn't be designed to give the opponent any intel, but they should be able to engage from further distances than humans.

Very True. agree on all counts

>I don't believe we're going to have a "robo-war", where the entire front is automatons. But too much reliance on wireless tech is hazardous since the signals could be hacked

which is precisely why autonomy is being pushed. I agree that people will always be on the lines to some degree, but I think that their role will reduce to combat controllers vs. actual war fighters.

A powered exoskeleton would be much easier to build, with more of a use. There is no real use for a bipedal armored vehicle. They don't fill any real role, and the complexity of the parts needed to propel it ensures that the slightest of damage to its legs will render the vehicle more or less unusable. They're simply inferior to a similarly armored vehicle using treads.

finally some god damn sense here.

>Lasers to maim would be considered a war crime

HAHAHAH

Dude, nobody cares. Thats not how warfare works

No. You're not appreciating this at all. A drone carries a camera that is a few ounces and it's gotta be the size of a guy with his arms outstretched. That's not even a drone that can hover. Even a small caliber would require a significant amount of weight to target, aim, and manage the firearm. We aren't really that close. Keep them high or keep them small.

So burguers, should we start to worry now about those metal gears?

they said that because they thought there would be peace.

we say that because we're probably all going to be dead.

It is actually hence why no major nation uses them as a weapon (and they're ineffective).

Except for the part where the only good character says almost nothing the entire time.

>finally researched into the Information Era

sure, if the enemy is able to adapt fast enough while being able to sustain an insane amount of casualties in the process.

>even (((their))) tanks get Yarmulkes

kek'd a little.

Not only do EMP's do fuck all to landmines

They make awful fucking soldiers, because not only can they not take any territory, they can't even hold it - you can just maneuver around them once you find them.

Your "superiors" are fucking retards.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

Im sure 100% of french soldiers are badasses.

Why wouldn't nukes be used in an actual war?

Entire cities were destroyed in WW2, conventionally. If your cities are being wrecked, and you're nearing the point where you either deploy nukes or lose control of those nukes, why not just deploy the nukes?

Why would EMP's wipe out landmines? none of the extant ones are electronic.

It's useful on rougher terrain. I agree though it's kind of silly how vulnerable it must be.

People are both strangely fragile and resilient. A drone isn't going to have any buddies to help it limp out of there. Nor is it going to have the same sense of awareness. No matter it's "super thermal scanning technology." Drones in a directly offensive role just don't have any indication that they will work. At least not now and not the ones that buzz around. Now it's possible there will be some sort of M2 carrying little drone tank thingy but that would be in support of infantry operation. Not leading or really revolutionizing it.

>People are both strangely fragile and resilient. A drone isn't going to have any buddies to help it limp out of there.

True, but at the same time. the buddies helping the soldier limp out of their are still pulled out of combat, at least temporarily. Hence Vietcong tactics.

>Now it's possible there will be some sort of M2 carrying little drone tank thingy but that would be in support of infantry operation. Not leading or really revolutionizing it.

I guess I;m not arguing for this as much as suicide drones, which are far more interesting, and are starting to become a problem - in rumor, at least.

Right, and I don't think they would be suitable for frontal assaults against infantry. That's why I was trying to emphasize the flanking aspect. The targets should already be engaged so that when the drones are used they are forced to pick between two fronts.

But you're right, a lot of military tech is focused on comms and interrupting signals. I suppose that was the result of the missile's technology.

Most militaries would be hesitant to place too much faith in drones right now anyway, you can see that in how some hold a lot of reverence for "heavy and clunky, but works". Drones don't provide unconditionally, they need a lot of support for the time being. But I still believe they will be superior in flanking than the current school.

How many have ratified it ? It still doesn't disallow 'Rangefinders" and so on.

nukes fuck up the land badly.

NANOMACHINES SON

>LET ME
>TELL YOU
>ABOUT
>NEO CARTHAGE

ITT armchair generals talking about armchair generals

ya but ya have to find some way to account for the recoil of the weapon system(if ballistic).
SEE VIDYA
youtu.be/SNPJMk2fgJU?t=147

You basically just described how space combat would probably work.

...

Of course they're pulled out of combat. But the drone doesn't have that option to fight another day unless it's recovered or doesn't suffer catastrophic damage from its fall (many of our flying friends don't make it).

What "rumors" are you even implying about? This idea of drones as some sort of mass killing power is stupid. The only reasons drone may be more useful than a bomb is you can identify the target more directly before engaging the target with a long loiter. If you're going to indiscriminately kill everyone in a town then send in B52s. If you need to kill 3 guys in a house you fire a hellfire from a predator/reaper. Anything else is just uneconomical.

i always keked when you hit one and it starts yelping

>Translation:

"ONE SOLDIER WILL ADVANCE WITH A RIFLE, THE OTHER BEHIND HIM WITH A MAGAZINE...WHEN THE SOLDIER WITH THE RIFLE DIES, THE SOLDIER WITH THE MAGAZINE WILL PICK UP THE RIFLE AND KEEP FIGHTING".

Face it, it's over.

That is literally in the first paragraph which consists of three sentences.

Here's the scoop. Military minds do not worry about warcrimes, the bottom line is accomplishing objectives ie. Winning.

If I may, your problem is that you think any country worth its salt is going to hold back military development because of treaties, and that these countries would actually lay out their weapons research on the table to declare to the world.

Never. Lasers are massively effective, its just that you'd have to be 50 years up the Officer chain of command in certain branches to know this conclusively.

That's all the infantry is good for nowadays; Forward observers for an avalanche of bombs and missiles. Just canaries in the mine.

>B-but muh Ducimus! M-muh Follow me!

Naw. The days of making war as personal as a punch to the face are over. We had our time in the sun. The best we can do now is enjoy the odd story of some British squaddies in a 3rd world shithole charging with bayonets against entrenched defenders.

The best we can hope for is to be field operators reining in the worst excesses of our Kill-bots.

Wars in which at least one side didn't have nukes.

No nuclear power will accept defeat as long they have nukes to use. Maybe it can start out as a conventional warfare, but it sure won't end with one unless a ceasefire is quickly signed.

107 counties including USA, China, Russia etc
disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ccwc_p4

Signed =/= ratified

It's going to be these things. I've been saying it ever since Boston Dynamics first showed that Big Dog robot that it's only a matter of time until they weaponize them.

>A powered exoskeleton would be much easier to build, with more of a use.

I'll agree a man-sized power suit is more useful but how are you going to power it?

A mech is kinda like a man-shaped truck and like a truck, it can carry its own power source.

youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w

See:

>hellu cant even build an AI to solve these stupid fucking captchas.

You are now aware that capchas in the future are going to be "select all Russian soldiers"

>helmet on a stick

You are still forced behind cover to deal with this expendable robot
and there will not be only one robot
Plus they can be combination autonomous/command guided

If Trump wins.

Mecha are just fursuits for people who want to be robots.

So what? At least a powered exoskeleton has the benefit of being useful on the battlefield. Whether or not a man-shaped truck could possibly be built, it's still not viable and useful in a military scenario. It requires technological innovation to even be able to move in the first place, let alone resist even small arms fire.

Going to MEPS tomorrow for an Infantry contract with US Marines.

Would not consider it if Hillary becomes president.

Suicide drones.

>It won’t be just World War II reprised with higher tech, or even the World War III envisioned in the 1980s. Instead, Milley said, long-range precision weapons will hammer big, obvious targets — like US headquarters today — and force
you omitted the most important sentence.

there is no defence against the new weapons is what hes saying.

...

>how are you going to power it?

Methanol-based internal combustion engine. Just like the current suits being fielded by special ops. If that's not enough, a single Apache helicopter engine in a slightly larger suit.

For some reason everyone throws up this strawman about power systems because they are afraid of liquid fuels.

>if I may...
>here's the scoop...
>you have to be a super in the know officer dewd to know what I know!

Please. Lasers on this personal level are not effective and will not be used as you've described. People don't violate international treatise lightly. Especially when it comes to deliberately maiming. Doing this would be the equivalent to dropping mustard gas and shrugging your shoulders when the international community flips shit.

>50 years

Just a tip. Next time you want to pretend you can play army understand that no branch keeps an officer in for 50 years. 40 years is usually the max hard cap. Some go over 40 years. I think the longest is ~46.

I don't think we'll ever see mechas used by the military, there's just no point. A tank can do everything a mecha can do and much more efficiently and with a much smaller profile.

Why bother with some slow ass clunky walker that's needlessly complex when you can use a tank that can go up to 50-60 mph and can traverse almost any terrain?

GODDAMN WHY ARE HER FEET SO FUCKING HUGE WHAT THE FUCK MAN

Then I'd hold off until after the election. You don't get to pick and choose whether or not you fight in a war once you've joined up.

I'm a bit worried that I'll be drafted having already joined the CF before (and quit / honorably discharged), but I'd sooner fight a war against my own government or willingly spend the war in a jail cell than fight for the cuckoldry and suicidal path my nation's leaders have chosen.

>No nuclear power will accept defeat as long they have nukes to use

Of course they will. They just won't accept unconditional surrender or absurd terms like Versailles or Brest-Litovsk.

you dont like big clown feet m8?

Drones are unlikely to be the wave of the future in warfare because their image recognition/visual processing and tactical ability tends to be fairly limited, necessitating a controller of some kind. This not only increases the delay between action reaction, but also creates a noisy electronic signal which is easy to jam with the right equipment.
The reason drones are so practical right now is because they don't need to react very quickly and because we can control the airspace in which they operate. They're not quick, they're not quiet, and they're not as effective. Their only asset is their ability to operate until their fuel runs out and without the cost of risking a human life. This makes them particularly suited for aerial operations, but anything else will require significant advances in artificial intelligence which allow robots to operate with a greater degree of autonomy and efficiency. This tech is a great ways off.

Power suits, though. We might see those pretty soon.
And it might very well increase the lethality of combat, since they would allow you to take a much more aggressive strategy in infantry tactics.
Furthermore such tactics are more likely to be necessary with the invention of those genade launchers that you can program to detonate at a certain distance, which negate many of the advantages of hiding behind cover.
In infantry warfare you're likely to see the increased necessity of maneuver, stealth, and offense. The last of which always carries a heavy price, and is what I assume they are referring to in the OP article.

Ah fuck I thought Chicago was safe

Implied EMPs mess with the electronic solutions, not the landmines

The landmine example is meant to be extrapolated to what is the most effective and efficient way to engage the enemy.

>Landmines can't hold or take ground

No, but they can fix the enemy. And like said in the previous part of the post, in modern warfare, once the enemy is fixed you can now drop massive amounts of ordinance on their position from far out of their range of retaliation.

Its all about knowing where the enemy is, and then reducing their capabilities. Infantry is too vulnerable to increase the frontage of the individual soldier dramatically, and far less effective in such a capacity.

Divide and conquer. A light infantry unit can no longer remain stationary or move effectively in numbers. Mechanised infantry and armor now deals with missiles fired over the horizon

primitive nukes weren't invented until the final year of the war. the hydrogen bomb was invented in the 1950's, since then no major war has occured between major nuclear powers out of fear of these bombs being used against one another (h-bombs are hundreds of times more powerful and theoretically have no upper limit to their blast yield, unlike conventional nukes)

it has been so long since a major conflict i don't think anyone can predict what it will be like. one thing that people fail to realize is the lessening quality of people that actually fight the wars.

a bunch of stupid mongrels that stand and care for nothing.

they will be amazed but the biggest issue is going to be mutiny, desertion, coups and noncompliance.

the simple fact of the matter is no one gives a shit when your blood means nothing and your nation is just a collection of companies pushing war for profit.

so the biggest change to warfare is going to be the irrelevance of it.

defense contractors? for what? to protect who? from who? its all a lie. its all bullshit.

its scary to think most ppl don't even know this

kill me

this

Which is more intimidating to you, a four legged walker with a camera and a gun, or a stryker attack vehicle full of soldiers?

>and is what I assume they are referring to in the OP article.
Forget that, I didn't notice the line about long range precision weapons.
The bits about the increasing importance of maneuver and offense is still going to be important though, since more effective artillery just tends to mean that your defense is less effective.
Then again we could just get something like ww1 again where we stay within the umbrella of our own guns and stare at each other.

Did you look at what the treaty actually says, a government just has to say it for rang finding or guidance and your golden, even if it blinds people.

Also, insurgents are not bound by such things.

let me guess, the "globalist oligarchy" is the united states and its allies and no one else?

Yea, only if trump wins and I if I can't find a comfy desk job. Glad I could go in as a officer too.

India will become a superpower with a combination of their robots' amazing militaristic potential and it's funky song and dance numbers on the battlefield.

War is only profitable for the banks if they're guarunteed to see a return on their investment, which is ultimately up to the politicians.
Banks like to avoid huge risky investments that have such a degree of unpredictability.

>Insurgents are not bound by such things
Wow, you don't say...

Go ahead and find a program for the offensive use of personal lasers. Or their implementation as an anti personnel weapon. We'll wait.

First of all there's no fear in me to participate in any war we get into.

Secondly, I could back out at any time I want. I'll be in a Delayed Entry Program.

the current problem with railguns is basically

1 powering them
2 rail erosion

materials science is however mitigating those problems, in the case of power, the only present practical place for them is warships as they already are able to produce large amounts of power, and storing explosive ammo is historically a huge problem for large ships. However getting efficient portable power for smaller scale units is a bit of a pain as battery power is not quite efficient enough.

however rail erosion is still a major pain in the ass, as you have to have compounds capable of handling the massive currents dumped through them, strong enough to handle to the immense stress, preferably not vaporize so much during each shot, and if it does vaporize a bunch, be at least cheap and easily replaced. And its kinda hard to hit all those marks.

There are current railguns in early production stages, but how practical they are at this stage is yet to be determined.

>I don't understand why anyone is jerking off over lasers
i thinks its the marines that want to fit lasers on airplanes as their primary weaponry

and i think the energy required to use lasers on airplanes prevents this from realistically happening.

>What "rumors" are you even implying about?

rumors that suicide drones are being deployed in the ME

>If you're going to indiscriminately kill everyone in a town then send in B52s. If you need to kill 3 guys in a house you fire a hellfire from a predator/reaper. Anything else is just uneconomical.

all bullshit. economics of an anti-personnel bombing run -

-Single CBU-105 bomb (cluster bomb) cost - ~$400,000
-Kill ratio - .01 people/bomb (optimisitc Vietnam War stats, modern stats are still largely classified, are probably comparable)
- cost per kill - 40,000,000 USD

you can get into smart bombs if you want, kill ratio (Probably) is closer to 1, but at ~20 million USD/bomb, the point is still made.

Economics of a drone

- Approximate cost with an explosive charge - ~20,000 USD (From a DARPA Proposal, I'll dig it up if you want)
- Possible anticipated kill ratio - ~.1
- cost/kill - ~200,000 USD

You can't seriously think that economics favors the B52-bomb-everything-to-fuck.

>but muh infrastructure

Infrastructure damage is a meme against ideologically driven modern guerrilla force that are used to living in mud huts and caves anyway.

>but muh factories

everybody we have fought for the past 30 years has been armed by another country, sometimes by us.

On top of that

- Drones, even swarms, require no airfields
- Drones don't damage infrastructure you might want to keep
- Flying a drone requires a video-game level of skill, flying a B52 requires years of training and experience

how can you seriously think that it will not be a thing at all?

Well he certainly wouldn't be wrong in saying so. The U.S. absolutely is an oligarchy now and there's no denying that globalism is the new normal.

I know it's nice to romanticize war heroes and our brave armed forces and that it speaks to people on an emotional level. But the truth is the United States is absolutely corrupt at the highest levels and has been manufacturing wars to fight for decades.

We are the bad guys. It's hard to admit but it's true.

>Drones are unlikely to be the wave of the future in warfare because their image recognition/visual processing and tactical ability tends to be fairly limited, necessitating a controller of some kind.

Here's the actual scenario that they're already being used in (by the russians - amazingly the US hasn't managed this level of integration yet because the whole landwarrior program got shelved):

You take a squad, you give them a small drone. Lightweight, rechargeable, controlled by a small laptop. These drones can be controlled via EM waves (radio, wifi, etc.) or they come with an actual spool of wire so they can't be jammed / communications detected. The range of the drone is limited to within a few kilometers of the squad, or less. That's fine, it lets the squad pinpoint enemy troops and maneuver around the battlefield in an extremely effective manner.

More importantly, it lets the squad designate targets for airstrikes and artillery. This is what the Russians can do right now, and what the Americans cannot. US drone integration is at a higher level and getting it lower down the totem pole is taking longer than it should.

These things are going to be like the machineguns of WW1, I fucking guarantee you. Platoons will be issued light recce drones in short order (they already are, but it'll be adopted everywhere and more quickly once fighting actually starts), and then it'll filter to squads, possibly even individual soldiers in some small scale forms (e.g. scouting a room with a small drone/camera). There will be a guy dedicated to this shit just like there's one dedicated to an LMG.

you will fight whoever is trying to kill you....or you will die. It's that simple.

Doubt it's the Marine Corps. Air Force maybe. Or even navy but I would be surprised if it was Marine Corps. They probably will have a practical purpose in the future but it isn't going to be as a weapon used by indicidual soldiers.

Jap bro is right, a non-nuclear war between even middle powers would be devistatingly dirty. Kill or maim the populace while leaving infrastructure intact. We've had the technology for ethnically targeted bioweapons for about 10 years now if not longer.

Blinding lasers, chemical weapons, IED's not rigged by inbred mostly illiterate goat farmers, anticrop biowarfare, small suicidal drones packed with just enough explosive to have a 3m kill radius and targeted at anything fitting a human heat signature.

It would be brutal.

Imagine targeting something as simple as buckwheat (primarily grown in colder regions like Russia) and starving them out without a shot fired to avoid the nuclear threshold.

Drones are also incredibly easy to shoot down.
It's a whole lot more practical just to use a grenade launcher or call in an artillery or air strike, which is much more likely to be successful.
Drones might be used against forces with electronic warfare capacities for spotting, but probably not much else.

A mech just doesn't serve a purpose. There are much easier to make and more effective ground based heavy weapon platforms, and if terrain is an issue, you use air power or infantry. There is no way a mech will ever be used in warfare ever.

Kek dropping knowledge on fools, /thread and checked.

I see a scenario unfolding akin to Metal Gear Solid 4. Proxy wars being fought between PMCs for the interest of their respected corporations by men who lack any sort of motivation to kill beyond money, glamorized with slick marketing to make them the Billy bad asses they see in their COD, being ignorant to the actual horrors of war.

The thread is going to die by I need to say: You're fucking stupid. Big time.

>sand people
das rayciss!
it's people of sand shitlord

ZM-87
Terra-3
JD-3

thebulletin.org/blinding-them-science-development-banned-laser-weapon-continuing7598

So fuck off since you don't know what you talking about.

>Just a tip. Next time you want to pretend you can play army understand that no branch keeps an officer in for 50 years. 40 years is usually the max hard cap. Some go over 40 years. I think the longest is ~46.

Ok, so 4 years less time in than I said - what's your point, other than semantics?

>Lasers aren't effective enough because I said so
>I see no reason why myself, the public, and foreign nations would be kept in the dark about advances weapons research

What are you thinking man? Military research is miles ahead of what civilians know

I can definitely see drones being used for recon and spotting, but they're too vulnerable and noisy for anything else.
I don't think it would be in every single squad though, more likely you'd get maybe a couple on each battlefield.

Not really, they are developing some cool stuff.

Another big issue for the US is the army and Airforce are pissing over each other on who can operate drones.

good ole /btg/

never change

>military research is miles ahead

This is how I know you know nothing about these organizations. They're not ahead by shit. They're scraping by and jumping at whatever shiny new idea might get them another star.

>Go ahead and find a program for the offensive use of personal lasers. Or their implementation as an anti personnel weapon. We'll wait.

Again, here's your problem. You won't find those programs, they're not public. Secret classifications exist for a reason you dip

tell me exactly how

otherwise

>not an argument

>Another big issue for the US is the army and Airforce are pissing over each other on who can operate drones.
Yeah but those problems will iron themselves out real quickly if a real conflict breaks out.

There's actually been a dramatic increase in the quality of people ready to fight in wars.

Go take a peek at the size of militaries today. Combat arms have been losing personnel precipitously - and that's fine, we don't need as many people as we did.

It must be understood that at the same time automation has lessened the amount of people required to work and support our economies, it has likewise lessened the number of people needed to fight wars. A squad of well-equipped soldiers today are as effective as an entire platoon of soldiers from WW2. Perhaps even more effective with proper support.

The fundamental reason for this is from so-called "force multipliers" which do exactly what the term says.

Right now we have effective proxy wars being conducted in areas like Syria and Ukraine - entire nations - with perhaps no more than 20,000 - 50,000 soldiers in total, on all sides combined. The number of soldiers lost in a single day of fighting at the somme in ww1 could today fight hard enough to take huge chunks of territory out of a state like Germany.

If a WW3 happens, it's going to be a weird war. It'll be extremely lethal, but there won't actually be that many soldiers dying. There won't be an express need for so many soldiers, and the industrial capacity to actually supply WW1 numbers to WW3 standards would be hard-pressed even for a massive industrialized nation like the US. It's even harder because you can't just throw WW1 or WW2 level equipment into the fight and expect any kind of success - you'll get massively BTFO with your thorough lack of maneuverability, recce, and firepower compared to a WW3 ready military.

Who's going to pilot your drone swarms? I hope you realize how stupid that sounds. The back end cost of all that is going to be huge. Especially on the maintenance/manpower end.

>Military research is miles ahead of what civilians know
If it's done and has a practical battlefield application, we would know about it. Because tons of people would be using it, which means tons of people would be talking about it.

>implying europe isn't now brown people and slants

>Even though I have no access to billions of dollars of secret research and development, I know their capabilities

You think you've got it figured out, but really you've got no fucking clue

This article is looking at a project that is being developed as crowd control being possibly used as a lethal weapon. Again still not seeing what you're talking about. We should have plenty of blind Afghans/Iraqs today if what you're saying is correct.

The drones being used only need to be the size of your computer tower, or smaller. They aren't loud - you won't hear one even when it's just 50m away, and they can be carried in a backpack, or in some cases, in a pocket. (pic related as an example of how small they could get)

exoskeletons have been talked about extensively by the people who don't have to wear them, but the point is, it's another 200 pound thing that needs batteries.

Also, what they do is make weapons who "do not blind" at long ranges, but can be easily modified to be used in closer ranges where blinding will happen. It how you get things developed, just in case.

I was in the military and saw the forefront of some equipment being depll. "Smart" parachutes and the Harvest HAWK program. It's not fancy. I promise you.

no such thing as a bad guy. The world has winners, losers, and the whinny little cunts who are along for the ride.

>They aren't loud
I was referring to the electronic signal. Electronic "noise."
Very noticeable.

>After spending billions in secret research and development, nations immediately announce their increased capabilities and vulnerabilities to the world

What the fuck are you talking about.

>Who's going to pilot your drone swarms?
Software. Just have the swarm fly to an objective and and kill anything with a heat signature it spots, then get to safe hovering altitude until next target peeks out. rinse and repeat till out of fuel, then rotate back to fuel carrying drone at higher altitude.

I think you could drop a minimum of 64 man sized drones from a C130(like paratroopers).

They drop out, unfold wings/props/rotors whatever, then fly to rally point, hover til the rest show up...then move out to target area to patrol. Easy Peasy.

Yeah I have mate, it's not exactly War and Peace.

Relevant bit:

>Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.

Basically says you can use laser guidance/rangefinding devices that might cause incidental damage. You cannot however strap a 5000000MW laser to the top of a tank and go around burning eyes out like you're the Ark of the Covenant.

It's important to note that this treaty only covers things which do permanent damage to sight, lower powered lasers with safety features such as the PHaSR and Glare LA-9/P are A-OK

the weapons being developed "legally" can be in moments notice be modified to produce full blinding force.

These are systems in development, man systems deployed can blind within 50 meters, in a tech generation it will be 300 meters.

You asked if they where being developed, yes they are, they are being developed as "dazzlers" as saying "weapons to make people blind" is not kosher at the moment.

Much like the Soviet "vaccination" programs where actually covers for soviet biological weapon programs.

>after spending billions in secret research an development, the project is immediately shelved never to be used again

What the fuck are you talking about?

They're more like a 40lbs thing that needs batteries but let you carry an extra 80lbs - which could be all your gear, or a bigger gun; enabling your infantry to have a higher tempo and more maneuverability with greater firepower.

Picture an infantry squad where the entire squad could run around with LMG's.

I can easily foresee specialized versions being used for urban warfare and breakthroughs where you need as much of an advantage as possible, but don't necessarily need the staying power (or rather the provided advantage) past the initial assault.

i think there can be a case made for mechs, but not as something that replaces conventional armor so much as enhances infantry.

basically something that sorta within the heavy power armor, spectrum, class, whatever.

something that is mobile and responsive like a person, can sorta fit indoors if its willing to koolaid a wall or two, is high resistant if not immune to small arms fire, and has the capacity to feature integrated targeting systems and carry weapons that normally would be too heavy for infantry to wield on the go.

Being smaller than a tank and being resistant to small arms, provided it has mobility and speed, would require heavy weapons to drop it, forcing the enemy to feature more anti armor weapons, slowing them down and reducing their effectiveness vs normal infantry.

>just kill everything

This is the basic problem. We have friendly fire incidents between countries and it's fucking bad. You kill a few women and children and no one will ever talk to you again in that village. What kind of war do you think is going on? This isn't Escape From New York.

army-technology.com/features/feature121877/

This is some of what I saw, and this is the non-secret stuff - it's in wide enough use that junior officers are learning its capabilities.

And it's pretty damn effective and far ranged. Locating and Fixing the enemy has never been cheaper or easier.

LA-9 already causes blindness within 40 meters or so, And the next generation will "Dazzle" at longer ranges.

LFTR REACTOR

they already use them and you can buy online too
youtube.com/watch?v=mD_ciCZJ7q0