If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Soldiers of the future might have their minds plugged directly into weapons systems, hopefully including phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 71
    More: Interesting, plasma rifle  
•       •       •

1737 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Feb 2012 at 5:25 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-07 05:40:47 AM
Why even have soldiers anymore? Why not just build robots and drones that can fight our wars for us?

Yeah yeah, Cyberdyne Systems and Terminator. Shut the fark up for a minute.

If we can remove ourselves from the theater of battle and eliminate our enemies remotely without ever risking the lives of our servicemen and women, isn't that something we ought to strive for?

Or is there something besides romanticism keeping our soldiers in harm's way?
 
2012-02-07 05:48:23 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Why even have soldiers anymore? Why not just build robots and drones that can fight our wars for us?

Yeah yeah, Cyberdyne Systems and Terminator. Shut the fark up for a minute.

If we can remove ourselves from the theater of battle and eliminate our enemies remotely without ever risking the lives of our servicemen and women, isn't that something we ought to strive for?

Or is there something besides romanticism keeping our soldiers in harm's way?


Well, we have predator drones which are being used with increasing frequency to attack people - but the issue is becoming that it is so easy for us to do it, where is the boundary drawn to where we can't just send a drone to attack someone we don't like.

Long story short - war should be brutal, so we don't want to do it. No sane person should want to kill anyone. But get enough of us in a group, and we all hate each otehr.
 
2012-02-07 05:52:21 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Why even have soldiers anymore? Why not just build robots and drones that can fight our wars for us?

Yeah yeah, Cyberdyne Systems and Terminator. Shut the fark up for a minute.

If we can remove ourselves from the theater of battle and eliminate our enemies remotely without ever risking the lives of our servicemen and women, isn't that something we ought to strive for?

Or is there something besides romanticism keeping our soldiers in harm's way?


Because you would need AI equal or greater than a human to make the correct split second decisions in say... a hostage situation.

Also what do you think it says about a nation that pumps so much time, money and resources into finding better ways of killing people, more often than not, from countries with technology decades behind, yet at the same time will let someone die in a hospital if their insurance does not cover their illness/injury.
 
2012-02-07 06:20:34 AM
Guyver !
 
2012-02-07 06:20:34 AM
Good headline subby.
 
2012-02-07 06:54:30 AM
Forever Peace, by Joe Haldeman.

As weird as the ending was, maybe it'll work out that way.
 
2012-02-07 07:07:54 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Why even have soldiers anymore? Why not just build robots and drones that can fight our wars for us?

Yeah yeah, Cyberdyne Systems and Terminator. Shut the fark up for a minute.

If we can remove ourselves from the theater of battle and eliminate our enemies remotely without ever risking the lives of our servicemen and women, isn't that something we ought to strive for?

Or is there something besides romanticism keeping our soldiers in harm's way?


We will always need soldiers because while fancy weapon systems can gain
ground, you need people to go in and hold that ground.
 
2012-02-07 07:19:24 AM

DjangoStonereaver: AverageAmericanGuy: Why even have soldiers anymore? Why not just build robots and drones that can fight our wars for us?

Yeah yeah, Cyberdyne Systems and Terminator. Shut the fark up for a minute.

If we can remove ourselves from the theater of battle and eliminate our enemies remotely without ever risking the lives of our servicemen and women, isn't that something we ought to strive for?

Or is there something besides romanticism keeping our soldiers in harm's way?

We will always need soldiers because while fancy weapon systems can gain
ground, you need people to go in and hold that ground.



Well, I think these questions are sort of inside-out.

We don't need people, per se, to hold ground, or to make decisions...

We need them because people are the only thing we fight wars over. We're not going to fight wars BECAUSE of the machines. With machines killing machines, we would BANKRUPT each other, which might be preferable to warfighting... but we wouldn't "solve" any of the "problems" that war is supposed to "straighten out."

We'd be left with a pile of dead machines and the same grudges. And then we'd pick up some spears, chuck them in each other's general direction, and the war would start again, minus the machines.
 
2012-02-07 08:00:28 AM
A camera bore-sighted to the gun and linked to an ocular implant probably isn't too far out of the reach of current tech.
 
2012-02-07 08:13:19 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Or is there something besides romanticism keeping our soldiers in harm's way?


There is. It's a form of population control, both in the sense of reducing the number of people who can reproduce, and in the sense of taking a portion of the population most likely to revolt and channeling that energy to an external enemy instead of an internal one. This is especially true among totalitarian states with conscript armies.

My biggest fear along those lines is that the People's Republic of China has a demographic time-bomb ticking away: There are tens of millions of men of marriage age without corresponding women in the PRC, largely due to the "One Child" policy and selective abortion of girls. That is a problem, to say the least. When China's economy eventually grinds to a halt, as it eventually must*, there is going to be a lot of unrest, and those tens of millions of young men will have essentially nothing to lose: They don't have girlfriends, wives, or children to lose if they are arrested or killed.

When that happens, it's almost inevitable that the government of the PRC is going to look for an external enemy to channel the frustration of the people, and realistically, we're friends with just about everyone in that area with the exception of North Korea. If they decide to mobilize and march across a border somewhere, it's very likely that we'd be involved at least in the air and on/under the sea.

*You can't sustain double-digit growth forever.
 
2012-02-07 08:16:33 AM
Hey, just what you see, subby!
 
2012-02-07 08:17:25 AM

gmoney101: Also what do you think it says about a nation that pumps so much time, money and resources into finding better ways of killing people, more often than not, from countries with technology decades behind, yet at the same time will let someone die in a hospital if their insurance does not cover their illness/injury.


Those two situations are in no way related to each other. Conflating them serves no real purpose, other than to try and make a (weak) political argument for more government control.
 
2012-02-07 08:28:11 AM
this should get a scary tag
 
2012-02-07 08:28:58 AM
The downside to this is that it costs 0.5 Essence.
 
2012-02-07 08:45:54 AM
Didn't they do this in Ghost in a Shell? The snipers where jacked right into their rifles to allow full control over everything. The tank and chopper pilots were also connected directly with their respective vehicles.
 
2012-02-07 08:52:09 AM
images.wikia.com
What is the strongest weapon of mankind? The god-machines of the Adeptus Mechanicus? No! The Astartes Legions? No! The tank? The lasgun? The fist? Not at all! Courage and courage alone stands above them all!
 
2012-02-07 08:53:24 AM

UNC_Samurai: [images.wikia.com image 640x399]
What is the strongest weapon of mankind? The god-machines of the Adeptus Mechanicus? No! The Astartes Legions? No! The tank? The lasgun? The fist? Not at all! Courage and courage alone stands above them all!


nerd...
 
2012-02-07 08:54:12 AM
We will still want an actual human making the actual decision to kill. Whether pulling a trigger, or hitting "enter" thousands of miles away (and possibly time-shifted.) This human will still be a primary target for the other side--eliminate command and control and you usually win. And if the other side can't kill that person, they'll kill whoever they can--if it somehow punishes or discourages that person.

War doesn't hit some point where everybody plays by the same rules and the results are universally accepted.
 
2012-02-07 08:55:01 AM
Because if there's one thing the future needs, it'll be soldiers. For those future wars we'll be needing. For some reason.
 
2012-02-07 08:55:21 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Why even have soldiers anymore? Why not just build robots and drones that can fight our wars for us?


Why stop there? Why not just fight wars electronically in big computer simulations?

I seem to remember an episode of Star Trek the original series that looked at that question. "Taste of Armageddon", I think.
 
2012-02-07 08:58:29 AM

dittybopper: gmoney101: Also what do you think it says about a nation that pumps so much time, money and resources into finding better ways of killing people, more often than not, from countries with technology decades behind, yet at the same time will let someone die in a hospital if their insurance does not cover their illness/injury.

Those two situations are in no way related to each other. Conflating them serves no real purpose, other than to try and make a (weak) political argument for more government control.


It's true that those two situations are not directly related to each other, but the money for both comes from taxes, and decision making is done by the same Congress. America has decided it is more important to be prepared to kill some people someday than to provide health care and education for Americans who need it now.

/hates the lobbyists and special interests that brought us to this conclusion
//still a BFG would be pretty cool
 
2012-02-07 09:07:09 AM

arcas: AverageAmericanGuy: Why even have soldiers anymore? Why not just build robots and drones that can fight our wars for us?


Why stop there? Why not just fight wars electronically in big computer simulations?

I seem to remember an episode of Star Trek the original series that looked at that question. "Taste of Armageddon", I think.


Bah! I just spent 15 mins googling for this because I thought it was a TNG ep, not TO, and was beaten to it.

But yes, they fought them in simulations, then told people to report to a Disintegration Booths to be killed as casualties.
 
2012-02-07 09:17:23 AM

hokkemirin: America has decided it is more important to be prepared to kill some people someday than to provide health care and education for Americans who need it now.


Hey now, to be fair our Military budget HAS dropped from 48% of all military spending in the world to only 43%.

That's something, right?
 
2012-02-07 09:17:45 AM
I was going to mention the importance of human maintenance, then I envisioned humans enslaved to the robots for maintenance and construction.

And THEN humans could be phased out when maintenance bots are perfected.
 
2012-02-07 09:40:16 AM
Unimpressed:

www.loli.su
 
2012-02-07 09:56:57 AM

hokkemirin: dittybopper: gmoney101: Also what do you think it says about a nation that pumps so much time, money and resources into finding better ways of killing people, more often than not, from countries with technology decades behind, yet at the same time will let someone die in a hospital if their insurance does not cover their illness/injury.

Those two situations are in no way related to each other. Conflating them serves no real purpose, other than to try and make a (weak) political argument for more government control.

It's true that those two situations are not directly related to each other, but the money for both comes from taxes, and decision making is done by the same Congress. America has decided it is more important to be prepared to kill some people someday than to provide health care and education for Americans who need it now.

/hates the lobbyists and special interests that brought us to this conclusion
//still a BFG would be pretty cool


Congress has limited powers, and a limited budget.

If you want to hate on something that is at the root of that decision, hate on the Constitution. It specifically gives Congress the power to raise taxes to fund the armed forces. It also gives Congress the power to pass laws that regulate interstate commerce, but it wasn't until something like 80 or 90 years ago that the Supreme Court expanded that power to include completely intrastate transactions (which medical decisions almost always are), and while Congress could, under this power, set up a single payer system, it's not clear that they have the ability to force you to purchase health insurance simply because you are alive. The Supreme Court will soon decide that question.

I suspect the court won't OK that, as it opens up a major can of worms, giving Congress the power to compel you to purchase a product whether you want to or not, something that is unprecedented, but I'm open to the possibility that the Supreme Court will perform some legal jiu-jitsu that allows it.

That problem goes away in a single payer system, though: Congress absolutely has the power to do that, but it doesn't have the votes. You can blame special interests if you want, but a large part of it isn't because of paid lobbyists, it's because it rubs against the grain of a large segment of voters who don't want to give the government any more power than it already has, and if you don't recognize that, you have an incomplete and simplistic view of the issue.

But back to guns: I'm having a hard time thinking of a decent reason to plugging your mind into a weapon. About the only reason I can come up with is that it would enable you to 'lock out' other users, making it useless for an enemy if they pick it up on the battlefield, but any such weapon would almost certainly have a 'back-up' mode to allow manual firing in an emergency, and that would negate any real advantage there.
 
2012-02-07 09:56:59 AM
I want mine.

www.alicia-logic.com
 
2012-02-07 10:03:05 AM
wait till we start installing their fleshy brains directly into tanks and programming them to fight for us

or is that those demon dogs that will do that
 
2012-02-07 10:10:45 AM

loonatic112358: wait till we start installing their fleshy brains directly into tanks and programming them to fight for us

or is that those demon dogs that will do that


A veritable infestation, those demon dogs are. Or might I say, "plague"?
 
2012-02-07 10:19:33 AM

dittybopper: That problem goes away in a single payer system, though: Congress absolutely has the power to do that, but it doesn't have the votes. You can blame special interests if you want, but a large part of it isn't because of paid lobbyists, it's because it rubs against the grain of a large segment of voters who don't want to give the government any more power than it already has, and if you don't recognize that, you have an incomplete and simplistic view of the issue.


Actually single-payer polled about 70%. Approval of HRC plummeted when people realized it wasn't single-payer, which the media interpreted as people reacting negatively to a power grab.

dittybopper: But back to guns: I'm having a hard time thinking of a decent reason to plugging your mind into a weapon. About the only reason I can come up with is that it would enable you to 'lock out' other users, making it useless for an enemy if they pick it up on the battlefield, but any such weapon would almost certainly have a 'back-up' mode to allow manual firing in an emergency, and that would negate any real advantage there.


Better returns on training. Getting a guy to hit a stationary target with high accuracy at a practice range where all the bullets go in the same direction is easy; getting anyone to even hit the broad side of a barn at 50 meters in a firefight takes an insane amount of hours and rounds. If the computer does the work and the guy just has to move an icon over the target, you can (hypothetically) turn scrubs into elite shooters. Don't know if it'll work, but people will be tempted to try.

It also allows for remote weapons control. If you can design a brain-weapon interface at all, you can process those signals remotely. I don't see as much potential for this, though. The camera-eye system is already a rudimentary interface, but it does well enough that it would require serious advancements in cybertechnology to surpass -- especially considering camera tech hasn't stopped advancing, either.
 
2012-02-07 10:26:47 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com

"It's not a weapon, it's more of a highly advanced prosthesis."
 
2012-02-07 10:27:51 AM

vonmatrices: Long story short - war should be brutal, so we don't want to do it.


War is brutal because we still have a factor of reliability required in every weapon system.
If and when we have the option for a pain free and swift victory, we almost always take it.

We still use soldiers because they work in all weather conditions and will get the job done. Its difficult to screw them up with electronic jamming or other tricks. They can run autonomously and carry out a mission even if the controlling entity is destroyed.
Soldier-centric systems will be the standard in any major conflict, with robots as a backup.

I think that Ghost in the shell, being cyber punk, is a perfect example of what WONT happen. You could have a cybernetic hookup to pull the trigger on your rifle, but that's a rube goldberg-ish way of replacing a rarely failing mechanical trigger. Likewise to replace buttons and monitors in an aircraft with neural feeds that we still can't rely on.

It might make a more fearsome soldier, but that's no good if its also more prone to failure.
 
2012-02-07 10:31:04 AM
"If I wanted the silicon dug out of my back brain I would have gone to Mexico City!
I want a full restoration; I want it all back! "

/hand me the cranial drill to make an opening for the RJ-78 port
 
2012-02-07 10:43:43 AM

Malacon: hokkemirin: America has decided it is more important to be prepared to kill some people someday than to provide health care and education for Americans who need it now.

Hey now, to be fair our Military budget HAS dropped from 48% of all military spending in the world to only 43%.

That's something, right?


Much of that is because we actually have a volunteer military, and in order to attract decent people, you have to pay them.

A recruit in the US Military starts out making somewhere near $1,400 a month. In 4 months, that increases to around $1,500 a month.

The next largest army in terms of expenditures is the People's Republic of China, which pays its recruits about 1/90th what the US pays: $16 a month. You could pay an entire company of PLA recruits on what the US spends on a single soldier in terms of pay.
 
2012-02-07 10:43:56 AM
Well... at least you won't have to THINK in Russian...
 
2012-02-07 10:52:21 AM

UNC_Samurai: [images.wikia.com image 640x399]
What is the strongest weapon of mankind? The god-machines of the Adeptus Mechanicus? No! The Astartes Legions? No! The tank? The lasgun? The fist? Not at all! Courage and courage alone stands above them all!


Courage and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster plugged into your brain.
 
2012-02-07 10:53:46 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Why even have soldiers anymore? Why not just build robots and drones that can fight our wars for us?

Yeah yeah, Cyberdyne Systems and Terminator. Shut the fark up for a minute.

If we can remove ourselves from the theater of battle and eliminate our enemies remotely without ever risking the lives of our servicemen and women, isn't that something we ought to strive for?

Or is there something besides romanticism keeping our soldiers in harm's way?


It's all fun and games till Anonymous hacks your killbots and makes them spraypaint the word "FASCIST" on the White House.
 
2012-02-07 11:00:17 AM

way south: If and when we have the option for a pain free and swift victory, we almost always take it.


On the contrary; we've been sitting on nukes for over 60 years, thank god. But that means we've actually fought every war for the last 60 years in the bloodiest and inefficient ways possible. If that wasn't bad enough, the vast majority of wars America has fought could've been avoided. Frankly, the country (sans colonies) hasn't been targeted with a land-grab invasion since, what, the Alamo? We could've nuked North Korea decades ago. We could've nuked Iraq. We didn't because nukes are farking nasty, and fighting a war for mostly political reasons requires a veneer of moral high ground to sustain public approval. I mean, honestly, why the fark do you think we're developing the F-35 when we can turn any country that looks at us funny into a radioactive glass parking lot? Because we still use conventional weaponry as an international police force to keep trade routes open and resources flowing in, and nukes aren't good for business.

Nukes destroyed the idea that America's military was ever about avoiding conflict a long time ago. When we built "the bomb", we created a means to never have to fight another conventional war ever again. If Saddam really had WMDs, we could've killed everything that cast a shadow in Iraq inside a week. I'm not saying that would've been the right call. It would've been the most despicable slaughter of innocent civilians in modern history. But it would've been fast, as well as cheap and bloodless for America -- and had a chilling effect on any other nation that didn't feel like playing by our rules. But -- credit our citizenry for not being sick bastards overall -- it would've been a political disaster without an ironclad case. In fact, the case was laughably bad and politics was a big part of it, so we went out of our way to get our hands bloody and all but pretended our own nuclear arsenal didn't exist to paint ourselves as potential victims of a few trucks full of. . . something.
 
2012-02-07 11:23:39 AM
40 watts is... not very scary. 40 watt bulbs barely rate as desk-lamp. I know it's just a script mistake, but... yeah.
 
2012-02-07 11:46:15 AM
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-02-07 11:46:40 AM

way south: I think that Ghost in the shell, being cyber punk, is a perfect example of what WONT happen. You could have a cybernetic hookup to pull the trigger on your rifle, but that's a rube goldberg-ish way of replacing a rarely failing mechanical trigger. Likewise to replace buttons and monitors in an aircraft with neural feeds that we still can't rely on.


Uh, you might not want to look at the F-35 then.
 
2012-02-07 01:17:42 PM

dragonchild: dittybopper: But back to guns: I'm having a hard time thinking of a decent reason to plugging your mind into a weapon. About the only reason I can come up with is that it would enable you to 'lock out' other users, making it useless for an enemy if they pick it up on the battlefield, but any such weapon would almost certainly have a 'back-up' mode to allow manual firing in an emergency, and that would negate any real advantage there.

Better returns on training. Getting a guy to hit a stationary target with high accuracy at a practice range where all the bullets go in the same direction is easy; getting anyone to even hit the broad side of a barn at 50 meters in a firefight takes an insane amount of hours and rounds. If the computer does the work and the guy just has to move an icon over the target, you can (hypothetically) turn scrubs into elite shooters. Don't know if it'll work, but people will be tempted to try.

It also allows for remote weapons control. If you can design a brain-weapon interface at all, you can process those signals remotely. I don't see as much potential for this, though. The camera-eye system is already a rudimentary interface, but it does well enough that it would require serious advancements in cybertechnology to surpass -- especially considering camera tech hasn't stopped advancing, either.


You can do both things without the fancy-shmancy brain interface, which opens up the possibility of infection, etc. We've been using systems like that (camera-eye to automagically aim a weapons system) for almost 30 years now. I can't think of a single real advantage that slaving a weapons system to the brain directly has over a miniaturized version of what we already have.
 
2012-02-07 01:22:38 PM

dragonchild: The downside to this is that it costs 0.5 Essence.


I knew I'd see a smartlink reference in here. Thanks, dragonchild.
 
2012-02-07 01:27:00 PM

dittybopper: I can't think of a single real advantage that slaving a weapons system to the brain directly has over a miniaturized version of what we already have.


Accuracy.

Want help with a second?
 
2012-02-07 01:36:56 PM

dragonchild: Actually single-payer polled about 70%. Approval of HRC plummeted when people realized it wasn't single-payer, which the media interpreted as people reacting negatively to a power grab.


Not *QUITE*.

Seventy two percent of people polled approved of a government administered option (like an expanded Medicare) that would compete with private insurance. In that same poll, 63% were either very or somewhat concerned that a single payer system would adversely effect their health care.

Support for a government program to provide health insurance to those without it is different than support for a single-payer system.
 
2012-02-07 01:50:00 PM

Click Click D'oh: dittybopper: I can't think of a single real advantage that slaving a weapons system to the brain directly has over a miniaturized version of what we already have.

Accuracy.

Want help with a second?


How? I can't think of a way that a direct brain link would be more accurate than simply looking at the target, having a camera decide where you are looking, and slaving the gun to that. We've been doing that for, what, 30 years now? You could build that capability into an optical sight, and have it adjust the barrel of the gun to aim off-center by the appropriate amount. Add a laser range finder, and you could have it account for range also. It would be just as accurate as a direct brain interface, and anyone could use it, and as a bonus you could have a 'dumb' mode where the barrel is locked on the centerline and the gun reverts back to a plain old gun with a scope on it.

Certainly, a direct brain interface seems like overkill for small arms, and actually *FIRING* the gun by thought alone opens up a wonderful world of accidental discharge possibilities.
 
2012-02-07 01:54:50 PM

dittybopper: I can't think of a single real advantage that slaving a weapons system to the brain directly has over a miniaturized version of what we already have.


Has less to do with where the tech is now than future potential. But in a sense, implants are thinking past the problem; HMSD IS a functioning, if indirect and non-invasive, brain-weapon interface. There are potential advantages but they'd have to outperform the indirect stuff and overcome the disadvantages. The tech obviously isn't there yet, and I think many of the conceived benefits aren't there at all. One fantasy is to have weapons target and fire "at the speed of thought" but the brain can already communicate with a trigger finger pretty damn quickly.

Any new "interface" has to outperform the human's ability to learn, which would basically render humans obsolete. Machines have proven they're good at repetitive tasks in predictable conditions, but that's the furthest thing in reality from combat. So for the foreseeable future, the smart investment is weapons tech that is optimized for what the human brain or body already do very well (such as HMSD), not trying to replace those processes.

If there's any advantage, it's in portability and utilizing the human's instinct for self-preservation. The USAF will generally value the pilot more than the plane, but one advantage to HMSD vs. HUD is that if the pilot ejects, at least the pilot ejects still wearing the helmet. Sure, you can't hand a cybernetic implant from one guy to the next, but a lot of this tech is highly specialized anyway. Embedding technology in the human makes it much easier to carry around, obviously. It's possible but less likely to be damaged by accident or wear and has no chance of being lost, forgotten or abandoned. Humans also have thermoregulation so you can design around a MUCH narrower range of temperatures.

Huck Chaser: I knew I'd see a smartlink reference in here. Thanks, dragonchild.


Goddamn that took too farking long.
 
2012-02-07 02:05:55 PM

dittybopper: Support for a government program to provide health insurance to those without it is different than support for a single-payer system.


It is and I stand corrected. You used a false choice in response to a false choice, though. Sure, hokkemirin was an idiot for thinking a country can't invest in national defense AND health care at the same time (a lot of countries do so just fine), but single payer was never offered to Americans to begin with. We could call that a wash, but it's more like no one got anywhere.
 
2012-02-07 02:29:35 PM

dragonchild: Huck Chaser: I knew I'd see a smartlink reference in here. Thanks, dragonchild.

Goddamn that took too farking long.


I miss Shadowrun. My favorite of all the pen and paper RPGs I played as a kid.
 
2012-02-07 02:29:55 PM

dittybopper: Certainly, a direct brain interface seems like overkill for small arms, and actually *FIRING* the gun by thought alone opens up a wonderful world of accidental discharge possibilities.


Do you inadvertently throw baseballs often? When was the last time you accidentally military pressed your desk at work?

So, how would a direct neural interface improve weapons.. Here's two freebies.

1) Accuracy. If you remove the physical trigger there are few motions to firing the weapon. The fewer motions, the more accurate the weapon. Poor trigger manipulation is by far the greatest cause of inaccurate shooting.

2) Response time. Eliminating muscle motions guarantees faster engagement time. Every time you want to shoot, or stop shooting for that matter, the brain has to send out a signal to the muscles, which have to respond and react to it. That takes time. Not much, but when issues may be settled in half a second, it can be an eternity. A direct connection which bypasses muscle response time would give a significant advantage in meeting engagements.

How about a bonus:

2) Accuracy again. With a direct neural interface, a shooter could "know" where his weapon is pointed instead of just being given a pretty good idea by whatever sighting system is being used. It could cut out issues with poor sight alignment common with iron sighted weapons as well as having to set up optically sighted weapons for individual shooters.

dittybopper:
How? I can't think of a way that a direct brain link would be more accurate than simply looking at the target, having a camera decide where you are looking, and slaving the gun to that.


Why have a camera decide what the human brain is already looking at and has decided on what it is? That's just adding complexity to the situation. Why not just have the weapon point directly at what the person is actually looking at.


Ah, but we have HMSD, why would we want to go full man/machine interface. Well, for one HMSD sucks donkey balls for actual combat. Now that we have a good amount of data on pilots flying and fighting with NVGs or HMSDs we are seeing a large number of neck injuries. Apparently stacking an extra five to ten pounds of crap on your head then pulling 9gs isn't such a good idea for the long term career planning. While we are on the track of crap getting in the way of pilots, does anyone here know why the Blue Angels don't wear G-Suits? Well, it turns out that during high G maneuvers their arms holding the control stick get mashed into their thighs and the inflation of the G-Suit would move their arm, causing the controls to move and bad things to happen in tight formations. Wouldn't so much have that problem with a direct neural interface would you. Heck, you wouldn't actually even need to be sitting up.. or have a glass canopy... or be out in front of the plane at all. In fact, you could lay down directly in the gravitational center of the plane. Frak 9Gs. A direct neural interface fighter could pull maneuvers that modern planes only dream about.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report