Re: erm... power armour (just about)

tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:

> this discussion is certainly getting a bit off the rails here; i find
> myself arguing that the suppression of emotion in soldiers is
> good/necessary,when i don't really think that at all. i'm not wholly
> sure how we got here ...
>

OK this is the last post from me on the subject too, BUT I'm enjoying
the discussion and don't feel we have exhausted it. If you want to just
say, "it's how my universe is and that's that", (I know you aren't
saying that)  then I certainly can't argue with you. But I find it
interesting to hear other people's ideas on this subject.  I respect
your ideas. Also, when I read what you say, what comes to mind is
CYBORGS, which of course you mention further down in the post. With the
level of sophistication in tinkering with the human mind and neural nets
that your theory proposes, why risk a man at all? Sounds like a robot is
the natural route? (I know that's a whole 'nuther can of worms that has
been opened on this ML plenty of times.)

> so we use a neural net to handle things like image-processing, so that
> rather than spending time and effort thinking 'is that a soldier in
> that bush, or a rubbish bin?' you get an input (visual or neural, like
> a sudden realisation) that there is in fact an enemy hiding in that
> bush armed with a rocket launcher. it frees up time for
> decision-making and cuts down on information overload. in particular,
> it overcomes the visual bottleneck by going direct to the cortex.
>

Well, if you could ensure that your technology will always take the
guesswork out of identifying targets and threats, that will work fine,
but remember something: Every invention or technological advance has an
equal and opposite reaction. (Meaning more advanced ECM or whatever.) I
happen to be one that believes that the history of war, for all time,
will always (in part) be a story of technological parity. Meaning,
someone will come out with a weapon. There will be a short period of
advantage, then a counter will be developed and we will be back to rough
parity between weapon and countermeasure.

> if tim berners-lee's lab is anything like the computer labs i've been
> in, it's anything but sterile :-)
>

A neat desk being the sure sign of a sick mind? <g>

> i have no first-hand experience of armed combat (thank god), so i
> cannot be certain here, but from the rest of my experience as a human,
> i find it hard to believe that fear per se helps in combat. i can
> believe that the sharpened awareness brough on by fear helps
> enormously, but i think it can be achieved without fear. it's a
> question of training, neurochemistry and electronics.
>

Caveat here: (I know this is straying from PA) This is IMO, though there
have been many many excellent books written on this subject. I never
really had to explain this before to anyone, but here goes...

I've never known anyone, (besides someone who's insane I suppose), who's
ever been "without fear" in combat or in most dangerous situations. This
sentiment is also echoed by the vast majority of all combat vets in
print or whatever, that have ever cared to comment on the subject.
People will go to great lengths and varying degrees of success to "mask"
fear, or surpress its external symptoms, since for the vast majority of
soldiers in "normally" functioning units, it is the Fear of being afraid
that is the greatest fear of all. The actual fear of danger or death,
lays just below or just above your "consciousness"  (grasping for terms
here) Just to be a little bit funny, it's like a fart dying to come out!
Sometimes you have to consciously fight to keep it back lest those
around you (who are in fact doing the exact same thing), get a whiff of
that terrible odor of fear.

When all of the sudden, somebody decides to jump up in the face of great
danger and "do something", many times what they have done is said "fuck
it", I'll trust in fate. (this happens to me everytime I step out the
door of an airplane). OR their "blood" is up (fight or flight), and they
use that emotion combined with reason, to do something dangerous. (This
has happened to me too, especially when it's something dangerous like
clearing a building).

In all cases, fear also acts a check and balance to a reasonable person
to prevent rashness from getting them killed. Combat is also
competition, and things you might be tempted to do on the football
pitch, like make for a hole or make a sudden move here or there (equated
to the battlefield as perform a risk taking action), can lead you to
take a risk which will lead to your death. Fear retards this rashness,
which would get lots more people killed than normal. To some extent,
good judgment comes from fear. They are partners that work together to
control this sea of emotions that both fucks up your mind AND makes you
an effective soldier.

> i suppose that i'm not convinced that a 'regular' PA suit would even
> work. i still think that the user's muscles should be worked by the
> computer that works the suit, but certainly in cooperation with the
> brain. otherwise injury may result. if we go the 'hardwired' route,
> then the question is moot, as the machine becomes part of the man.

>

I just feel that the technology of negative feedback or whatever you
want to call it, would be much more readily attainable than the work
that needs to go in to monkeying with the brain at the level you are
talking about. However, I'll agree that the farther along we go in
technological evolution, the easier your level of sophistication
becomes. I guess part of my resistance to your theories is that it
strives to make combat, soulless, and flies in the face of everything
that is a soldier and that has always been a soldier. If you surpress
emotion, you have really created a robot or a cyborg, that's much less
human than I care to contemplate.

Keep inmind that if you are able to successfully supress these emotions
in your PA model, then you have just made warfare infinately more
deadly. Victory in comnbat has always been about defeating an enemy's
morale, or his will to resist. Very seldom are there battles of
annihlation.) Armies of PA troopers along your model have just had their
primary route to victory taken away from them. War in this case
resembles much closer two ant colnies fighting a battle of annihlation.
(Or a computer wargame with no morale rules)

(BTW have you ever witnessed this, it's very fascinating. TRUE STORY:
When I was a kid, I witnessed all the little red ants in my yard form up
in a column and march across the street, (where thousands were run over
along the way, and get into a huge goddamn war with all the little black
ants at the house where our bus stop was. The actual battle area was at
least one or one and a half meters in diamater. When we returned that
afternoon there was nothing but ant carcasses. What a sight! Why they
were fighting I will never know.)

> to recap your muscle memory statement, i would add that i have 'java
> memory'. some bits of a program - 'main' methods, some sorts of i/o
> operations, gui setup - are second nature; i don't need to think when
> i write them, just type. i think that the brain's ability to adapt to
> new extensions to its domain - tools, guitars, programming languages
> and power armour - is tremendous.
>

Agreed, and I believe that the most effective PA set up is a combination
of both yours and mine trains of thought. I will be addressing these
issues extensively in a latter section of my Rot Hafen story. Thanks for
the ideas.

Los