Sensors

Smoke? Chemicals? Something that reacts with optical sensors not coated 
with "X" optical coating? Nanites? What have you. 

** And these won't bother or affect the human? Hmm. let's see. he's
looking
through an open eye or through a lens. If I can fox a camera lens, I can
fox
his goggles/mask. If I can hit the sensors (distributed as they are and
hardened as they are), his ass is grass. The same Nanites that can take
out
hardened sensors ought to smoke him some good. And smoke and chemicals
that
force him and his crew to fight MOPP4 are pretty great too. 

** 

If theyare reading in EM spectrum other than light we already fox
radars,
and 
heat seekers just fine.

However we do not have the "all-seeing" sensors yet - so no one ahs
foxed 
them.

** Not deployed in tanks, but in other fields synthetic vision is pretty
far
along (not compared to where it will be, but in terms of approaching
deployable state). Airlines and military aviation are working on (maybe
deploying already) systems that use a composite of many sensor types and
fooling one of them won't cut it. And if I can fox these things, I can
fox
the human eye EASIER (this might mean taking out the human...
permanently). 

** You don't think the passenger airliner is a place where perception is
important? They are headed to synthetic vision for its great all weather
capability and higher SA. 

** However, it appears just about all that can be said has been. Both
sides
in this debate appear polarized. Perhaps we should let it die and get on
to
new subjects where people might actually do more than cling to their
versions of reality <*grin*>. I'm willing to concede an extra set of
eyes
has some advantages. Whether they are offset by costs I'm still
unconvinced.
I'm willing to concede that today eyeballing the situation is fine. In
the
future, you may well have better perceptions and more data in a useful
form
(no info overload) at hand INSIDE the vehicle. Maybe not. I can agree to
disagree with the proponents of the "mine eyes must see it" school of
thought. I'm just glad the space program isn't full of them.... they
learned
you can trust your equipment (most of the time) and you have to have
that
trust to accomplish some jobs. I suspect if everyone had the "eyes are
better" point of view, we'd never have developed a robotics industry,
today's sytethetic vision systems, night vision, etc..... 

** Whereas I agree that any system can be foxed, you get around that by
layering your systems. And if you can fox all those sensor types, then
why
not just think the tank into exploding? It'd be less work. And the Human
is
far less capable as far as perceptions and so probably more easily foxed
yet. Ultimately we are a system just like a mechanical system. Unlike a
mechanical system or electronic system, it is arguable if we've been
getting
smaller, faster, more capable, and tougher by the generation....

Thomas Barclay