Re: Tech Levels and Quality was Re: DS3 design (long)

 
In a message dated 9/25/04 9:44:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:

G'day  guys,

A question for those more learned in military history than I.  What
battles can you name where a technologically inferior force has beaten 
a
force equipped with technologically superior equpipment? I don't  know
much about modern history but I have the impression (may be 
erroneously)
that the Vietnamese vs the French for one and the Soviets  beating the
Nazis for another probably fall into that basket (at least for	parts of
the war). So for those cases where an inferior army has come out,  has
it
required particularly gifted leaders or specific terrain  cirumstances
(like guerrilla fighting) to pull it  off?

Cheers

Beth

Beth, there are specific examples in other replies but let's take a 
look at 
your field -- some funny sea worms <grin> Marine Biology  (which I know
a 
smidgen about admittedly -- like how it's  spelled).
 
You (in theory since I don't know CSIRO's budget) have access to  modern

underwater gear for hands on research (both personal and remote 
control;) 
computers for information storage, analysis and presentation, not  to
mention contact 
via Internet/e-mail with other scientists in your field; Book  and
on-line 
resources to find what work other people have done; and reliable 
vessels to 
take you to research sites in the ocean.
 
Say you forsook all that to compete in research carnivorous mud  puppies
that 
entice their prey by singing Elvis songs.  You either ignored  what the 
technology told you or spun the results to meet you desires (That mud 
puppies can 
actually sing and they like Elvis,) you did your research by  interviews
with 
fishermen who thought the mud puppies were responsible for the	drop in
their 
catches in the last few years (despite double the number of  fishermen
from 15 
to 30 boats in a small cove;) you failed to listen to other  scientists
who 
where experts in the regions (some even had some knowledge of mud 
puppies in 
similar coves), and had the fisherman draw sketches of the singing  mud
puppies 
("Oh, they are too smart to be caught Missy") and you rejected the 
computer 
analysis of the data ("It has a piece of processed sand for it's 
brain!")
 
Another researcher using a leaky catamaran; skin diving equipment; 
1970's 
underwater cameras; selected samples of Mud puppies caught, observed and
 even a 
few dissected ("Look, no vocal cords") and an ATARI 1040 ST was used to 

process the data collected.
 
Odds are your opponent's report is going to be viewed more  favorably 
(immediately and later after other research confirms Mud Puppies don't 
sing and 
those sealed speakers in the water were the source of the Elvis Music) 
then 
yours.	And with reason, you violated basic scientific tenets, ignored 
the 
information the computer gave or could have given you, and judged the
events	by what 
you wanted.  In my field we do that level of analysis 'some times'  when
we 
mirror our cultural values in another culture (India in the last Atomic 
test, 
Saddam just before Kuwait) among other miscues.
 
High tech used poorly or basic reality ignored can let the smart  low
tech 
opponent give you a big black eye.  Or worse..,
 
Gracias,

Glenn  "warbeads"