Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAgain
the "foundations" of your assumptions could also change. For instance,
the ground that people fight over may not be different, but "LOS" may
very
well be different - neutrino or X-ray detectors may see through
buildings
and regular geological features but diffract in unique ways on metal or
high
density ceramics, UAV's may be micronized and every soldier equipped
with a
loadout of 100's that are considered expendable and thus provide 360
degree
views from altitudes up to hundreds of meters or can be sent into
buildings
and tunnels or other difficult to see places.

Redefining LOS means that weapons, such as self-directed propelled
grenades
may be the round of the future - a soldier merely designates a target
using
a remote UAV, points his weapon upward and fires a 20mm round that then
directs itself to the target.

LOS may also be redefined as velocity of projectiles increase - In
Desert
Storm 40 to 60 foot thick sand berms were no obstacle to the DU
penetrators
fired by M1 tanks. Irqai tanks were located by the heat signature of
their
exhaust floating above the tank - there was no direct LOS with the
target.
If infantry weapons can achieve that type of kinetic energy in a
projectile,
your current standards for cover - brick walls, ditches, hills,
buildings
are moot and provide roughly the same kind of cover as a bedsheet.

Having a human in the loop is really only required if you have some
reason
to discriminate a target for some reason- i.e. conserve ammo or reduce
friendly damage.  If a computer can scan, track and fire at hundreds of
targets simultaneously, it should probably be in charge of firing.  For
instance, if a hypervelocity missile is coming at you, human reflexes
can't
operate fast enough to engage a defensive system - it should be computer
run.  If a soldier is presented with 50 simultaneous targets and has the
capability to shoot at all 50 at the same time, it would take a
significant
amount of time for a human to verify each target and pull the trigger 50
times.	A computer would process the target requirements and fire at all
50
within seconds.

Humans will play the role of "tactical" co-ordinators - their weapons
will
be mere extensions of their thoughts.  Humans will provide the
parameters,
but will leave the actual firing and target selection to computers.

--Binhan

On 2/5/08, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I think the original question may have been framed to narrowly and
> everyone
> has focussed on the weapon system exclusively.
>
> If defensive technologies keep pace with offensive weapons and sensors
> then
> ranges for equal technologies might keep the same.
>
> However a higer tech force maywell be able to detect a lower tech
force at
> much longer range and with LOS range weapons engage at much longer
ranges
> than their opponents.
>
> At high tech levels each trooper may be inside their own suit that
masks
> infrared signatures and projects visible light chameleon camoflage to
> belnd
> in with their environments.
>
> Maybe the sensors to detect such targets actually detect the EM
leakage of
> such suits or use mass spectrometers to detect the atmosphere gases
> emitted
> by the suits. Maybe no one bothers with infrared scanners at high tech
> because everything is IR shielded.
>
> It could also be true that such sensors would not work so well against
> lower
> tech troopers because they don't have any smart gear that emits energy
> signatures to lock onto.
>
> So it's a circular argument imagining technologies that could exist. I
> think
> you want to define the type of universe that makes for a good game and
use
> whatever PSB you want to support that type of view
>
> Two things that won't change much one is the nature of the ground
people
> fight on. Unless you are fighting on a giant lakebed most ground is
very
> wrinkled over distances of a few hundred metres. It's not hard to
imagine
> troopers able to find LOS cover up to short ranges. That's not
counting
> environments like jungles or built up areas where LOS engagements
might be
> very small.
>
> The other thing that isn't likely to change is the human usng the gun.
In
> a
> few hundred years people won't naturally have evolved much so will
still
> process information at the same speed as they do today. A computer can
do
> a
> lot of the work sorting and classifying targets but it's still a human
> that
> makes the decision to fire and that take time. If you want to get into
> areas
> of bioenhancement, genetic modifcation and other parahuman
transformation
> technologies then human reactions and procesing capabilities might
well
> become orders of magnitude faster. That's then a direct challange to
the
> definition of what it means to be human.
>
> Genetically enhanced, vat grown clone soldiers with the downloaded
minds
> of
> experienced combat veterans. These could be substantially tougher
faster,
> stronger and far braver than normal humans with any kind of
weaponsystems.
>
> There's a miriad of alternatives out there about how technoloiges
might
> grown and develop and who is to say that one is more likely than
another?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>