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

On Feb 8, 2008 7:30 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:

> Not sure if it's up to a sea change just yet, but 'within 200 years'
seems
> a more conservative than necessary.
>
> For the romantics amongst us, the same rationalization as with
> biologic/nano warfare may gloss this over; if one side or the other
has the
> advantage, there's no contest, and therefore, no game. Otherwise,
there's
> still room for PBI.

You know, even when it is the Talon clearing the IED in the alleyway,
it's still the Soldier on the security cordon that gets the chai from
the little girl whose daddy is grateful that his kids didn't stumble
into it.

Wars are fought to control populations and resources.  Even the
Mongols didn't fight to eradicate the entire population--just a large
enough proportion to control the rest by fear.	That will be the
province of people.

UAVs are taking over airpower because air combat is relatively simple,
essentially a matter of basic physical laws and fought in a
featureless mass of air.  And they are still human-guided.  I can see
full robot fighters relatively soon, but not robot or even remote
infantry.  Introduce complex terrain and non-combatants, and it will
be more difficult for some software geek to write code to control
them.  Especially as playing video games doesn't introduce you to the
principles involved in quite the same way.

> Or, as we in the gentleman's service say, "Nuke the site from orbit;
it's
> the only way to be sure."

Yeah, because that's the best way to control resources and
populations--render them into an unusable mass of radioactive waste.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l