Jump to content

US hopes to build insect spies


backnblack
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is that the excuse? -_-

Call it what you will. I don't think that this particular thing is something that will be used to "invade air space." It is more of a tactical ground weapon. However, we have invaded air space via satellite for years but I think that for the most part we officially request permission to enter sovereign nation's air space....not to say we always play fair. the stealth jet--or whatever it is called--came into being after one of our spy planes was shot down over the USSR in the early 60s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it what you will. I don't think that this particular thing is something that will be used to "invade air space." It is more of a tactical ground weapon. However, we have invaded air space via satellite for years but I think that for the most part we officially request permission to enter sovereign nation's air space....not to say we always play fair. the stealth jet--or whatever it is called--came into being after one of our spy planes was shot down over the USSR in the early 60s.

The b-1 bomber?

Why oh why would anyone want to shoot down the U2 spy plane in their own airspace? Oh, those dirty Commies and their evil ways. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The b-1 bomber?

Why oh why would anyone want to shoot down the U2 spy plane in their own airspace? Oh, those dirty Commies and their evil ways. -_-

not bombers- recon aircraft like the SR-71 Blackbird, though i think they retired that one.

anyway, the future really looks like it's going to be some 1984/Minority Report ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all was fair, the Geneva code wouldn't be in place.

It seems that "all is fair until you get unfair with us and try guerrilla tactics."

Truthfully, the Geneva code is kind of a joke and has been ignored countless times in war. All bets are off when someone starts losing. The Geneva Code is for the first half. After the two minute warning all is fair. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truthfully, the Geneva code is kind of a joke and has been ignored countless times in war. All bets are off when someone starts losing. The Geneva Code is for the first half. After the two minute warning all is fair. ;)

Except for guerrilla tactics, right? ;)

We expect everyone to just run into an open battlefield so we can bomb them and any other tactic is unfair!

I believe it is mainly this country that cries about unfair fights. Other countries try to adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for guerrilla tactics, right? ;)

We expect everyone to just run into an open battlefield so we can bomb them and any other tactic is unfair!

I believe it is mainly this country that cries about unfair fights. Other countries try to adapt.

Who said we expect that? If we expected that we would not even be making this weapon. We defeated the British army by often using guerilla tactics. what are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said we expect that? If we expected that we would not even be making this weapon. We defeated the British army by often using guerilla tactics. what are you talking about?

Inner city combat is labeled cowardly and a terror tactic. That's what I'm talking about. When you push natives into their own city, what aree they supposed to do, just run out in the open blasting AK fire at Tanks?

It's not new that this country complains of Guerrilla warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if there is one thing the US is good at, it's war. not just "open battlefield" conventional 20th-century tactics and all that- but assymetrical warfare too.

Americans practically invented modern guerilla warfare, BTW.

Um, Vietnam....Afghanistan and Iraq are classic examples of how our military can't handle the tactics.

This country is an open battlefield type of military. It is known that to give our military a hard time, take it to a different type of battle. America can't win it because they try to play the PR war, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inner city combat is labeled cowardly and a terror tactic. That's what I'm talking about. When you push natives into their own city, what aree they supposed to do, just run out in the open blasting AK fire at Tanks?

It's not new that this country complains of Guerrilla warfare.

The country complains about warfare, period, as they should. Now, if you are talking about the IED type tactics there might be some folks who call that "unfair" or guerilla warfare. I'm not one of them. Like I say, all is fair in war. We are typically fighting an enemy who does not give us the courtesy of wearing a uniform. No one is going to go toe to toe with us in conventional warfare tactics. We spend 47% of the money spent worldwide on the military, I think. As far as "complaining" about tactics I think the complaint that is often lodged is how the "guerilla" warfare uses innocents to hide behind and it is our unwillingness for the most part--and properly so--to indiscriminately kill these people in an effort to get the bad guys that hamstrings us. OTOH, this is often thrown out the window in tactical air strike situations. This is why--to me--a weapon such as this can ultimately save the lives of innocents, i.e, collateral damage. Rather than blowing up a building or whatever to get the target we could send something like this in. Whether it works our or not is another thing but in theory it sounds good to me. I think what you may be trying to say is, "Where does guerilla warfare end and terrorism begin?" that is the million--or actually 500 billion--dollar question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, Vietnam....Afghanistan and Iraq are classic examples of how our military can't handle the tactics.

This country is an open battlefield type of military. It is known that to give our military a hard time, take it to a different type of battle. America can't win it because they try to play the PR war, as well.

how you figure? Vietnam and Iraq are examples of political wars where we couldn't acheive a political-idealogical victory. you're sorely mistaken if you don't think the US put a SERIOUS licking on the enemy in either instance.

we lost 60,000 men in Vietnam, but probably killed 100s of thousands of Viet Cong (and civilians too, but that's another story). the proportion is even more lopsided for the US in Iraq with our long-range precision weapons and advances in medicine and body armor.

true, the military was overwhelmingly configured for a conventional tank war in Europe with the Soviets, but that has been constantly changing since the 90s. we have become more and more geared toward light forces suitable for urban combat and assymetric warfare.

honestly we'd have a tougher time (more US losses) against a country with a real modern military and actual air defense than we do against "terrorists" and "insurgents".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how you figure? Vietnam and Iraq are examples of political wars where we couldn't acheive a political-idealogical victory. you're sorely mistaken if you don't think the US put a SERIOUS licking on the enemy in either instance.

we lost 60,000 men in Vietnam, but probably killed 100s of thousands of Viet Cong (and civilians too, but that's another story). the proportion is even more lopsided for the US in Iraq with our long-range precision weapons and advances in medicine and body armor.

true, the military was overwhelmingly configured for a conventional tank war in Europe with the Soviets, but that has been constantly changing since the 90s. we have become more and more geared toward light forces suitable for urban combat and assymetric warfare.

honestly we'd have a tougher time (more US losses) against a country with a real modern military and actual air defense than we do against "terrorists" and "insurgents".

Ask any Vietvet, they will laugh at that number of Americans lost.

The numbers were downplayed in effort to improve morale.

Over the long haul, "terrorists" and insurgents will cause more casualties. The fighting will NEVER end. Therefore, if you can't win the war with their tactics, you aren't good at that warfare. After all, the whole objective is to win, not look good. In those tactics, we do not win. Afghanistan is still a battleground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country complains about warfare, period, as they should. Now, if you are talking about the IED type tactics there might be some folks who call that "unfair" or guerilla warfare. I'm not one of them. Like I say, all is fair in war. We are typically fighting an enemy who does not give us the courtesy of wearing a uniform. No one is going to go toe to toe with us in conventional warfare tactics. We spend 47% of the money spent worldwide on the military, I think. As far as "complaining" about tactics I think the complaint that is often lodged is how the "guerilla" warfare uses innocents to hide behind and it is our unwillingness for the most part--and properly so--to indiscriminately kill these people in an effort to get the bad guys that hamstrings us. OTOH, this is often thrown out the window in tactical air strike situations. This is why--to me--a weapon such as this can ultimately save the lives of innocents, i.e, collateral damage. Rather than blowing up a building or whatever to get the target we could send something like this in. Whether it works our or not is another thing but in theory it sounds good to me. I think what you may be trying to say is, "Where does guerilla warfare end and terrorism begin?" that is the million--or actually 500 billion--dollar question.

but how is it that they are "hiding" behind innocents? inner city combat always has innocence around. Again, that is the thinking that they are supposed to just run out into the open and say "hey, I'm the enemy!" It isn't hiding simply because they don't put on identifying uniforms. That's called camouflage. If all is fair like you say, how is it "hiding?" When you invade other countries, of course the enemy will be around other natives in the country. It's not like everyone is going to agree to meet in the middle of the ocean at a certain time like some ridiculous internet brawl gone wrong.

I'm not asking that million dollar question. The answer is subjective. The closest answer is that in the PR war, when they can defeat them, it is labeled Guerrilla warfare, when they cannot defeat them, they are labeled terrorists. Each label has a way of protecting morale.

You may not complain about those tactics but MANY do, including our own military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask any Vietvet, they will laugh at that number of Americans lost.

The numbers were downplayed in effort to improve morale.

Over the long haul, "terrorists" and insurgents will cause more casualties. The fighting will NEVER end. Therefore, if you can't win the war with their tactics, you aren't good at that warfare. After all, the whole objective is to win, not look good. In those tactics, we do not win. Afghanistan is still a battleground.

my dad and 2 of my uncles are vietnam vets, as are several business associates of mine. i've never heard anyone say anything like that. i'm sure the media downplayed it and supported the gov't at the time (like they always do), but we have a pretty complete and accurate account of our losses in Vietnam these days.

how do you figure we lose more in guerilla war? i strongly disagree. for example, if N Korea decided it wanted to invade the south and cross the DMZ, you'd probably see more American deaths in a couple hours than we've seen in the entirety of this "war on terror".

the goal of guerrillas is to draw out the conflict until the US public loses its taste for war. it's not "the US can't fight that way and we can beat them like this".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my dad and 2 of my uncles are vietnam vets, as are several business associates of mine. i've never heard anyone say anything like that. i'm sure the media downplayed it and supported the gov't at the time (like they always do), but we have a pretty complete and accurate account of our losses in Vietnam these days.

how do you figure we lose more in guerilla war? i strongly disagree. for example, if N Korea decided it wanted to invade the south and cross the DMZ, you'd probably see more American deaths in a couple hours than we've seen in the entirety of this "war on terror".

the goal of guerrillas is to draw out the conflict until the US public loses its taste for war. it's not "the US can't fight that way and we can beat them like this".

If the failure of victory is not defeat, what is?

Submission is defeat, isn't it? :huh:

The numbers aren't correct, just like facts about Agent Orange haven't been exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...