Posted on 07/30/2016 9:46:11 AM PDT by Signalman
Ping
I remember that. Bill Clinton sold American security for cash. I know, let’s elect his wife!
I don’t think it takes a bold prediction to recognize that warfare will change drastically with unmanned “smart” robots on the battlefield. Heck, in 10 or 20 years we will likely see robotic long haul freight trucks, autopilot cars, and potentially unmanned airliners. You will probably only see a crew of one or two at fast food restaurants and no cashiers at big box stores (RF chips on/in products).
The world will change in ways that would shock us today and that will certainly be true for warfare. Right now, the West, and particularly the U.S., appears to have an advantage going into this era. The Chinese, masters at stealing and copying our technology, will close the gap with us if their economic surge continues.
The lesser nations will stand little chance in warfare under those conditions. This will mean that the most powerful economy (i.e. - the one with the most resources to manufacture the weapons) will probably win.
In 20 years or less I believe most of us will grocery shop online and an electric smart car will deliver them to us keeping them refrigerated/frozen the whole way. All of this technology will be applied to warfare in ways we can imagine, but also in many ways we can’t because the technology is not yet real to us or even known.
As for the economics of warfare the prize will go to the country that can manage and mass produce the better technology...
Production and cost per worker varies per country.
The populations of countries like China @ 1.3 billion, then India @ 1.2 billion and then USA @ .3 billion may proportionately affect the number and quality of engineers and skilled labor to build the robots.
The availability of capital, quality of security, ingenuity and good leadership are always keys to military success.
For the USA to simply spend the most money does not guarantee anything.
No it doesn’t, but when better machines are better manufacturing employees in the technology race - wealth and technology is a curve that has little to do with population and more to do with education.
Despite our educational deficiencies, our culture still appears to create the most people who think outside the box. That is the American ideal and an innate advantage in our engineers, designers, and even our soldiers. We think for ourselves and we are not afraid to try something new. Those are concepts that are not always welcomed in our competitors. We are a uniquely inventive culture - unparalleled in history. God help us if that ever changes!
This is one of the main reasons why school choice is so important and top down edicts like common core are so corrosive. We have to get our children’s minds out of the happy meal box that progressive ideology has stuck them in - our very survival depends on it and it is one of the reasons I am a big proponent (and practitioner) of home schooling.
My wife is a public education teacher in a hitech community. We both fully support other more agressive schooling.
Many of her best students are Asian of foreign parents that now live here
The demographics of how many gifted kids is not just by population but by race (though politically incorrect to mention) much of our population is from lower performing races.
By population alone the USA is out numbered 7 to 1 by China and India. The age of these populations vary w India having the higher average youth
My wife’s point is the value placed on education by these other societies is
Greater than the average American family holds their kids accountable. Asian kids work harder than US
I agree that once machines are making machines the dynamic changes but the timing of using that technology and continued obsolescence also affects outcomes.
I would expect some countries may be willing to assert its advantage where other countries may not have as aggressive tendencies.
Regardless there are interesting times ahead.
Valid points. Few people consider how education fuels the defense of our nation. We miss that point at our own peril as we move into a different era of warfare and technology.
Amen to that.
The Russians have commissioned one of their “new” submarines, the Yassen, in the last 12 years. They may be about to get the second one out.
They are decent boats.
But they are not as good as the Virginia class that the US is building,.
And...in the same time, the US Navy has now commissioned 12 of the new (and better) Virginia Class SSNs, launched two more, and has four more under construction, with ten more after that already funded.
IOW, there will be 18 Virginia’s prowling the sea about the same time the Russians commission their 2nd Yassen.
And probably before they commission their 3rd, there will be over two dozen Virginia class.
The Russians are capable of building some decent equipment...but it is usually brute force, has electronics that are problematic, and right now, they simply do not have the money to build very many of anything or sustain it on a global scale.
Now, could these individual Russian units dangerous? Yes, they could be...but they would be quickly hunted down and overwhelmed by the better, and much more numerous US submarines and ASW surface warships and aircraft.
Agreed. Think there’s value in how tech has enhanced personal entertainment.
The need for war could diminish if everyone played more
Peace thru entertainment.
I don’t think so. There talking about some staggering hull pressures and as one poster said serious communication issues. Even at 2000 meters that means over 6500ft down.
When did army become a nautical term?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.