Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57
  1. #11
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by BobCox2 View Post
    It's a basic principle 1 wounded ties up more of the enemy than one dead and all modern high end bullets are built to take advantage of it as well so it's not 1st vs 3rd world is any more moral.
    I was making specific reference to the tendency of insurgents to terrorize their own "host" populace. It's a constant, and not particularly surprising, yet the Left-leaning media tends to gloss it over because they have a soft spot in their heart for the perpetrators. You can find examples in Ireland, Italy, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Central America, Africa - pretty much world over. When your forces are amongst the criminal scum of the populace, it's hardly a great leap from criminal activity for personal gain to politically-motivated criminal activity.
    Quote Originally Posted by BobCox2 View Post
    Or better yet how to avoid one you don't want too live in, in the first place...
    I suppose one thing every individual must determine is how inhumane their own side truly is. I tend to bet on the civilized side, even when they lose.

    One of the most noteworthy films during my ethical training was from WW1, I believe, when a soldier refused to kill supposed partisans, left the firing squad, and was gunned down by his comrades as one of the partisans.

  2. #12
    IncGamers Member Ash Housewares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Surrounded by Primitive Screwheads
    Posts
    21,990

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    I stopped reading that article when it misused decimated

    I mean, I use it a bit too literally, but it seems too weak a word when you're talking about 75-100% of a population instead of 10%

    Also I don't really see the relevance of red coats considering it was the era of black powder when you couldn't see anything anyway, and people had to stand to reload. As soon as there were decent breech loading repeating rifles the Prussians had no problems lying prone and shooting the poor dumb Austrian bastards that had to stand to reload.

    Eh I'll give the article you linked another chance

    and now I'm done with it and its agenda thumping

  3. #13
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash Housewares View Post
    I stopped reading that article when it misused decimated
    For God's sake, you criticize an article but don't even identify who posted it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash Housewares View Post
    and now I'm done with it and its agenda thumping
    I'm guessing it was one of mine, you one-trick pony? Decimation would be in terms of the overall Turkish population, or perhaps meaning the areas where Christians lived in Turkey.

  4. #14
    IncGamers Member Ash Housewares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Surrounded by Primitive Screwheads
    Posts
    21,990

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    oh yea, sorry, it was the one you linked

  5. #15
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    7,007

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    So far, here and in another forum I have posted in, I have yet to see any argument against the use of drones that makes any sense whatsoever. Not even a glimmer. I was really hoping that someone would take a stab at that.

    Another thing I haven't seen in this thread, or in the other one, is a discussion of the issue regarding so called "robot warriors". These are systems that employ killing force without the direct and ongoing input of human beings. Think Robocop "You have twenty seconds to comply" type robots. How are we on that issue?

  6. #16
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    and in another forum I have posted in
    Why, you two-timing little...
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Not even a glimmer. I was really hoping that someone would take a stab at that.
    See, you don't have the advantage of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour, and in particular the great Ron White:

    "You can't fix stupid" (a little NSFW language)



    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Another thing I haven't seen in this thread, or in the other one, is a discussion of the issue regarding so called "robot warriors". These are systems that employ killing force without the direct and ongoing input of human beings. Think Robocop "You have twenty seconds to comply" type robots. How are we on that issue?
    Well, if you REALLY want to discuss it, I'm up for the task - not a true expert, but I played one in the Army. The weakness of these systems is the same as any automated system which you give killing power to, such as the "follow on"/"wingman" vehicles or even the armed drones currently in use. Do you really want to trust the visual uplink to determine the true circumstances of a combat scenario, or are you okay with going in guns a'blazin'? You'll recall what that little fey pervert from Wikileaks did with a completely legitimate combat scenario which is now infamous:



    THAT engagement was caused by use of Apache optics, which are incredibly high-quality. I remember trying to run down what I thought could have been an RPG team dodging through a bunker system, but what could have just as legitimately been some kind of kangaroo rat or even just 'blips' on the night vision gear. If visual systems are capable of such bad distortion as mistaking a camera for an AK, or a kangaroo rat for an RPG gunner, just imagine how much more dangerous autonomous systems could be!

  7. #17
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    7,007

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    The problems with a guy on an air force base in ****berg, La and what he can see on his Satellite feed aren't really all that different from what a human riding an Apache can see on his monitors right there at the scene of the battle. In both cases, it's likely that the visibility is equal to or better than that of a grunt on the ground. Seems like a nonsense argument to me.

    It's a battle - you can see stuff or you can't, that's war for you. No one's wearing the necessary white and black hats.

  8. #18
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    In both cases, it's likely that the visibility is equal to or better than that of a grunt on the ground. Seems like a nonsense argument to me.
    Utterly false, as any Infantryman could tell you. There's a reason for the hackneyed reference to the "Mark 1 Eyeball" - sensors and optics can be tricked or obscured. In part, it may be because of our animal nature and the ways our brain processes work; one perfect example is the number of aviation accidents caused specifically due to reliance on night-vision devices which collapse our inherent range-finding instincts due to the single optic sensor and the flat screen.

    In a similar vein, a combat mini-mission referred to in my era as the "Leader's Recon" involves the immediate leadership of an attack physically creeping up to a vantage point and physically looking over the terrain, and hopefully even the enemy. You've heard of "Situational Awareness"? You don't have that with optics, any more than you get it with relying on instruments in flight.



    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    It's a battle - you can see stuff or you can't, that's war for you. No one's wearing the necessary white and black hats.

  9. #19
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    7,007

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Utterly false, as any Infantryman could tell you. There's a reason for the hackneyed reference to the "Mark 1 Eyeball" - sensors and optics can be tricked or obscured. In part, it may be because of our animal nature and the ways our brain processes work; one perfect example is the number of aviation accidents caused specifically due to reliance on night-vision devices which collapse our inherent range-finding instincts due to the single optic sensor and the flat screen.
    So the Mk1 eyeball can see heat signatures inside building? And can see over walls and around corners? And stuff? Are you certain that isn't the Mk2 eyeball you're describing there?

    In a similar vein, a combat mini-mission referred to in my era as the "Leader's Recon" involves the immediate leadership of an attack physically creeping up to a vantage point and physically looking over the terrain, and hopefully even the enemy. You've heard of "Situational Awareness"? You don't have that with optics, any more than you get it with relying on instruments in flight.
    Cool. So satellite and drone imaging systems are essentially blind. They see nothing. Good to know.

    I understand that the Airplane movies are now used to train pilots and air traffic controllers. I love those movies

    Say what now?

    Oh yeah. Call of Duty, that's that x-box game my older son plays. A very immersive looking FPS but I prefer watching him play GTA (which I gather is used by police forces to train recruits, by driving schools to train their students and by mobsters, cos ... heh ... good times )

  10. #20
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: The Ethics of Warfare, Pt XXII

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    So the Mk1 eyeball can see heat signatures inside building? And can see over walls and around corners? And stuff? Are you certain that isn't the Mk2 eyeball you're describing there?
    Despite your fail at snark, my point still beats the snot out of your point. Sensors, including night vision, are simply incapable of granting situational awareness, where eyes are. At some point in the far future, when the ****berg USAF is flying their Wonder Woman Invisible Planes from the comfort of a Star Trek TNG-style holodeck, it is possible that true situational awareness might be achieved.

    Until then, here's the best simulation that the Army has to offer (a slightly advanced version of the SIMNET I used 20 years ago, coded in ADA):


    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Cool. So satellite and drone imaging systems are essentially blind. They see nothing. Good to know.
    Happy to have attempted to educate you - sadly, I think you're unable to absorb the instruction and the underlying lesson.

    Satellites and drones, insofar as I've ever been aware, have no optics processing capability - beyond, perhaps, condensing the information into an encrypted stream for transfer back to their human controller. The processing power required for them to be able to "see" as you imagine they are able to is radically greater than their capability, and would add a huge price tag.

    These "TV guided" systems are generally not even in service any longer; they worked on the basis of what I wrote that bachelors' degree paper about (also many years ago). They take a snapshot image of their aiming point, and then continue to "zoom in" on the target at the center of the image. If the image somehow could change shape, the missile would have lost tracking. The only one I'm aware of that had been widely employed was the AGM-65 Maverick missile, a tank-buster, and the bulk of those actually used IR imaging (as does the only other one I found, the Israeli Spike) or laser guidance, so that the big "hot spot" in the image prevented the need for extensive automated image analysis.
    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Say what now?
    Not paying attention in class - three demerits. Wait, you were the one who asked - make it five.

    EDIT - Also found the one for Aviation, which I remembered from back then -


    There was a reason the Apache and Warthog pilots not only slaughtered the Marines' LAVs in the battle of Kafji (which has been covered up) but also your Tommies in Warrior APC's - it is because the lack of visual observation and vehicle familiarity. When soldiers have to spend more time taking sexual sensitivity training, or three times as much on racial sensitivity training, then they do in learning threat identification, it's a wonder more friendly fire incidents don't occur.

    You work with tech; I'd hardly have expected to hear you being a "magic bullet" proponent.
    Last edited by jmervyn; 01-05-2013 at 18:23.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •