From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!sdr57 Wed Sep 16 21:23:07 EDT 1992
Article 6889 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:6889 rec.arts.sf.misc:3114 alt.cyberpunk:1628
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!sdr57
>From: sdr57@cas.org
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Message-ID: <1992Sep11.230936.14718@cas.org>
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:09:36 GMT
References: <4SEP199212055495@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1992Sep10.172333.4545@oracle.us.oracle.com> <11SEP199212055913@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Sender: usenet@cas.org
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Lines: 51

In article <11SEP199212055913@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>
>O.K., give the infantry all kinds of high-tech electronic equipment.  Train
>them on it.  Make them dependant on it.  Then put them up against a third world
>army who is medium or low tech, but has a number of cheap tactical nukes made
>from materials supplied by Iran who bought their nuclear capabilities from
>China (see the news from this last week).  The high tech soldiers move in, only
>to have all of their electronics (visual, audio, communications, cooling vests,
>etc.) wiped out by an electromagnetic puslse from a nuke which was detonated
>overhead.

Using a cheap tactical nuke against a country which has a lot
of expensive tactical nukes (not to mention a lot of really
expensive strategic nukes) is probably not a real good idea.
Generally, weapons of mass destruction are not used against
enemies who can retaliate in kind. The use of poison gas in
WWI came about because it was expected to be a war-winning
surprise. In WWII, neither the Axis or the Allies used it
because both sides knew the other had it. Iraq used chemical
weapons freely against the Iranians and the Kurds, but
did not use them against the Coalition forces: this was
certainly not due to any sudden feeling by Mr. Hussein that
such weapons were immoral. It probably had a lot to do with
our public and private messages that we would get *really* mad
if anybody did something like that.

>             It doesn't even need to drop on them.  They are now back to
>hand-to-hand combat against a foe who has been trained to fight that way.
>
>Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it can't.
>
>Dr. Forbin

I will agree that an overdependence on technology is dangerous,
but at the same time you must use technology as a force multiplier
unless you are willing to maintain extremely large standing armies.
Given that the United States wishes to maintain a small volunteer
army, that army is going to need a lot of technology. Of course,
there are advantages to small professional armies. For one thing,
you can train them very well. This training might even include
some practice in hand-to-hand combat.

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts


