From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!news.dell.com!milano!cactus.org!wixer!sparky Wed Sep 16 21:23:43 EDT 1992
Article 6936 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!news.dell.com!milano!cactus.org!wixer!sparky
>From: sparky@wixer.cactus.org (timothy sheridan)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Message-ID: <1992Sep16.021920.9296@wixer.cactus.org>
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:19:20 GMT
References: <s3NXqB1w165w@rivdell.sccsi.com> <swarner.01tv@bbs1984.chi.il.us>
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Lines: 72

In article <swarner.01tv@bbs1984.chi.il.us> swarner@bbs1984.chi.il.us (Steve Wa
rner) writes:
>In article <s3NXqB1w165w@rivdell.sccsi.com>, megazone@rivdell.sccsi.com
>(Megazoner) writes:
>>rwmurphr@crusader.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>>
>>> according to an article in the last month or so of new scientist.
>>> The soldier of tomorrow will carry a laser to blind other soldiers.
>>> and wear goggles to save his own eyes.  Expect battlefield opthalmalic
>>> surgery to be a big part of 21rst century MASH units.
>>
>>
>> Here's my $2.0x10^-2 worth...
>>
>> Having been an infantry soldier, I found that using all sorts of high
>>tech didn't help me very much while dodging bullets. Most of it we stored
>>in the IFV, which we always expected to blow up when it hit the front
>>lines. (Fortunately, this did not occur in Iraq. It's a long walk
>>anywhere.)
>>
>> All we ever wanted was lighter stuff. Big death rays would be nice, but
>>do you want to carry that stuff 30 miles? Humping batteries for the radio
>>was a pain as it was, imagine the cell for a portable laser...I routinely
>>discarded my flak vest 'cos it was too heavy and wouldn't stop much
>>anyway, just grenade fragments. I'm more worried about concussion.
>>
>> What can one improve with conventional weapons? All the neat new stuff
>>would break down after minimal use, cracked, peeled, dented, abused and
>>rattled about. You gonna tell me that the lenses on a heavy laser are
>>gonna last mounted on a tank moving in rough terrain? The ranging laser
>>on the M1 had those problems, even with turret stabilization.
>>
>> Give me lighter night vision stuff, lighter ammo, a bigger rifle that's
>>lighter than the last, and heavy artillery support.
>>
>> Besides, lasers are active emissions. I used to watch 'em and figure out
>>where the tanks were before they saw me. Result, dead tank.
>>
>>
>>--
>....and here's my .02 cents worth.
>     I've worked with lasers for about 20 years now. Current technology using
>MBE (Multiple Beam Epitaxy) waffer procedures has these critters fitting insid
e
>of a matchbox now, using camera batteries as power sources. I find it all to
>easy to see the 21st century soldier using BLINDING techniques (note I did not

>say "Death Ray Beams) in the battlefield. On a similar note, one of the trade
>journals ("Laser Focus") just had an article about a new surgical laser using
>an Nd/YAG element pumped by a laser diode array. This device delivers its beam

>thru a fiber-optic cutting tool and is about the size of a paperback book. It
>too was designed for use in the battlefield. With the advance of Quantum well
>lasers, the days of hauling around a power source the size of a truck are gone
.


Is there some AI here?

Tim.
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
let me tell you every thing about what i had for lunch today................


