4th Generation Warfare

[Durthorin]

The nature of the wars we are now fighting in comparison with the wars ww have fought and the military we have constructed to defend us. The question arises is the US military or for that matter any nations military in their present format the best tool to meet enemies we're now facing.

Isreal is in the midst of a good example of the powerful nation-state army vs the weaker asymetrical force.. Are they winning? If not how could they? An what lessons does this show us since our military is even more classically formated to refight set piece conventional warfare. Perhaps rather than building up the present military the object should be to redesign it. If so what type of military would get the job done? Smaller light infantry units along the lines of the Rangers with investment in individual soldier based technology as opposed to military Armor and Air?


http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm

[Darth Executor]

The nature of the wars we are now fighting in comparison with the wars ww have fought and the military we have constructed to defend us. The question arises is the US military or for that matter any nations military in their present format the best tool to meet enemies we're now facing.

Thanks for posting this article. Personally, I thought it was brilliant.


Isreal is in the midst of a good example of the powerful nation-state army vs the weaker asymetrical force.. Are they winning? If not how could they?


http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm[/QUOTE]

I think they are winning. However, one thing I can infer from the article is that what Israel is doing cannot be done by every country. Israel builds walls to keep terrorists out. Israel is a very small country. There is not much land, and what there is is not that difficult to protect from enemy infiltration. Their airport security is good as well (something all countries should have). The US, for example, is big. It is practically impossible to secure its borders to such an extent that no terrorist can get in anymore. The US is also plagued by really, really bad intelligence. Few to no assassinations would be a symptom of this. A lot of problems would be solved if, instead of bombing the crap out of a country, you would secretly kill some key members of its government and let the rest fight for power.

The article also mentioned the media. Unfortunately, to win the "culture war" against terrorists you'd have to dump democracy because the West is full of morons who, when ordered by terrorists to jump, they ask "how high?". I think that ultimately, the worst enemy we'll ever face is ourselves. The US does not have as much of a problem as other parts of the West (like most of Europe). I guess that's one thing to be happy about.

[Durthorin]

I think they are winning. However, one thing I can infer from the article is that what Israel is doing cannot be done by every country. Israel builds walls to keep terrorists out. Israel is a very small country. There is not much land, and what there is is not that difficult to protect from enemy infiltration. Their airport security is good as well (something all countries should have).


Actually, I'd say they are loosing for many of the same reasons you list. The terrorists to use the axiom don't have to win, just avoid being destroyed. As such, I can not see the use of forces that Israel has on the board now destroying them. In fact in the media war thats going on as well, the terrorists are going to increase. Israel as a nation is essentially under a state of siege. The bombings that have taken place within Israel itself also show that even given the massive resources given to internal security they are still being reached.



The US, for example, is big. It is practically impossible to secure its borders to such an extent that no terrorist can get in anymore. The US is also plagued by really, really bad intelligence. Few to no assassinations would be a symptom of this. A lot of problems would be solved if, instead of bombing the crap out of a country, you would secretly kill some key members of its government and let the rest fight for power.


In the case of terrorists this means desrupting their command structure by infiltration and assisnation. As to securing the US.. I have to agree totally with your assesment an add that a number of our own cultural behaviors & laws make security from this type of warfare almost immpossiable as it stands currently. Picture the reaction to a National ID card for example that had to be produced on demand.



The article also mentioned the media. Unfortunately, to win the "culture war" against terrorists you'd have to dump democracy because the West is full of morons who, when ordered by terrorists to jump, they ask "how high?". I think that ultimately, the worst enemy we'll ever face is ourselves. The US does not have as much of a problem as other parts of the West (like most of Europe). I guess that's one thing to be happy about.

I think the "Culture War" is what will cause Israel to stop before achiving a military solution. Which in effect will be if anything almost worse than doing nothing at all. We're already seeing this with the stories about Qana and the reaction. One reason I think we(the US) have less problems than the rest of the "West" is geography. The orginizations that hate the US most are simply not close enough to us yet.

I'm starting to believe the statement that World War III is not coming, its already being fought.

[Gideon Brown]

Yeah, good article, Dur - from 1989, I notice. In Canadia our armed forces have embraced the concept as far as limited funding will allow. There's one particular aspect of this I'd like to comment on, something that's especially easy to see in Canada because it's often mistaken for lack of funding.

From the article:

more emphasis on maneuver. Mass, of men or fire power, will no longer be an overwhelming factor. In fact, mass may become a disadvantage as it will be easy to target. Small, highly maneuverable, agile forces will tend to dominate.

Fourth is a goal of collapsing the enemy internally rather than physically destroying him. Targets will include such things as the population's support for the war and the enemy's culture. Correct identification of enemy strategic centers of gravity will be highly important.

Let me give an example: recently we decided to scrap our tanks. That's right, no more tanks, whatsoever. What we're going with instead are a series of excellent LAVs. Now, some people will look at this and say, 'Well, that's ridiculous! How can a modern army not have tanks?' They assume it must be a funding issue - we can't afford them.

That's certainly true in part - we have a funding problem. But what's also true is that tanks just don't fit into our 'vision' of the role of the Canadian army. We've been relatively succesful recently in finally ditching the Cold War mentality (soldiers engaging in pitched battles, little emphasis on urban warfare, etc.). We've come to the realization that all of the operations we are likely to be involved in in the near future will be 4th generation type stuff.

I guess the reason I mention all this (and feel it's important) is that fighting 4th generation warfare is going to require a significantly different mindset on the part of everyone, not just military pers. If the taxpayer (for example) doesn't realize that - if he looks and says, 'Well, why the heck isn't my money going towards shiny, impressive symbols of dominance like tanks?', it could actually waste money, jeopardize efficiency, and cost lives.

Again to use Canada as an example, it's easy to look at the army (and people have and do, which is why I bring this whole issue up) and say, 'Well, look. We don't have tanks. We don't have attack helicopters. We're obviously not doing anything on the world stage.' Well, I think the troops in Afghanistan would beg to differ. But if the population at large doesn't understand that the world has moved into 4th generation warfare, the misperception that 'we're not doing anything' will be harder to dispel. Similarly, it's harder to explain things like civilian casualties and 'collateral damage' to the average person on the street if they don't understand the way combat is being fought these days.

Just some thoughts.

[Durthorin]

Yeah, good article, Dur - from 1989, I notice. In Canadia our armed forces have embraced the concept as far as limited funding will allow. There's one particular aspect of this I'd like to comment on, something that's especially easy to see in Canada because it's often mistaken for lack of funding.


!989. I think the proonents of 4th gen warfare are bing proven right by history while those generals and politicans trying to refight a third gen war are beging to look like the French Generals who wanted to build the Maginot line.



Let me give an example: recently we decided to scrap our tanks. That's right, no more tanks, whatsoever. What we're going with instead are a series of excellent LAVs. Now, some people will look at this and say, 'Well, that's ridiculous! How can a modern army not have tanks?' They assume it must be a funding issue - we can't afford them.


True be told the utility of tanks in warfare has been argued ever since Vietnam. Thier primary purpose on the battlefield has become reducing strongpoints and killing enemy tanks. As early as the 80s/90s the US army was seeing that tank killer chopper units were getting kill ratios against armor that was flatly scary with modern surface to air anti-tank munitions. An considering the price tag of an Abrams.. unafforadable. But look at Afganistan and Iraq.. their utility is minimal to non-existant and military units are begging for effective light armor




I guess the reason I mention all this (and feel it's important) is that fighting 4th generation warfare is going to require a significantly different mindset on the part of everyone, not just military pers. If the taxpayer (for example) doesn't realize that - if he looks and says, 'Well, why the heck isn't my money going towards shiny, impressive symbols of dominance like tanks?', it could actually waste money, jeopardize efficiency, and cost lives.


Unfortunatly, one you forgot is those that have a vested interest in building weapons that have no real use but a big price tag.

[Gideon Brown]

Unfortunatly, one you forgot is those that have a vested interest in building weapons that have no real use but a big price tag.

Ouch, I *did* forget that. :doh: Sometimes I think I'm not cynical enough to talk politics. :blush:

[Durthorin]

Ouch, I *did* forget that. :doh: Sometimes I think I'm not cynical enough to talk politics. :blush:

The politics of weapons production here in the US is both big business and big politics. Look at the politics behind the LAV/Striker vehicle, if your interested.

[Gideon Brown]

The politics of weapons production here in the US is both big business and big politics. Look at the politics behind the LAV/Striker vehicle, if your interested.
I am interested, so I will look it up sometime, thanks.

[Darth Executor]

Actually, I'd say they are loosing for many of the same reasons you list. The terrorists to use the axiom don't have to win, just avoid being destroyed. As such, I can not see the use of forces that Israel has on the board now destroying them.

Israel does not need to destroy Hezbollah either, they can simply keep them out of range. If Hezbollah can't fight back, they might as well be destroyed because they are rendered useless. It doesn't even matter if they get new recruits because (and I'm assuming an international force sets up a force in southern Lebanon) they will have to resort to either sneaking into Israel (which would be practically impossible) or attack the international forces which should (I'm being optimistic) stop UN support and put them in a really bad situation.


In fact in the media war thats going on as well, the terrorists are going to increase. Israel as a nation is essentially under a state of siege.

The media war is going very well. Luckily for Israel however, the people who fall for it are practically impotent.


The bombings that have taken place within Israel itself also show that even given the massive resources given to internal security they are still being reached.

I haven't heard of a suicide bombing in quite a while. The bombs that are dropping on Israel are rockets. If they remove Hezbollah from their position (and it looks like Israel won't stop until they do it) they will stop being a problem. I think that, all things considered, Israel has done a great job with their defense.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your assessment.

[Darth Executor]

The politics of weapons production here in the US is both big business and big politics. Look at the politics behind the LAV/Striker vehicle, if your interested.

Who cares about the politics, look how awesome it looks. :duh:

[Durthorin]

Who cares about the politics, look how awesome it looks. :duh:

Compare it to the upgraded M113.

[Darth Executor]

Compare it to the upgraded M113.

This? I like the LAV better, this one looks too much like a big box.

[Durthorin]

This? I like the LAV better, this one looks too much like a big box.

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000853.html

Its a pretty good rundown of the arguments of the track vs wheel , armor.. mobility etc..

[Teallaura]

Um, stupid question, but why aren't those considered tanks? There is a strong resemblance to the untrained eye.... :huh:


By the way, have you guys seen this show? (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/futureweapons/futureweapons.html) It's pretty interesting - at least to me.

[Darth Executor]

Um, stupid question, but why aren't those considered tanks? There is a strong resemblance to the untrained eye.... :huh:


They don't have a big gun.

[Teallaura]

Oh.....


:hrm:


How big does it have to be? :huh:




Needs big gun; rocket launchers don't count. Got it! :uneasy:

Thanks! :thumb:

[Gideon Brown]

Um, stupid question, but why aren't those considered tanks? There is a strong resemblance to the untrained eye.... :huh:

Teal, they're designed primarily for transporting personnel, unlike tanks, which are designed primarily for destroying stuff. These things are armoured, but much more lightly than tanks.

[Teallaura]

Oh, okay. I thought those were called armored personnel carriers... :huh:


I think I'll go bother folks in forums where I'm not so stupid... :outtie:

For a while at least....:wink:

[Gideon Brown]

Oh, okay. I thought those were called armored personnel carriers... :huh:

:lol: It's kinda like this: 'APC' is a generic term; LAV and M113 are specific types.

Canada's LAV III (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=64)

Canada's M113A3 (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=58)

[Teallaura]

:thumb: Okay, I get it now!


:joy:

[Durthorin]

OK coming back to the original point of the thread.. How would you reorginize the military to deal with 4th generation war threats.. ie at this time multinational non-nation state terrorist orginizations?

MBTs are no longer required to beat other armored enemies, no uniformed set pieces battles seem to be brewing.

At a start I think you need a better more cabable individual soldier. Someone who has the training and technology to kill the two guys running the missle launcher right next to the school without scratching the paint on the shool house.

[Teallaura]

For those goals (not sure I agree with the whole assessment from the geo-political angle), it seems to me you'd need more autonomous units - teams capable of reacting to changing situations without having to refer back to command (for many decisions).

You also need better body armor. Not everything shooting will be a heavily armed guerrilla and even so, you want your guys as difficult as humanly possible to drop.

Better training for urban situations - here law enforcement training might help. Soldiers aren't necessarily as good as identifying their target in a civilian setting.


Okay, that just about exhausts my tiny knowledge... go ahead and laugh now.... :sigh:

[Darth Executor]

OK coming back to the original point of the thread.. How would you reorginize the military to deal with 4th generation war threats.. ie at this time multinational non-nation state terrorist orginizations?

At a start I think you need a better more cabable individual soldier. Someone who has the training and technology to kill the two guys running the missle launcher right next to the school without scratching the paint on the shool house.

This is a must. My first instinct would be to replace the voluntary army with something like the Sardaukar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardaukar) but there are a number of ethical problems with that (yes, even for me :tongue:). I do have some suggestions for infantry however.

Train in extreme weather. My friend joined the Canadian army for a little bit and they wanted to send him up north for training during the summer (most likely to avoid the heat). This, IMO, is stupid. If these people end up somewhere in the middle east they won't be facing temperate weather, they'll be facing extreme heat that their enemies willbe used to. Training in the desert or at the North Pole would make temperate weather combat a breeze and prepare them for conflicts when the weather isn't pleasant. Not only that but (especially cold weather) will build up endurance faster since the body needs to burn more energy to keep it warm.

Less soldiers, higher quality. Recruiting standards should go up. People with stuff like emotional problems should not be allowed in (standards have been going down in the US, I believe there is a thread about it in Political Science).

Make better use of drones. The US certainly has the technology to build "toys" (I'm thinking something similar to the Mars rover, although it doesn't need all that expensive technology to be effective) that can sneak up on enemy positions and detonate a bomb without them noticing.

Eliminate ground bases. Use aircraft carriers as bases in all foreign conflicts since they're much easier to defend.

To help with the above suggestion, no more heavy armor vehicles. Anything you want to send out should be easy to airlift to its position, strike, and be returned to the carrier in the shortest ammount of time possible.

Do not have a visible presence in the countries you invade. To use Iraq as an example, no more uniformed soldiers. Have them dress up as civilians. Wearing large loose clothing that obscure body armor and assault rifles would be ideal.

Snipers. Terrorists in Iraq have made very good use of them. IMO, every soldier should have to carry and know how to use a sniper rifle in addition to any other weapon they carry.

Propaganda. The hippies at home would most likely hate this, but they don't need to know. Lie, plain and simple. Claim (not as yourself of course, as a "3rd party") enemies have slaughtered their own civillians then forge evidence (like blurry pictures) to make them lose support in their own countries.

[Durthorin]

You also need better body armor. Not everything shooting will be a heavily armed guerrilla and even so, you want your guys as difficult as humanly possible to drop.


From a technology standpoint thats a good idea.. I'd also add we need to spend more money working on non-leathal weapons systems that can be used when you have a hostile force mixed in with civilians.



Better training for urban situations - here law enforcement training might help. Soldiers aren't necessarily as good as identifying their target in a civilian setting.


I think your already seeing this as the US military sees its role involving far more urban warfare as opposed to open field battles.

[Durthorin]

This is a must. My first instinct would be to replace the voluntary army with something like the Sardaukar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardaukar) but there are a number of ethical problems with that (yes, even for me :tongue:). I do have some suggestions for infantry however.


The Sardukar like the Fedikin were if memory served esssentially a military/warrior caste from birth trained in an environment that killed 80-90% of those unfit to be members. So are you think what we need is a new warrior caste?


Under training I'll quote my TI long ago, "You sweat now so you don't bleed later." Personally I think that we should do away or migrate support roles to civilians or the reserves in time of war. Active duty military should be 100% combat troops, an trained brutally and continusally. I also agree with Tel's concept of the smaller more flexiable size units. We're still using essentially the same military orginizational structure as we had in the 1700s.



Less soldiers, higher quality. Recruiting standards should go up. People with stuff like emotional problems should not be allowed in (standards have been going down in the US, I believe there is a thread about it in Political Science).


Agreed as well with an added concept that soldiers in this kind of army have to be trained to operate independantly and make decisions that are effective both militarily and ethically/morally.



Make better use of drones. The US certainly has the technology to build "toys" (I'm thinking something similar to the Mars rover, although it doesn't need all that expensive technology to be effective) that can sneak up on enemy positions and detonate a bomb without them noticing.


Go a step farther.. better use of technology as a force multplier. As an example manjack systems with automated high volume of fire weapons where a single gunner can operate two or more machine guns that have targeting and sensing ability while not being near the actual guns (increasing his life expectancy)



Eliminate ground bases. Use aircraft carriers as bases in all foreign conflicts since they're much easier to defend.

To help with the above suggestion, no more heavy armor vehicles. Anything you want to send out should be easy to airlift to its position, strike, and be returned to the carrier in the shortest ammount of time possible.



I think I'd take issue.. you have to have bases in some areas for the simple reason that a firebase of some sort also acts as area denial. Projecting force means you know where to project it. I'd say you need to figure out technolgy to create a fast layered automated defense of such a base.



Do not have a visible presence in the countries you invade. To use Iraq as an example, no more uniformed soldiers. Have them dress up as civilians. Wearing large loose clothing that obscure body armor and assault rifles would be ideal.

Snipers. Terrorists in Iraq have made very good use of them. IMO, every soldier should have to carry and know how to use a sniper rifle in addition to any other weapon they carry.


I think this comes under the heading of better use of SpecOps troops. As for a troop carrying two weapons? Not seeing that, more along the lines of develop an ICW that can serve as a low end sniper weapon as well as other functions. Which also comes back to the Infantryman.. We need to increase his firepower, ability to detect targets and engage them while at the same time lightening his load so he can move faster and farther on his own feet.



Propaganda. The hippies at home would most likely hate this, but they don't need to know. Lie, plain and simple. Claim (not as yourself of course, as a "3rd party") enemies have slaughtered their own civillians then forge evidence (like blurry pictures) to make them lose support in their own countries.

Comes under the heading in 4th Generation war your not fighting the nation but the society itself and you attack the social or cultural weak points.

[Gideon Brown]

For those goals (not sure I agree with the whole assessment from the geo-political angle), it seems to me you'd need more autonomous units - teams capable of reacting to changing situations without having to refer back to command (for many decisions).

:yes: In fact, changes like that have been implemented in the Canadian army (to an extent, anyway).


You also need better body armor. Not everything shooting will be a heavily armed guerrilla and even so, you want your guys as difficult as humanly possible to drop.

Definitely. That stuff's heavy, though.


Train in extreme weather.

The work-up training for troops going to Afghanistan right now (at least, from the people I know who are doing it) is doing exactly that. And cold (like, really cold :hehe:) weather training is pretty common.


Recruiting standards should go up.

Definitely. But. Good luck with that. :sigh: We already can't recruit nearly as many as we want.


Eliminate ground bases. Use aircraft carriers as bases

Not sure what you have in mind here... but patrols in Afghanistan are not gonna be able to return to an aircraft carrier very often!


Do not have a visible presence in the countries you invade. To use Iraq as an example, no more uniformed soldiers. Have them dress up as civilians. Wearing large loose clothing that obscure body armor and assault rifles would be ideal.

:lol: Darth, you're so innovative. But I'm pretty sure that's against the Geneva Conventions.


Snipers. Terrorists in Iraq have made very good use of them. IMO, every soldier should have to carry and know how to use a sniper rifle in addition to any other weapon they carry.

Whoa, Nelly! That's not gonna happen: 1) those are expensive, 2) require a lot of training, and 3) they're freakin' heavy (I always got a kick out of the 007 video game where Bond just carried a .50 cal sniper rifle around and fired it standing up :lmbo:). You can't really have patrols walking around all carrying these things.


Propaganda. The hippies at home would most likely hate this, but they don't need to know. Lie, plain and simple. Claim (not as yourself of course, as a "3rd party") enemies have slaughtered their own civillians then forge evidence (like blurry pictures) to make them lose support in their own countries.

You think that's ethical? :huh:


I think your already seeing this as the US military sees its role involving far more urban warfare as opposed to open field battles.

Yeah.

[Darth Executor]

The Sardukar like the Fedikin were if memory served esssentially a military/warrior caste from birth trained in an environment that killed 80-90% of those unfit to be members.

It was like that for the Sardaukar. For the fremen, the conditions were bad for all of them, not just the Fedaykin. In the book, a fremen child was as good of a fighter as a Sardaukar.


So are you think what we need is a new warrior caste?

Yes (although not in the same way the Sardaukar were trained), but this will never fly in the west, so I'm trying to keep it realistic. Ideally, someone trained from birth do perform a certain job is much better than someone who starts in their late teens (and I would think this applies to all jobs).



Go a step farther.. better use of technology as a force multplier. As an example manjack systems with automated high volume of fire weapons where a single gunner can operate two or more machine guns that have targeting and sensing ability while not being near the actual guns (increasing his life expectancy)

Wouldn't this cause unwanted collateral damage? What if the guns start shooting at civillians? If they still need one person to target them, I can't imagine him being capable of using more than 2 at once, and even then his attention would be split among two groups of targets.




I think this comes under the heading of better use of SpecOps troops. As for a troop carrying two weapons? Not seeing that, more along the lines of develop an ICW that can serve as a low end sniper weapon as well as other functions.

Well, some assault rifles have grenade launchers attached, maybe make a combo sniper/assault rifle?

[Darth Executor]

Definitely. But. Good luck with that. :sigh: We already can't recruit nearly as many as we want.

We don't need as many as we have unless we're fighting a conventional war.



Not sure what you have in mind here... but patrols in Afghanistan are not gonna be able to return to an aircraft carrier very often!

Patrols are 3rd generation dinosaurs. Have spy drones fly around and if they locate an enemy airlift your troops and ambush them.




:lol: Darth, you're so innovative. But I'm pretty sure that's against the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions assume 3rd generation warfare as far as I can tell.




Whoa, Nelly! That's not gonna happen: 1) those are expensive, 2) require a lot of training, and 3) they're freakin' heavy (I always got a kick out of the 007 video game where Bond just carried a .50 cal sniper rifle around and fired it standing up :lmbo:). You can't really have patrols walking around all carrying these things.

You don't need the best sniper rifle, just something that looks even remotely like one and can act as one in situations that require it. Plus, I'm in favor of reducing the military if we have to and use covert elite soldiers.




You think that's ethical? :huh:

Yes, seeing how it's targeted at terrorists who do the same thing, except they really do shoot up their own civilians and blame it on us.

[Durthorin]

:yes: In fact, changes like that have been implemented in the Canadian army (to an extent, anyway).



Definitely. That stuff's heavy, though.


Then we need to take money from programs for new air superority fighters and main battler tanks and do some serious research on light weight effective body armor.



Definitely. But. Good luck with that. :sigh: We already can't recruit nearly as many as we want.


Look at what a regular soldier is paid and benefits.. If you want the kind of people we're talking about here then your going to have to pay for them. Good personel cost..Cost.. COST. Consider this.. what if the starting salary for a basic troop was in the 75K range?



Not sure what you have in mind here... but patrols in Afghanistan are not gonna be able to return to an aircraft carrier very often!


LARPs didn't either but they were effective.




:lol: Darth, you're so innovative. But I'm pretty sure that's against the Geneva Conventions.


4th Gen war, the conventions at least some of them will have to change for forces to be effective. Consider patrols trained in the language & culture, dressed as locals moving in enemy secure areas gathering intel and striking targets of opportunity. Again you have standard troops operating much more like current special operations teams.




Whoa, Nelly! That's not gonna happen: 1) those are expensive, 2) require a lot of training, and 3) they're freakin' heavy (I always got a kick out of the 007 video game where Bond just carried a .50 cal sniper rifle around and fired it standing up :lmbo:). You can't really have patrols walking around all carrying these things.


Personally I'm more along the lines of the of an advanced combat rifle that serves a multiple set of goals while not being outstanding in any one and still being light enough to use and carry hour after hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Rifle

[Durthorin]

Wouldn't this cause unwanted collateral damage? What if the guns start shooting at civillians? If they still need one person to target them, I can't imagine him being capable of using more than 2 at once, and even then his attention would be split among two groups of targets.


Depends on how your using it. Assume an ambush, you set up two such guns to do a 45% arc from the begining of kill zone to end. Using its own sensors you then tell it to target anything with the right heat signature not squealing and IFF within the kill zone. Your gun operator triggers the guns or overrides them based on his observation of the kill zone from a position that is not drawing enemy return fire.

In a fixed defense of a firebase, you already have a kill zone set up, guns lock to target warn the operator that they are about to engage, operator checks a fiberoptic feed on the gun.. observes those are kids, abort fire.. or those are bad guys.. open up. Checks ammo remaining and reloads guns.

[Darth Executor]

Depends on how your using it. Assume an ambush, you set up two such guns to do a 45% arc from the begining of kill zone to end. Using its own sensors you then tell it to target anything with the right heat signature not squealing and IFF within the kill zone. Your gun operator triggers the guns or overrides them based on his observation of the kill zone from a position that is not drawing enemy return fire.

In a fixed defense of a firebase, you already have a kill zone set up, guns lock to target warn the operator that they are about to engage, operator checks a fiberoptic feed on the gun.. observes those are kids, abort fire.. or those are bad guys.. open up. Checks ammo remaining and reloads guns.

Sounds good then.

[Gideon Brown]

We don't need as many as we have unless we're fighting a conventional war.

I very strongly disagree. Our troops are already overworked; exhausted; overseas way more than they should be.


Patrols are 3rd generation dinosaurs. Have spy drones fly around and if they locate an enemy airlift your troops and ambush them.

Among other things, spy drones can't get into villages and build rapport with the locals, or go house to house and root out the bad guys - both things that our guys are doing in Afghanistan. Patrols aren't going away any time soon.


The Geneva Conventions assume 3rd generation warfare as far as I can tell.

Prolly... but I think the ethical principles they're based on are MOL timeless. At least, I'd think twice before consenting to stuff like you mentioned.


You don't need the best sniper rifle, just something that looks even remotely like one and can act as one in situations that require it. Plus, I'm in favor of reducing the military if we have to and use covert elite soldiers.

Well... Canada's elite JTF2 (like the US Delta) is expanding, and we just created a new SpecOps unit sorta like the Rangers. :smile: But they can't do everything, all the time.


Yes, seeing how it's targeted at terrorists who do the same thing, except they really do shoot up their own civilians and blame it on us.

Well, I'm a little iffy on saying that we should descend to their level. :uneasy:


Look at what a regular soldier is paid and benefits.. If you want the kind of people we're talking about here then your going to have to pay for them. Good personel cost..Cost.. COST. Consider this.. what if the starting salary for a basic troop was in the 75K range?

Yeah! Interestingly, from what I understand, US soldiers are paid way less than Canadian, but the educational benefits are way better. I wonder what kind of a difference that makes.

[Darth Executor]

I very strongly disagree. Our troops are already overworked; exhausted; overseas way more than they should be.

That's because they're fighting a conventional war. That's not what we, or Israel, or the US should be doing.




Among other things, spy drones can't get into villages and build rapport with the locals, or go house to house and root out the bad guys - both things that our guys are doing in Afghanistan. Patrols aren't going away any time soon.

Those things should be done by spies and the like, not people with a bullseye haning from their necks.



Prolly... but I think the ethical principles they're based on are MOL timeless. At least, I'd think twice before consenting to stuff like you mentioned.

I disagree, mostly because I don't see the harm in it. It will avoid civillian casualties (as opposed to carped bombing a city) and military casualties since the enemy should be dead before it realises those civillians on their left are really irritated marines.




Well, I'm a little iffy on saying that we should descend to their level. :uneasy:

Whoa boy. I didn't suggest we actually shoot up civilians. Just lie about them shooting civillians.

[Durthorin]

Sounds good then.

Also when your discussing drones as a multiplier doing patrols we need to discuss arming drones which means getting around the air forces attitude that anything with a gun that flys must have a pilot. So that your preditor sighting a hostile group on a trial can just fire the correct munitions, mark the spot with GPS and let a team come out an fetch in the weapons and bodies.

Then again you also can have teams plant sensors with area denial non-leathal munitions. Say a canister of something that causes vomiting and the runs.. sensor reports home it has movment and the operator/commander decides to flood the area with the toxin. What your looking at is making an enemy fight machines when possiable..

[Durthorin]

Yeah! Interestingly, from what I understand, US soldiers are paid way less than Canadian, but the educational benefits are way better. I wonder what kind of a difference that makes.

In the US the simple difference is a troop joins, serves his 4-6 then opts out to go to college and get a better education & career. Better educational benefits are only benefits if you leave the service since a college degree doesn't tranlate into higher military pay etc unless you buck for OTS. Even then a guy who bounces over from enlisted to officer is not going to get the carreer opportunities that a ring-tapper does.

[Durthorin]

I disagree, mostly because I don't see the harm in it. It will avoid civillian casualties (as opposed to carped bombing a city) and military casualties since the enemy should be dead before it realises those civillians on their left are really irritated marines.

Camo is what a soldier wears to blend into the environment and make himself harder to hit. Terrorists are soldiers who have dumped the idea of a uniform in exchange for blending in and making themselves harder to hit by us. Civilians are cover for them. An having military units using the same technique to get them is about on par with what we have done on a smaller scale with certain Spec Ops troops. Instead of doing it in a jungle going from village to village we're doing it in an urban environment.