From: | Doctor Doom <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU> |
---|---|
Subject: | The Military and Cyberware |
Date: | Sun, 5 Dec 1993 17:47:05 -0600 |
The phone-in topic today: The Military...To Cyber or not to Cyber? The
controversy builds...more experts are being quoted...some maintain that these
professional industry specialists being invited on talk shows are the cause of
it all...let's take the first call...
What this argument, as I have observed it, boils down to is a differences of
not only opinions, but rather philosophy. Although I shall qualify this:
Dismissing all issues of what purpose the military serves, and focusing upon
the more important question (to my mind), that of exactly how shall it fulfill
this role, one subscribes to two predominant schools of thought:
One school is, basically, very strongly for technological research and the
modification and development of existing systems (often criticized for being
idealistic); all of which is for the expresses purpose of gaining the greatest
technological "edge." People do not win battles, weapons do.
The forces one assembles are to be outfitted to the greatest scientific
capacity available. Further, there is also the purpose of placing large
quantities of funds towards further research and development, for reaching
greater heights in capabilities and
The second school of though may be of the slightly more pragmatic, or basic,
(also called backwards) outlook. Weapons should be practical, simple, and
easy to produce and REPLACE. This school would rather expend funds towards
gaining larger number of these "practical" weapons and personnel rather than
possibly gambling them on high-tech gismos that may or may not function
properly/adequately. Weapons do not win battles, people do.
The forces one assembles shall probably be quite large, in accordance with
their low cost and ability to reproduce them. Funds shall be expended towards
force expansion, and researching more practical, dependable weaponry.
There are benefits and weaknesses to both sides, which can be assigned the
metaphorical roles of the Rebellion forces and those of the Galactic Empire
from the Star Wars films, as they may be said to adhere (in essence) to the two
schools. [ Not to be misinterpreted that the Rebels have higher technology
than the Empire, rather that they have dispense their resources for
higher-tech, more capable fightercraft than say the slightly simpler TIE
designs. ]
The Rebellion is banking on the fact that their fighters shall be able to
destroy a proportionally greater percentage of Empire forces, which shall
outweigh their numerical inferiority. "More bang for the buck."
Spending one's funds upon higher technology craft shall result in their being
relatively fewer units to face the opposition. Further the more complex the
weapon, the more difficult to service and supply, and the greater time of
training needed for prospective pilots. Finally, each pilot and fighter is of
far greater value, given the time and resources expended towards it. Each must
perform superlatively...and shall be more difficult to replace if lost. Also,
with their lower numbers, by their very nature, necessitate that they kill
an even greater proportion of their enemy to be successful.
The Empire has concentrated upon slightly less sophisticated systems, but
producing far greater numbers (I realize this is due to their proportionate
greater resource base...but for the purposes of illustration I am discounting
this fact), thereby literally overwhelming the Rebels with sheer numbers.
"There's too many of them!"
Each craft is relatively less expensive to produce, given its lower complexity
and capabilities. Stemming from that fact, pilots shall be relatively easier
to train. Servicing and logistics of the fighters is a less demanding
proposition. Also resulting from this is the fact that both pilots and the
fighter shall be replaceable far more easily than their Rebel counterparts.
However, given this inferiority, Empire commanders should have to expect great
losses from most engagements. To compensate, one shall be force to almost
literally darken the sky with fightercraft to expect to be in a position where
one may take losses as expected and still be able to defeat the enemy. I must
be able to supercede the opponent's ability to destroy a greater ratio of
fighters.
Of course, in the three films, the Empire lost (*sigh*)...although this is more
a result of the script and their position of the antagonist in the plotline
than any authoritative knowledge that would determine with any certainty which
school is correct in its assumptions.
Certainly, many battles throughout history have been won at least partially due
to technologically innovation. The Battle of Hastings saw the drawing of the
usage of the stirrup to its logical conclusion. The Battle of Agincourt saw
the Welsh longbow used with deadly results. Charles the Bold of Burgundy ran
afoul of Swiss pikemen... the musket... the bayonet... the breech-loading
Dreyse rifle (a.k.a. the needle gun) which spelled doom for the Austrians in
1866 and the French in 1871... the machine gun with used with such diabolical
efficiency in various colonial wars against native armies... the American
forces in Desert Storm... the list proceeds ad infinitum.
Although there are cases where simple tenacity and larger, inferior forces
succeeded over more technological ones. Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon
Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler all learned the mistake of fighting the Russians on
Russian soil... The victory of the Communists over the forces of Chang Kai
Sheck in China... The Red Chinese entrance into the Korean War, causing the
"Great Bug-out"... Vietnam... again, I could proceed ad nauseum.
[ Although it should be noted that NOT all guerrilla wars have met with
success...look to the successful repression of guerrilla forces in the
Philippines following the Spanish American War. ]
However, despite the opinions exchanged upon this node over the past several
days, one may NOT, with any certainty, claim that either side shall win or
lose. A cybernetic army is NOT guaranteed to win. A larger conventional army
which "mobs them when they need supplies" is NOT guaranteed to win.
Both views possess strengths and weaknesses...although neither can claim the
position of having the definitive truth of the matter.
Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@********.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Give me an army of West Point graduates, and I'll win a battle. Give me a
handfull of Texas Aggies, and I'll win a war."
-- General George S. Patton