Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: John Fox <johnf@*****.EDU>
Subject: Military and Cyber
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 15:49:23 -0600
Hello,
The way I envision the military approaching cyber is that
commandos would have the best available, and everybody else would have
only what they need. Techies would have datajacks and combat pilots would
be full riggers. Future total wars will be fought with high-tech weapon
systems, not cybered infantrymen. Besides, external night vision goggles
and smartgun hookups are probably cheaper and more efficient than
subjecting someone to surgery that will have to be reversed when their
enlistment is up in a few years. Also remember that most people in the
military really don't fight but are paper-pushers, supply corp people,
etc. These types would need no cyber, except for the occasional datajack.
Look at the cyber the former military officer in Sprawl Sites has. About none.

John Fox
johnf@*****.edu
Message no. 2
From: "John E. Doner" <doner@*******.UCSB.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 16:15:10 -0800
John Fox writes:
>Hello,
> The way I envision the military approaching cyber is that
>commandos would have the best available, and everybody else would have
>only what they need. Techies would have datajacks and combat pilots would
>be full riggers. Future total wars will be fought with high-tech weapon
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>systems, not cybered infantrymen. Besides, external night vision goggles
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I disagree. while this may be true in open-terrain "blitzkreig" type
operations, like the gulf war, pacification of geurillas, taking cities
and similar operations will always require infantrymen. That is, unless
you want to totally destroy the target area, in which case you are
better of using nukes.

>[stuff deleted]

the Electric Monk
doner@*******.ucsb.edu
Message no. 3
From: John Fox <johnf@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 19:22:18 -0600
On Sun, 28 Nov 1993, John E. Doner wrote:

> > Future total wars will be fought with high-tech weapon system

> I disagree. while this may be true in open-terrain "blitzkreig" type
> operations, like the gulf war, pacification of geurillas, taking cities
> and similar operations will always require infantrymen. That is, unless
> you want to totally destroy the target area, in which case you are
> better of using nukes.

Yes, but is it cost effective or even wise to equip all these infantrymen
with expensive cyberware? Would it have made sense to have sent soldiers
with 200,000 nuyen in mods but only a few months training to Vietnam so
they could be killed by a fifteen year old, illiterate peasant with a $50
AK-47? I don't think so. As evidenced by footage of Bosnia, modern
infantry warfare seems to involve "expendable" soldiers shooting automatic
weapons in the general direction of the enemy, assuming every once in a
while a bullet will hit its target. Would the US Army find it helpful to
send these people to a hospital for a few weeks so they can move faster.
Most of the cyber in SR seems to be useful only for short range, dirty
streetfighting. The only tech an infantryman needs (besides a gun, helmet,
etc.) is a pair of smart goggles, with low - light, plus an
external smartgun adapter. Let's add it all up:

Smart Goggles with low-light 4000
Smartgun Adapter 600
Colt M22A2 1600
100 bullets 200
Knife 30
Vest with plates 600
Helmet 200
Radio ?

So, we have 7230 nuyen, plus the costof the radio. And none of this
requires surgery and can be taken back by the military at the end of a
tour or mission.


The main problem with my little theory here is that it does not explain
the existence of street samurai, because it would be assumed that they
would have neither the money nor the necessity to get all that cyber.


John Fox
johnf@*****.edu
Message no. 4
From: Aaron Wigley <wigs@****.CC.MONASH.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 13:02:12 +1100
John Fox Wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1993, John E. Doner wrote:
> streetfighting. The only tech an infantryman needs (besides a gun, helmet,
> etc.) is a pair of smart goggles, with low - light, plus an
> external smartgun adapter. Let's add it all up:
>
> Smart Goggles with low-light 4000
> Smartgun Adapter 600
> Colt M22A2 1600
> 100 bullets 200
> Knife 30
> Vest with plates 600
> Helmet 200
> Radio ?
>
> So, we have 7230 nuyen, plus the costof the radio. And none of this
> requires surgery and can be taken back by the military at the end of a
> tour or mission.

Add:
GPS equipment
Mil-spec dataviewer/laptop for maps etc.

> The main problem with my little theory here is that it does not explain
> the existence of street samurai, because it would be assumed that they
> would have neither the money nor the necessity to get all that cyber.

Street Samurai are para-military.

Comparison - the modern USA armed forces have their grunts (Marines,
Infantry, etc). These guys in 2050 would not be cybered for reasons
presented earlier.

Then there are the special forces. Currently there exists in the US
armed forces -
Rangers, Army Special Forces, Delta

USN SEALS

USAF Special Operations Command (AFSOC)
provides airborne, covert infiltration and exfiltration
services for other special operations agencies (Army
Special Forces, Rangers, SEALs, intel community, etc.)
using both fixed-wing and rotary assets.

Combat Controller Teams (CCTs)
are small groups of special operators used as an
'advance team' for a larger parachute-insertion combat
force,such as the Army SF or Rangers, or USN SEALs.
The CCT will provide a site (drop zone) survey, as well
as deploy covert navigational beacons for the tactical
airdrop platforms enroute, and will manage the drop-zone
ground & air space.

(As an aside - while the Army Special Forces, Rangers, or USN SEALs
will usually take the credit for 'being the first on the ground,' if the
operation involves an air drop, chances are good that there was a USAF
SOC CCT there first).

[ source: sci.military ]

These guys are the specially trained assets the military invests heavily
in. They are the only ones that cyber would be feasible in.

> John Fox
> johnf@*****.edu

The Wigs of Oz, "Cyberguns no longer have an Essence
Aaron Wigley Cost. Merry Christmas."
Email: wigs@****.cc.monash.edu.au -Street Sam. Catalog Update,
Shadowrun II, page 277.
Message no. 5
From: Chris Siebenmann <cks@********.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 16:11:14 -0500
Smartgun links are sufficiently cheap that I think every police,
security, and military person will have them as a matter of course.
2,500 nuyen, less if discounted, is not very much money when set
against total training expenses, and it's *the* best firearms combat
improvement you can get.

Heavy reflex enhancement makes me wonder more; 100k nuyen seems a lot
to me, but I'll defer to the expert (Ivy) here. Certainly I would expect
people with a lot invested in their training and equipment already to
have it (pilots, especially fighter pilots, elite forces types, panzer
riggers, etc).

- cks
Message no. 6
From: Ben Jordan <jordanbd@***.BELOIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 17:40:16 +22310502
I must disagree with you once again Mr. Fox.

The purpous of infantry is to do what tanka and aircraft can not. A tank is
wonderful for open area battles, but is a sitting duck in a city. It's fire
power and range are useless. All it takes is one fellow with a missle on a
roof top and the tank will never see it comming. Aircraft are poor for city
fighting too. Somallia has taught us that in a city environment even a helo
is just a target.

The very close in street fighting is just the sort of thing that modern
infantry is used for. For securing population centers if any type infantry
is a must. Even in areas of restricted manuverability infantry is a must.
Or cases where there is a lot of good cover. That was the conclusion drawn
from Vietnam and Afganistan. You can have all the tanks and aircraft in the
world, but infantry still wins the day.

I would like to point out that cyber is not limited to wired reflexes. The
addition of, say 3 levels of dermal plating could make a big difference in
how long your infantry survives. A trauma damper would make any infantry
man scary.

There is also the point that in the cases where infantry does have to fight
tanks and panzers in the field it is important that they be faster than the
riggers. One or two military tech surface to surface missles fired from a
shoulder launcher still kills a panzer. Modern infantry have the ability at
shorter ranges to kill tanks almost as effectivly as other tanks. Consider
the costs of a panzer as opposed to the cost of an infantry man with wired
two.

As for the extermnal smart link, it is impractical. It is rigged to one
weapon and modern infantry use many different weapons. You would have to
put on a new one every time you wanted to draw your side arm. Better to
have it internal. Other mods could be external (low light, etc.,).

I was also inder the impression that with the addition of things like smart
guns and low light vision it would be possible to simply shoot whomever you
chose to, even at longer ranges. Infantry engagement range is close. In
Afganistan both sides infantry were specialized in getting close to the
target and then killing it with massive close ranged firepower. What you
are seeing on TV are people who are fighting that way because they have
to--all they have is infantry with primitive weapons. Cybered infantry
trained in their type of warfare will still walk all over them.

Infantry at long range is useless against other infantry. They have to get
close to do effective damage. To fight tanks they have to be faster than
the tanks. For these reasons infantry need the edge in speed and protection
they can get from cyberware.

Thank you for your time. I have rambled on once again. Sigh.
--

Ben-ha-meen
--i feel evil. like, that i am evil, not that
i feel an evil presence or something--

james mcculloch
Message no. 7
From: John Fox <johnf@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 18:44:43 -0600
On Mon, 29 Nov 1993, Ben Jordan wrote:

> I must disagree with you once again Mr. Fox.

If you want

> The purpous of infantry is to do what tanka and aircraft cannot. A tank is
> wonderful for open area battles, but is a sitting duck in a city. It's fire
> power and range are useless. All it takes is one fellow with a missle on a
> roof top and the tank will never see it comming. Aircraft are poor for city
> fighting too. Somallia has taught us that in a city environment even a helo
> is just a target.
>
> The very close in street fighting is just the sort of thing that modern
> infantry is used for. For securing population centers if any type infantry
> is a must. Even in areas of restricted manuverability infantry is a must.
> Or cases where there is a lot of good cover. That was the conclusion drawn
> from Vietnam and Afganistan. You can have all the tanks and aircraft in the
> world, but infantry still wins the day.

No problems here.


> I would like to point out that cyber is not limited to wired reflexes. The
> addition of, say 3 levels of dermal plating could make a big difference in
> how long your infantry survives. A trauma damper would make any infantry
> man scary.

Yes, but does the army want a bunch of goofy plastic skin men who are
going to be let out in a few years anyways walking around. Buying the men
armor suits seems more economical. The trauma damper is a better idea,
but at 40,000 I think some basic medical supplies would fit the bill better.

> There is also the point that in the cases where infantry does have to fight
> tanks and panzers in the field it is important that they be faster than the
> riggers. One or two military tech surface to surface missles fired from a
> shoulder launcher still kills a panzer. Modern infantry have the ability at
> shorter ranges to kill tanks almost as effectivly as other tanks. Consider
> the costs of a panzer as opposed to the cost of an infantry man with wired
> two.

In Somalia, Aidid's street punks seemed fairly capable of taking out
American high-tech weapons with their own low-tech, unguided rockets.
These guys had no cyberware or other gadgetry, but did the job fine.
A lot of them were probably high on that drug they all use.

> As for the extermnal smart link, it is impractical. It is rigged to one
> weapon and modern infantry use many different weapons. You would have to
> put on a new one every time you wanted to draw your side arm. Better to
> have it internal. Other mods could be external (low light, etc.,).

How many weapons does the averagew soldier have, anyways? I agree that an
internal smartlink is more efficient, but is the cost and surgery downtime
really worth it. Most soldiers have one rifle and that's about it. They
might have a pistol too, but they only really need a smartlink on their
primary weapon.

> I was also inder the impression that with the addition of things like smart
> guns and low light vision it would be possible to simply shoot whomever you
> chose to, even at longer ranges. Infantry engagement range is close. In
> Afganistan both sides infantry were specialized in getting close to the
> target and then killing it with massive close ranged firepower. What you
> are seeing on TV are people who are fighting that way because they have
> to--all they have is infantry with primitive weapons. Cybered infantry
> trained in their type of warfare will still walk all over them.

Your first sentence contradicts the rest of your statement here. The
"massive close ranged firepower" you refer to is probably just holding
down the trigger on full auto and spraying the bad guys. Cyber does not
speed up that process. Grenade launchers could also be helpful in such a
situation. Cyberware doesn't help that mcuh, either. I agree that an equal
number of cybered soldiers will win more times than they lose against
uncybered opponents. But the non-cybered army will have more money to
field more soldiers with more guns spewing ammo into the enemy areas.
We aren't discussing elite strike teams here.

> Infantry at long range is useless against other infantry. They have to get
> close to do effective damage. To fight tanks they have to be faster than
> the tanks. For these reasons infantry need the edge in speed and protection
> they can get from cyberware.

I think a human being with a man portable rocket launcher will usually be
able to get his shot off first. Remember, modern combat is not a wild west
gunfight where two men compete to see who draws first. The one who fires
first will always be the one perched behind the building or other obstacle
with the advancing vehicle or person in his sites.

> Thank you for your time. I have rambled on once again. Sigh.

Wel, so have I.

John Fox
johnf@*****.edu
Message no. 8
From: Chris Siebenmann <cks@********.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 00:14:25 -0500
| How many weapons does the averagew soldier have, anyways? I agree that an
| internal smartlink is more efficient, but is the cost and surgery downtime
| really worth it.

It's only 2,500 nuyen on the character creation market; done in mass
production by the military this should be cheaper. Think total
training costs here; for 2,500 nuyen and a day off physical activity
you've just made a quantum jump in firearms accuracy.

Is it worth it? In pure game mechanics, yes. It's a 1/6th improvement
in your to-hit chance, plus much better control over full-auto fire.
And you can't drop it, can't bang it on something, can't have the
batteries wear out, can't have problems combining the sighting goggles
with nightsight gear ... the advantages go on.

- cks
Message no. 9
From: Joe McNulty <mcnultyj@****.JMB.COM>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 10:13:22 CST
>
> | How many weapons does the averagew soldier have, anyways? I agree that an
> | internal smartlink is more efficient, but is the cost and surgery downtime
> | really worth it.
>
> It's only 2,500 nuyen on the character creation market; done in mass
> production by the military this should be cheaper. Think total
> training costs here; for 2,500 nuyen and a day off physical activity
> you've just made a quantum jump in firearms accuracy.

I believe you also need Cyber Eye enhancements in order to see the targeting
information. So that jumps the price a bit.

I would think the military would go with smart goggles, except for Special
Forces troops who would have some serious mods....

Joe
Message no. 10
From: Deird'Re Brooks <deirdre@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 09:39:43 -0800
Some points about your post:

I'm not sure khat (the Somali 'drug') drives you up the wall like
speed. I got the impression it was a relaxation-type-of-thing.
Not the sort of thing onme takes before entering combat.

Nowadays, LAWS cost what? More than most ammunition fed weapons,
that much I know. Well beyond cost-effective prices. Stinger
missiles are prohibitively expensive at several hundred thousand.
A good many pieces of military equipment are that expensive. Why
not build them into the troops?

Six men with Wired 2, Smartlinks, Nightvision, Thermo, T-Scope
and assault weapons _will_ trump six men who only have the
assault weapons. This proves out in play, and likely will in
reality. Surprise? Six guys with Reaction four start shhting,
and the soldiers have Reaction eight with which to react. It is
likely they'll get the drop anyway. If the slow-boys start using
suppression fire, the troops will _certainly_ have plenty of time
to react. A three round burst isn't likely to take them out.
And of course, if the squad has a Mage with Detect Enemies, the
ambush is hosed. That would likely be an elite squad, but you
never know . . .

An army without cyber is going to lose.

Unless they have a real genius leading them. I mean seriously.

Marzhavasati Kali |If mail bounces, check spelling. It's deirdre.
deirdre@***.org |If that doesn't work, send mail to
|deirdre%efn.org@*******.cs.uoregon.edu
"There's no such thing as overkill, just undertargeting."
-- Strega
Message no. 11
From: Ben Jordan <jordanbd@***.BELOIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 16:30:43 +22310502
Please amend my statement regarding being able to shoot want with
enhancements to include within the effective infantry fighting range. With
improvements to sight you could save millions just on ammunition. Those
folks in Bosnia go through 3 or 4 clips for every hit they score, and that
is on a good day. multiply that a few times and the cost starts mounting.

So joe infantry is standing behind a building. He pops off his missle and
it ...Misses! Before he fires again the tank blows the entire side of the
building away and the surounding 4 others, just for good mesure. The
infantry still need to be faster that the tank.

Now joe infantry is in the field. His attackers ambush his platoon. They
are all hit with the occasional round that happens to get lucky (as per
modern combat). He has dermal three and a trauma damper. The rounds fail
to even slow him down. Using the random round bit his attackers could out
number him three to one and still not really hurt him as he can take the
damage and worry later. He grins evilly. He has wired two and will get
probably two actions before his opponents get another. The attacking force
is slaughtered by precise fire before they even can think of retreat. One
or two of the friendlies are shipped to a hospital unit with minor
injuries.

the first example is uncybered, the second cybered.

After a few battles most uncybered nations (with Iran and Iraq as possible
exceptions) will surender rather than loose their entire population of men
ages 18 to 35. Wars that have lots and lots of casualities are not popular.

I already said that military service will turn into a life long job. No
need to worry about what the troops look like. All they will do is fight
and train. You have a smaller military but the people in it are in for 10+
years. Then into the reserves. By then the next generation os cyberware is
out and utilized and they can retire without being anything special. Off th
private security work. And the neat thing is that the military still
maintains it's edge...
--

Ben-ha-meen
--i feel evil. like, that i am evil, not that
i feel an evil presence or something--

james mcculloch
Message no. 12
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 17:56:08 -0600
>A good many pieces of military equipment are that expensive. Why
>not build them into the troops?

Because a lot of the troops aren't in for the long haul. And sure you can
rip it out when the muster out of service, but why put something into
someone if it may not be used? Like my friend Max, who's a repair techie who
leaves his 4 years in 9 months, has not seen any combat except field
rotations. He's going to work in a massage parlor after that. I don't think
the army's gonna pay for people to give really quick back rubs. :)

>Six men with Wired 2, Smartlinks, Nightvision, Thermo, T-Scope
>. . . A three round burst isn't likely to take them out.

No, but it will screw their target numbers. Especially if the ambushing team
is smart enough to aim shots to their heads in the first place, or simply lob
a grenade. You're also assuming they will acquire their targets after the
first surprise round. Go walk in a forest and see how many hiding places you
can spot, and remember how fast bullets go.


J Roberson
Message no. 13
From: Neal A Porter <nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 16:45:04 +1100
>
>Please amend my statement regarding being able to shoot want with
>enhancements to include within the effective infantry fighting range. With
>improvements to sight you could save millions just on ammunition. Those
>folks in Bosnia go through 3 or 4 clips for every hit they score, and that
>is on a good day. multiply that a few times and the cost starts mounting.

Three of four clips cost about 150nY, for this price you ice a sam worth
150Kn, pretty cost effective if you ask me.

>Now joe infantry is in the field. His attackers ambush his platoon. They
>are all hit with the occasional round that happens to get lucky (as per
>modern combat). He has dermal three and a trauma damper. The rounds fail
>to even slow him down.

Pardon we, but the occasional round does put a severe dent in your life
prospects.

> Using the random round bit his attackers could out
>number him three to one and still not really hurt him as he can take the
>damage and worry later. He grins evilly.

Hard to do this after you've been shot I think.

>After a few battles most uncybered nations (with Iran and Iraq as possible
>exceptions) will surender rather than loose their entire population of men
>ages 18 to 35. Wars that have lots and lots of casualities are not popular.

> Ben-ha-meen


As I've said before, attempting to cyber an entire army is prohibitivly
expensive. Also its seldom the performance on the individual that influances
the outcome of a war. It the quality of the major equipment (read tank, LAV,
A/C here), and the command and communications that matters the most.
Your heavily cybered killers wont be very good if they are in the wrong
place at the wrong time, will they.


Adeus
Message no. 14
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 23:53:29 -0600
>Those folks in Bosnia go through 3 or 4 clips for every hit they score, and
>that is on a good day. multiply that a few times and the cost starts mounting.

Nice to know someone's counting the bullets.

>So joe infantry is standing behind a building. He pops off his missle and
>it ...Misses! Before he fires again the tank blows the entire side of the
>building away and the surounding 4 others, just for good mesure. The
infantry still need to be faster that the tank.

Wired reflexes will not save their but. They let you REACT faster, not MOVE
faster (at least, in the sense of running and sprinting).

>Using the random round bit his attackers could out
>number him three to one and still not really hurt him as he can take the
>damage and worry later. He grins evilly. He has wired two and will get

Then they are feeble. Good tactics will always win over tech, all other factors
being equal.

Modern army doctrine is *not* point an spray; it does involve aiming. I would
give the average trooper a firearms of at least 3 or 4, getting higher the
longer he spends in training and in combat. So the trooper rolls say four
dice + four from combat pool vs a TN of 3 (with smartgoggles) and gets, say,
5 successes. His opponent rolls maybe 5 Body dice vs a TN of 10-armor (we'll
call it Secure, though it's probably heavier) against a TN of 5, plus maybe
5 CP dice and gets 3 successes and still takes a Deadly wound (assuming the
attacker fired a burst).

Even with an effective body of 6 or even 8 the chances are even that every
hit will do at least a Light. And he can't kill them all in one round.
And this is using the gear shadowrunners will have; military-grade armor
and weapons will be different, but within the same scale if you ask me.


>probably two actions before his opponents get another. The attacking force
>is slaughtered by precise fire before they even can think of retreat. One

>After a few battles most uncybered nations (with Iran and Iraq as possible
>exceptions) will surender rather than loose their entire population of men
>ages 18 to 35. Wars that have lots and lots of casualities are not popular.

Gee, they already do this without cyberware. Maybe we don't need it after all!
:)

>I already said that military service will turn into a life long job. No
>need to worry about what the troops look like. All they will do is fight

That's probably true. The military WILL be more of a profession. But it
doesn't mean everyone'll get that cybered edge, either.

The following is an example of the 21st century tropper, as much as I can
remember, from GURPS Ultra-Tech. No Cyber:

NBC sealed suit of hard armor. Helmet includes HUD (like smartgoggles)
tactical radio, and various vision enhancements like Thermo and LI.
Gun is a dual magazine gyroc (which don't exist in Shadowrun; call it
a caseless assault rifle with dual mag, one w/HEAP and the other with AP).
Some other goodies, but that's all I remember.

So imagine the 21st century infantryman in his Full Heavy armor, radio that
has an integral smartgoggle, LI, thermo, and radio, plus badassin gun. And
that's w/o cyber. I think that's sufficient for the average grunt, leaving
more cyber cash for the specialists (Spec forces, techies, etc).

And don't forget two things about money:

1) "They spend that much per capita on other things." Well, where do you
think the money for cyberinfantry come from. Infantry are cheap, because
human beings are cheaper than any technogizmo you can rig up.

2) "The government has gobs of money." They don't and they won't. Look at
the current deficit and project it into the greedy-corp Srun world. Look
at the way they're already downsizing the military budget. 'Nuff said.


J Roberson
Message no. 15
From: Deird'Re Brooks <deirdre@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 10:15:06 -0800
> >A good many pieces of military equipment are that expensive. Why
> >not build them into the troops?
>
> Because a lot of the troops aren't in for the long haul. And sure you can
> rip it out when the muster out of service, but why put something into
> someone if it may not be used? Like my friend Max, who's a repair techie who
> leaves his 4 years in 9 months, has not seen any combat except field
> rotations. He's going to work in a massage parlor after that. I don't think
> the army's gonna pay for people to give really quick back rubs. :)

Well . . . I _was_ referring to the infantry, and other combat
oriented personnel. Although a techie would require a datajack,
and a pilot would require rigging gear. And I would think the
terms of service would be longer in these cases, as someone -
whose name escapes me - pointed out, about ten years.

> >Six men with Wired 2, Smartlinks, Nightvision, Thermo, T-Scope
> >. . . A three round burst isn't likely to take them out.
>
> No, but it will screw their target numbers. Especially if the ambushing team
> is smart enough to aim shots to their heads in the first place, or simply lob
> a grenade. You're also assuming they will acquire their targets after the
> first surprise round. Go walk in a forest and see how many hiding places you
> can spot, and remember how fast bullets go.

Aimed shots to the head *without* smartlinks is a bad idea. Have
you ever fired a rifle or a pistol? I mean on a target range.
It's real easy to hit a target the size of a human head, but the
target isn't moving. Suppression fire, which is what I was
referring to, exists purely to force the enemy to put his head
down, and hide. When the first bullets strike about two feet to
the left, the cyber-squad *knows* something is up and has loads
of time (with wiring) to react. If the ambushers start with
aimed shots at the heads, odds are that not all will strike their
intended target.

> J Roberson

Marzhavasati Kali |If mail bounces, check spelling. It's deirdre.
deirdre@***.org |If that doesn't work, send mail to
|deirdre%efn.org@*******.cs.uoregon.edu
"There is a man... playing a violin... and the strings... are the nerves
in his own arm."
-- The Crow
Message no. 16
From: Chris Siebenmann <cks@********.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 14:24:46 -0500
I'm just about certain that at least 1st edition Smartgun links
don't require cybereyes. Presumably they chip into the optic nerve
directly. For that matter, cybereyes are also decently cheap and a
likely investment to stick into Joe Infantry.

As for costs: think how much it costs to train soldiers today.
All of that money is wasted when they leave the service. If cyberwear
is a drop in the bucket compared to training costs, then you're likely
to see it in every sodlier.

- cks
Message no. 17
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 15:16:10 -0600
> As for costs: think how much it costs to train soldiers today.
>All of that money is wasted when they leave the service. If cyberwear
>is a drop in the bucket compared to training costs, then you're likely
>to see it in every sodlier.

But it's not a drop in the bucket, at least not the levels that were being
discusse. And the soldiers *still* have to be trained, so you're not saving
money, you're just adding on to cost.


J Roberson
Message no. 18
From: Julian M Wiffen <ne95003@******.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 00:47:02 +0000
Sorry to go on about the same little dust up but there is another
interesting fact about the Falklands war.
The equipment of the Argentine forces was in many cases superior to the
British (merci beaucoup Mousieur le merchant d'armes francais) but the
difference came in level of training, experience and commitment amoung the
personnel - to give a particular case, Argentine night-vision equipment
was much superior to that used even by the SAS but it certainly did not
stop the latter regiment having an immense superiority at night.
Conclusion with relevence to SR - just think how much training you can
give your people with the kind of money required for even wired reflexes
one - all it really takes is to be able to keep a higher proportion of
your army out of the active duty requirements *** and on the firing
ranges/assualt course/computer simulators etc.

*** I don't know about the US Army but the number of places this country
maintains troops - Ulster (the biggie of course), Gibraltar, The Falkland
Islands, Hong Kong, Cyprus, West Germany, Belize, Bosnia (at the moment
anyway), etc etc (who says colonialism is totally dead!)


Julian
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 13:53:15 +0930
The way I play all (para)military people are: the grunts aren't likely to have
cyber. Maybe one or two have a smartgun link, or other cheap cyber, that
they've paid for themselves.
The higher up the NCO ranks you go, the more cyber you find. Sergeants would
almost unanimously have smartlinks,datajacks, maybe even a little reflex
enhancements or a tactical computer. These may have been paid for by their
employer (by sergeant rank, most soldiers are lifers).
The officers will have a similar outlook.
Standard equipment: medium to heavy armour, smartgun, smartgoggles (if not
linked already), goggles with vision enhancment, radios, etc.

The elite squads will be VERY heavily cybered. Typically: Wired 2, smartlink,
some other stuff.

The Air Force will be almost unanimously rigged, or at the very least, have a
datajack. The advantage of rigging gear is way too great to be ignored.
Similarly, calvary types will be rigged. Again, the extent will depend on the
elitism of the unit.

My typical cop squad: The grunts above. I give about a 1 in 3 chance of any
given cop having a smartlink, a 1 in 6 chance of cybereyes with enhancements.
Also, a common attachment is an internal radio or phone (there is always a
radio in the helmet). And, for all cops/security, I give them bio-telemetry. If
they drop, the alarm is sent out.

(A bio-telemetry pack is just a little black box that knows if you are
alive,dead or busily dying. Works on the same principle as a DocWagon card).

Backup is often little more than another couple of street cops. But if these go
down, you'll get 'coptors, possibly CityMasters. (I once pulled out one of the
GMC Banshees Lonestar has :)

Security response will be appropriate to the level of sensitivity of the site.

--
Robert Watkins bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 20
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Military and Cyber
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 23:24:47 -0600
>The Air Force will be almost unanimously rigged, or at the very least, have a
>datajack. The advantage of rigging gear is way too great to be ignored.

The pilots, you mean. No need for the administrators, technicians, and
warhead specialists to be rigged for vehicular interface.

>Similarly, calvary types will be rigged. Again, the extent will depend on the
>elitism of the unit.

You mean cavalry. Calvary would be Christ on a Cross. :)


J Roberson

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Military and Cyber, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!