Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest Advertisement New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices 1. Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East 2. Commander: Napoleon at War 3. Close Combat: Watch am Rhein 4. Gallic Wars 5. Fast Action Battle: The Bulge 100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.       Online Giving Utah SEO Firm Xango Smiley Gifts for Babies

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT david.roels@pandora.be    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   3/27/2001 7:35:03 AM sounds promising, it sure has a good ratio, you can loose a bunch of drones for the price of a T80 or BMP.   Quote    Reply George Collins    Manned vs. Unmanned - a rule of thumb   3/27/2001 10:25:56 AM Human beings evolved to get around on the surface of the Earth. The further you get from natural human environments and natural human perceptions the more likely it is you can substitute a machine. So at the extreme, space, unmanned vehicles should predominate. On the edges you have air to air combat-- when you depend on radar-- and deep underwater where you depend on sonar. Unmanned tanks might have a place clearing minefield or some such thing but there are also many, many problems. Firing either has to be autonomous or you need some reliable FOF recognition. If the device is controlled remotely you need to send a lot of data back and forth. Telepresence is horrible when compared to the speed and perception of a person actually there. Again, it depends on how well the situation is suited to human perception. A tank firing through an IR sight isn't going to suffer as much from the loss of peripheral vision through a camera. But people will be so much cheaper and versatile.   Quote    Reply NVDoyle    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   3/27/2001 11:12:52 AM Drones, Unmanned Combat Vehicles (UCVs) have several advantages. They're disposable - one gets hit, forget it, or suicide it (charge the enemy), it's a machine, not a buddy. You can expend them essentially at will. Better sensors in some ways. Could possibly carry more than a grunt. Take more punishment. But there are drawbacks - how are they controlled? Wire/fiberoptics? Too easily fouled. Radio? Jammable. Onboard AI? Nice idea, but how good/discriminating is it? They won't replace infantry, but might be a very good asset for them.   Quote    Reply John Cochran    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   3/29/2001 1:02:04 PM I don't think machines will ever replace people in the FBA anymore than the airplane will replace the battleship as th - ah, ah, wait one.   Quote    Reply NVDoyle    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles (Little OT)   4/14/2001 9:37:32 AM Tanks, jets, prop planes, dirigibles, battleships, aircraft carriers, APCs, armored cars, ATGMs, mortars, artillery, rockets, ICBMs, submarines, atomics, ships-of-the-line, triremes, longboats, chariots, war elephants, cavalry, camelry, seige engines, Greek fire, longbow, crossbow, rifle, musket, sword, spear, club. And throughout all of this? Infantry. The human being is a extremely versatile weapons platform, with excellent sensors, stunningly flexible and capable motive systems, and shockingly aggressive and innovative combat AI. Granted, it takes about eighteen years of careful and patient effort to build one, and their handlers get attached to them - they even form attachments to each other, but that's been shown to -improve- their combat efficiency. Some have even freely destroyed themselves, for their fellow units. Now, there are drawbacks - most would rather not get damaged - they do have opinions of their own, but that's the price you pay for such capability, and treating them with any sense of ethics. Noise is made every so often about something replacing them, but it's -never- happened. Not in thousands of years of development. Even now, R&D isn't anywhere even close to a substitute for them. What they've done is enhance them with better tools. The support arms (air and naval), however, have jobs that would be much easier replaced by machines. Whether that will happen - the replacement - remains to be seen. Augmentation, of course, has already happened. But until we come up with something as flexible, resilient, capable and aggressive as a properly raised and trained eighteen-year-old human (and there are some, despite what you might think :), infantry will be around.   Quote    Reply twcgriffin@webaddressbook.com    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   10/27/2001 4:51:14 AM The disadvantages of robotic weapons systems are, in this day and age, powerfully outweighed by the big advantage: we don't like dying. Consider the current conflict in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Quada. Our hesitancy to occupy and conquer is caused as much by fear of casualties as by political pressures against Western occupation of a Muslim land. However, the next generation of robotic battle systems will undoubtedly be designed with just this sort of low-grade conflict in mind. Simple creepers could slowly saunter up to enemy entrenchments, lob grenades, and lay down suppressing fire on survivors/would be escapees. Flat, crab-like automatic weapons platforms could be fixed near troop concentrations and used to eliminate opposing infantry without any risk to friendlies. Small hover craft, either wielding small arms fire and/or high explosives, can strafe opposing positions or self-destruct with massive and perfectly placed effect. One posting here mentioned radio based control systems as easily jammed and/or spoofed. Agreed. The same message suggested that fiber optics would be too easily foiled. I believe this could be overcome. Robotic weapons systems could be constantly fed a signal that *prevents* self-detonation. Terminating the fiber optic connection would lead to immediate self destruction that would prevent the equipment from landing into enemy hands and possibly score lucky hits in the process. Furthermore, proper redundancy and mutual protection between individual platforms would minimize target vulnerability. (System "A" guards system "B'" cables, and vice versa and so on.) Another posting here mentioned that human intuition and response time in the field is irreplacable by AI. Also agreed. But who cares? You don't need to replace it--just *move* it to a safer location away from the front lines, and allow improved virtual reality and detection technology to move the view of the battlefield to the human operator while keeping her/him safe from the hazards of war. Let the machines do the dying.   Quote    Reply mike    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   2/3/2002 11:14:16 AM NICE ARTICLE   Quote    Reply Moffmaster    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   3/15/2002 6:59:29 AM Drones will be an integral part in the future battlefield (20 year perhaps). In the air they already have taken many roles; there are decoys and one way bombers(cruise missiles) and lately even ground attack aircraft. On the ground it will be more difficult because there is so much distraction and movement is so unlinear. Laser communications could be the key for a secure and very difficult to jam way to coordinate your drones. In the air you could have your manned craft hiding behind a screen of drones. Trailing perhaps 50 km behind them the pilots would be sitting in relative safety aboard AWACS or tanker aircraft coordinating the drones. On the ground movement is difficult for drones. This is a very difficult issue and a field in which humans are far superior to them. All kinds of vehicles also brake down regularily. One or two drones per squad could be a good number. The infantry helps the drone get where it is needed and then pilot it into the combat zone. This way dangerous things like investigating buildings (or caves) could be taken over by the drones.   Quote    Reply Rob    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   4/18/2002 1:10:55 PM "we don't like dying" nobody really does yet the Terrorists have lines of volunteers who are willing to give their lives for crack pot causes. They see death everyday, so they view it as only natural in the cycle of things. They have nothing to lose, so by risking their necks they possibly have everything to gain(at least in their eyes). Not us Americans, we have so much we don't care. We're so remote from the realities of the world(which made 9/11 possible), we don't even fully understand or accept it. Whatever happened to "I regret that I only have one life to give for my country"? You know the same logic most of you people are thinking by is what got us into this mess in the first place. Instead of sending Spec ops into Afghanistan to hunt Al-Qadea down, we used cruise missles so as not to harm our boys. Let the bombs do the killings. Yet what did that prove to Bin Laden, "Ha the Americans are scarred dogs who won't even fight us man-to-man, they have to use their high tech weapons to get us." To him, it was nothing but a sign of weakness and he thought by brining to war to us he make us crapp our pants in fear. Imgaine what totally replacing our entire military with drones will send to future enemies, and how they'll respond to that? "oh but it will save lives", yeah that was the reason behind the development of the machine gun(so you won't need as many men to do the firing when one man has the firepower of 10 men), the atomic bomb(totally anhilate the enemy's positions so our boys wouldn't have to fight them), in fact almost every deadly weapon in history had the original intent of saving lives. yet it has had the opposite effect. The machine gun and the a-bomb have become the modern symbols of instruments of mass-death. If you truely want to save lives, go back to fighting with stick and stones, that was far less bloodly. besides you can just pack explosives on the back of a common remote control car towards the enemy and BOOM! Heck thats what the Germans did against the allies during World War 2, but did that replace humans? No! I think Americans have such a fetish with high-technology that they just think that everything can be solved by it. Yet usually the more high-tech, the more problems and possible problems occur. "oh but who cares, the machine does the dying while I get to sit on my butt watching tv". We'll be playing right into our enemies hands! As the old proverb goes, "If you have nothing worth dying for, you have nothing worth living for."   Quote    Reply Rob    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   4/19/2002 1:11:19 PM Here are some things I like to add that I forgot to say earlier. The concept of replacing humans with unmanned vehicles is ridiculas as the concept that tanks would completely replace human infantry on the battlefield. In fact the two concepts have remarkable similarities(only one involves unmanned tanks). But as the Battle of Cambrai in 1917 proved that tanks alone were not as effective without infantry support. Same with unmanned vehicles cannot operate without human support ON THE FRONT(not a control center 300 miles away). Do drones have a future role in warfare, yes! But you people are highly over stating what that role will be. Mostly as aids for recon teams and softening up enemy positions before a regular infantry srtike(much like an air-strike or artillery bombardment does). But unmanned recon vehicles will not totally replace human recon teams either I like to add. But as far as totally replacing humans, absolutely not! If they were going to, they would have done it years ago. The potential to do so is at least 20 years old, and like I said earlier the German Whermacht of WW2 had little remote control robots packed with explosives rush towards enemy lines. In theory, all you need to do is pack $20 remote control cars with explosives and drive them towards the enemy. Heck its theoritically possible TODAY(not 20 years from now), but why haven't they? Because of something we like to call PRACTICE. A theory may sound good, but it ain't worth crap if it can't be put into practice. Just like trying to wage war with tanks only, waging war only with remote control vehicles has loopholes that must be filled with human ifantry at the front. "but we don't like dying" "it will do the dying for me", well mister you're in for a big reality check: EVERYBODY DIES, INCLUDING YOU! Sooner or later pal, it will happen. It can happen anywhere anytime. You can choke on a pretzel, you can get into a car-crash, a sudden heart-attack, whatever. Sending a robot isn't going to help your situation, you're still going to die someday. If not by some Taliban warrior than possibly by some gang-banger in the ghetto. SO LIVE WITH IT! Plus lets examine the notion of trying to control these things from several miles away. In "Shooting Blanks: War making that doesn't work", James E. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi say that of all the world's militaries, none are most obssessed with the concept of trying to fight wars long distances away as the Americans. Where do we get this love affair from, they don't know. But trying to fight a war long distances from the actual fighting isn't effective. Now sure you can see the battle-scene through a video cam, but its a poor substitute for actually being there. In order to truely know, understand, and effectively react to whats actually going on, YOU HAVE TO BE PHYSICALLY THERE! Most tests I've seen of unmanned combat vehicles are under unrealstic conditions. Instead of trying to actually hit real targets, they're aiming at paper dummies, plus the dummies just stand still. These are more than perfect conditions, but as anybody whose been into combat knows PERFECT CONDITIONS NEVER EXIST ON THE BATTLEFIELD! Plus many of you people claiming unmanned vehicles will replace humans, you argue mainly from a technology point of view. Yet to win in wars, technology alone will not win it. Its not technology that counts, but appropiate technology. And what is appropiate is rarely revealed untill the shooting actually starts. Just because the British had new breech loading rifles didn't mean they would automatically defeat the Zulus armed with primitive spears. The Zulus actually defeated the British at Isandawana in 1879. Low tech Soviet weapons defeated American weapons(which are usually too complex) during the tanks battles between India and Pakistan. The German Whermacht was light-years ahead of many of it opponents, yet they met a massive defeat. The technologically superior Romans were beaten by barbarian tribes armed with sharpened sticks. So don't think that technology alone is the answer. I know this is a hard concept to swallow in such an age of blind worship of technology. If everything depended on technology alone, we would have been replaced long ago! And if you're going to try to tell me "oh but the advances of technology will replace humans on the battlefield, its inevitable" you're just trying to sound big by claiming the laws of nature are on your side. Many commercial elites in the early 1800's used this argument to justify the massive poverty, pollution, and other guff caused by the Industrial Revolution. "OH this is how things work in the world, to try to change it is as useful as trying to stop the tide". What this eventually did was create a massive backlash against thinking of the time, which gave birth to the origins of Fascism and Communism, which took hold with bloody effects in the 20th century. The same thing is happening today with "experts" trying to dictate how "nature really works". So all you're really doing is arguing for a concept that cannot work and simply trying to rationalize it with technological talk, totally ignoring the other factors that determine the fate of the world. Go ahead, try and prove how it works in theory but it simply won't work in reality. I believe the concept of replacing humans with unmanned vehicles will soon be proven wrong and thrown in the trash-pit of history along with Tanks replacing humans, all wars taking place with aircraft alone, and all those other theories. However, sadly, only later to come up again in some other form. And the cycle of history continues.   Quote    Reply Rob    Unmanned Vehicles will not save lives   4/20/2002 6:48:35 PM Another thing refuting the claim that unmanned vehicles will save lives, IT WON'T!!! Do you honestly think that our enemies are dumb enough to duke it out with robots? Heck no! They'll strike at our weakest link. If remote control vehicles do replace humans, it will actually make humans more of the target. When trying to explain why the US concentrated most of its strategic bombing around Bagdhad during the Gulf War instead of the Iraqi troops in Kuwait, the pentagon offical said, "Well its like fighting an old western gun fight, you can shoot your opponent in the hand that's holding the gun or you can shoot him in the head. If you shoot him in the hand that's holding the gun, you haven't completely solved your problem. If you shoot him in the head, you've solved all your problems, you no longer have to worry about the gun." Same is true with the concept of remote control vehicles. If you kill the human controlling it, you don't have to worry about the robot, its practically useless. And since the human is no longer really trained to fight effectively in the old fashion way, well now he's easier to kill. All the enemy has to do is train some assassins with bombs or even with small insect robots(hehehe) to infiltrate the control centers where humans are controlling the unmanned vehicles and explode, killing all the humans. Think its impossible? Remember 9/11 with a civilian aircraft crashing into the Pentagon. There have even been some small terrorist attacks at the CIA headquarters. They don't even have to be successful, all they have to do is create fear and anxiety(the real purpose of terrorism) so that the human operators will have to look over their own shoulders, thus inhibiting their own abilities to control the vehicles. Classic example of good old fashion physcological warfare. And since there's no appearent danger in letting a robot get destroyed(as opposed to preventing yourself from being killed), they'll neglect their duties in controlling their robots, thus reducing the effectiveness of the robots on the battlefield. That'll mean the greater possibility of robot armaments being captured by the enemy, and having the more intelligent terrorist study them and figure out ways to defeat it. Because effectiveness of robots will start to decline, the terrorists(or whoever) will be able to start diverting more resources towards destroying human control centers thus creating more fear and anxiety among the human operators. In order to better be able to secure themselves, the human operators will probally start to re-train in the old fashion methods of fighting so that they'll be able to counter such a threat(as so many are doing now because of 9/11). Because when that terrorist threat approaches the control centers, whose going to defend it? The robots that are hundreds of miles away? No, the human operators themselves. Even with this old fashion security back, the human controllers will still probally pay more attention to saving their own butts as opposed to worrying about some robot hundred miles away. After a while, people will begin to see of how useless trying to fight wars completely with unmanned vehicles has becomed, because all it really does is give the human controllers a false sense of security which makes them more vulerable to attack. This type of mentalty is what made 9/11 possible. So again, we'd be playing right into our enemies hands. So many in the Middle Ages thought gunpowder had made armor obsolete, after so many years, it was reintroduced. Even today we have a neo-medieval obssession of designing armor that can deflect bullets, just like how the knights wanted armor that could deflect arrows. In fact when helmets where first re-introduced in WW1, many of them were modelled after Medieval helmets. Just like with armor re-appearing on the battlefield; eventually, we will re-introduce human infantry back onto the battlefield. Thus the $300trillion experiment fails, and the wheel of history has once again come full circled!   Quote    Reply bsl    RE:Unmanned Vehicles will not save lives   4/20/2002 9:45:00 PM This is a vast overreaction. There are issues with unmanned platforms, but you don't seem to have identified any of them. 1) " Do you honestly think that our enemies are dumb enough to duke it out with robots? " War is where the weapons are. If one side sends combat systems into a theater and the other side doesn't fight, it's either retreating or giving up. The only alternative is "being destroyed". One can imagine an enemy refusing conventional engagements and trying to melt into a countryside or urban area, to switch to a guerilla war. But, this is NOTHING new, at all. Been dealing with that for more than half a century. And, if the OPForce was set up as a conventional military, to begin with, they'll lose most of it, and more of their capacity by trying to change the basis of their operations on the fly. 2)Re: Rear echelon attacks. You think there is ANYTHING remotely new about this? Please. Where do you want to start looking in the history of warfare? Modern - meaning 20th century - military science had whole careers built around codifying how to get to the enemy rear, precisely to avoid engaging his spearheads. That's what the Blitzkrieg was about. That's what Basil Liddel Hart established his reputation describing. That's why Headquarters Companies have combat elements. That's why Division or Corps Headquarters have guard units. Good lord, have you never read Tom Clancy's RED STORM RISING? Soviet doctrine loved the notion of suprise attacks on Soviet HQs with special forces units. NATO knew that, too. You ALWAYS want to get between the FEBA and the rear echelon if you can manage it, to disrupt communications, supplies, and upset the whole mojo of your enemy's field forces. Now, it IS true that some aspects of unmanned military operations present some new opportunities for an enemy to exploit. Principally, where we're speaking of "remotely controlled" (versus "autonomous") units, there is, potentially, an opportunity to cut the (presumably) radio link between the operators and the craft. Or, to simply intercept it, and derive useful intelligence from it. Or, to hack into the data stream to spoof the operations, or to actually capture them. But, this is really not very different from existing points of attack on conventional systems. You try to trash an enemy airfield, if you can. If the warcraft happen to be on missions when you do so, they may have no place to come home to. You try to destroy communications if you can. You try to intercept those communications, if you can. You try to plant spurious information in the enemy intelligence apparat, if you can. Every level from the highest (Spy versus Spy stuff) down to the battlefield level, if possible. Countless stories in the history of warfare of this. Building false campfires at night while your forces try to slip away, unnoticed, for instance, is an old classic. The Soviets excelled at maskirovka, deception. Indeed, even the US wasn't bad at it, as in the instance of Eisenhowers phony army group, in England, commanded by Patton, which captured Hitler's attention and helped convince him that the real invasion would come at the Pas de Calais, rather than Normandy. Your reference to the reintroduction of armor goes nowhere. Armor disappeared from the battlefield when it lost it's utility, and reappeared when it regained it. The reasons are perfectly rational and realistic. You think tanks would work better without armor? Want to strip the titanium bathtub out of the A-10s?   Quote    Reply bsl    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   4/20/2002 10:04:46 PM There IS something to the notion that when one side considers it's cause worth dying for and the other side doesn't that the first side has a huge advantage. Problem is, that consideration has limited application to this war. It breaks down into two aspects: What we think and what they think. Now, as far as what WE think, we've gotten over most, though not all, of the real hesitation to accept friendly casualties which influenced the last generation and a half of American policy. Partly, there was less such hesitation than some claimed. Americans have ALWAYS been less willing to accept casualties for what they perceive as peripheral interests than they were willing to accept for what they see as basic self interest. One thing OBL accomplished with 9-11 was to convince the VAST majority of Americans that we are in a real war, for our own self defense. Under this regime, we'll bleed and go on. As for what THEY think, I might agree, to some extent, that our enemies are trying to cultivate a self image in which they are brave, holy warriors, prepared to die, facing cowardly infidels who are the hated of Allah. This can help motivate their forces. To some degree. Problems crop up when it turns out that Americans will take casualties and go on. More problems crop up when the mujahadeen start dropping like flies. It's somewhat more difficult to believe that Allah favors you when you're dying, retreating, and losing. Remember the Iraqi Army, in Kuwait? Or, how fast Afghanistan fell, once the Taliban started losing battles? And, once your holy leader's private line to Allah is called into question, morale, generally, tends to start to collapse. Now, it IS true that this line of propaganda can be more effective when you're speaking of a *purely* unconventional campaign. But, this isn't turning out to BE a purely unconventional campaign, now, is it   Quote    Reply Rob    RE:Unmanned Vehicles will not save lives   4/24/2002 6:04:43 PM This is a vast overreaction. There are issues with unmanned platforms, but you don't seem to have identified any of them. Rob: Actually no, these were not overreactions, and what you say next is simply what I said. 1) " Do you honestly think that our enemies are dumb enough to duke it out with robots? " War is where the weapons are. If one side sends combat systems into a theater and the other side doesn't fight, it's either retreating or giving up. The only alternative is "being destroyed". Rob: This is exactly what I said! Our enemies aren't going to try to fight robots when they know they'll be killed. So like I said, they'll strike at our weakest point, and that would be the human controllers who lack traditional training in combat arts. Bst: One can imagine an enemy refusing conventional engagements and trying to melt into a countryside or urban area, to switch to a guerilla war. But, this is NOTHING new, at all. Been dealing with that for more than half a century. And, if the OPForce was set up as a conventional military, to begin with, they'll lose most of it, and more of their capacity by trying to change the basis of their operations on the fly. Rob: I know military history here, I don't need a basic lesson. I know that guerrilla(a term coming from the Napoleonic Wars when Spainish insurgents fought the French invadors) warfare is not new, in fact its possibly older than conventional war itself. Some of the earliest accounts of guerrilla warfare being is used are of small Persian units harrassing Alexander the Great's army during his invasion of the Near East. BST: 2)Re: Rear echelon attacks. You think there is ANYTHING remotely new about this? Please. Where do you want to start looking in the history of warfare? Modern - meaning 20th century - military science had whole careers built around codifying how to get to the enemy rear, precisely to avoid engaging his spearheads. That's what the Blitzkrieg was about. That's what Basil Liddel Hart established his reputation describing. Rob: You seem to think that I don't know jack about rear echelon attacks? Please! I know that flanking your enemy and attacking at the rear is the best way to destroy the enemy. Our enemies would simply do this when faced with remote control robots, they'll strike us at the rear i.e. the human controllers. Bst: That's why Headquarters Companies have combat elements. That's why Division or Corps Headquarters have guard units. Good lord, have you never read Tom Clancy's RED STORM RISING? Rob: No I don't read fiction, i read non-fiction. Bst: Soviet doctrine loved the notion of suprise attacks on Soviet HQs with special forces units. NATO knew that, too. Rob: Yes I know about Soviet Special forces(Spetsnaz, naval spetsnaz, Alfa, OMON, VDV). Please mister, you're acting like I don't know any of this? Bst: You ALWAYS want to get between the FEBA and the rear echelon if you can manage it, to disrupt communications, supplies, and upset the whole mojo of your enemy's field forces. Rob: and you honestly think I didn't already know this? Why the heck did I even make my argument in the first place? Bst: Now, it IS true that some aspects of unmanned military operations present some new opportunities for an enemy to exploit. Principally, where we're speaking of "remotely controlled" (versus "autonomous") units, there is, potentially, an opportunity to cut the (presumably) radio link between the operators and the craft. Or, to simply intercept it, and derive useful intelligence from it. Or, to hack into the data stream to spoof the operations, or to actually capture them. But, this is really not very different from existing points of attack on conventional systems. You try to trash an enemy airfield, if you can. If the warcraft happen to be on missions when you do so, they may have no place to come home to. You try to destroy communications if you can. You try to intercept those communications, if you can. You try to plant spurious information in the enemy intelligence apparat, if you can. Every level from the highest (Spy versus Spy stuff) down to the battlefield level, if possible. Countless stories in the history of warfare of this. Building false campfires at night while your forces try to slip away, unnoticed, for instance, is an old classic. The Soviets excelled at maskirovka, deception. Indeed, even the US wasn't bad at it, as in the instance of Eisenhowers phony army group, in England, commanded by Patton, which captured Hitler's attention and helped convince him that the real invasion would come at the Pas de Calais, rather than Normandy. Rob: I knew all this long before you even told me. Heck I knew this since 8th grade. Bst: Your reference to the reintroduction of armor goes nowhere. Armor disappeared from the battlefield when it lost it's utility, and reappeared when it regained it. The reasons are perfectly rational and realistic. You think tanks would work better without armor? Want to strip the titanium bathtub out of the A-10s? Rob: Same with humans, at least how some of the people are trying to present us as. They're trying to claim that humans would lose their utility if remote controlled vehicles took over. I presented how they could try that but sooner or later, humans would return. I think you highly underestimated me Bst, thinking I didn't know anything about military strategy, tactics, history, etc. However, you did do a good job in giving more detail to what I said already. Much of what you said I was going to add anyways, but only untill now did I have time to do so.   Quote    Reply Rob    RE:Manned vs. Unmanned Vehicles   4/24/2002 6:36:52 PM Before I begin, I like to appologize for calling you bst in my last post. I misread the name. Bsl: There IS something to the notion that when one side considers it's cause worth dying for and the other side doesn't that the first side has a huge advantage. Problem is, that consideration has limited application to this war. It breaks down into two aspects: What we think and what they think. Rob: Again, bsl you are simply repeating what I already said. bsl: Now, as far as what WE think, we've gotten over most, though not all, of the real hesitation to accept friendly casualties which influenced the last generation and a half of American policy. Partly, there was less such hesitation than some claimed. Americans have ALWAYS been less willing to accept casualties for what they perceive as peripheral interests than they were willing to accept for what they see as basic self interest. One thing OBL accomplished with 9-11 was to convince the VAST majority of Americans that we are in a real war, for our own self defense. Under this regime, we'll bleed and go on. Rob: Yes I've noticed those who shout most about "killing them all" are usually those who don't know much about terrorism, war, politics, or anything of that sort. In fact they have no intention of joining the mili