john grigg wrote:
>
> Greg Burch wrote:
> Lately I've been thinking that the period between the Franco-Prussian
> War and WWI might have some lessons for the current time, in many ways.
> That was also a long period of relative peace in the relations of the "Great
> Powers", and was also increasingly seen by contemporaries as a kind of
> Golden(or "Gilded") Age (see Twain's writings). However, it seems that the
> military and geopolitical predominance of the US is greater now than that
> enjoyed by the UK in that period.
> (end)
>
> I do think we are in a sort of golden age. 'Pax Americana' is now in force
> and god forbid any nation get in the way of our economic and political
> interest. Isn't neo-colonialism great when you're the one on top? ;)
>
> I hope the analogy does not hold up in the sense that by the mid 21st
> century we will see an age of horrifying conflict. 'Down and out' former
> great powers like China, Russia and India are hungry to play catch-up with
> the United States and Europe. How long will that take(if ever) and when it
> happens what will they want from us??
I'm thinking that either Euroland, Russia, or India, will move into the
place of Teddy Roosevelt Era America and become a strong ally against
the burgeoning Borg of Greater China.
>
> Greg wrote:
> One of the main characteristics of these kinds of vehicles is their
> significantly lower cost than current- and next-generation manned fighter
> aircraft, since they 1) don't have to carry pilot-support systems and 2) can
> be built with much lower service-life expectations in terms of numbers of
> hours of total system operation. They also have significantly enlarged
> flight and tactical envelopes, since they don't have to be constrained by
> the limit of g-forces a human can survive and can be risked in threat
> environments much more dangerous than those to which a modern democracy will
> expose the lives of their fliers.
> (end)
>
> I remember how Arthur C. Clarke predicted such warcraft in his book _2019_
> which came out in the mid-eighties I believe. Of course, I am sure long
> before that these aircraft had been conceived of. My question is, could the
> software and hardware of a drone really equal the flying skills of a gifted
> and experienced human pilot? I suppose it could come close, and by not
> being constrained by the limits of having a human on board, be much
> deadlier.
A local company I know, Creare, that works exclusively in developing new
technolgies on contract, has been working for several years on a fluid
rebreathing system for the US Air Force, presumably to enable pilots to
be able to withstand much higher g forces. The only difficulty to date
is training pilots to overcome the reflex against drowning on a regular
basis...this is the sort of technology you saw in 'The Abyss' used by
divers.
>
> Whatever happened to so-called 'anti-gravity technology?' I remember seeing
> old newsreels showing researchers flying several feet of the ground on what
> I thought were devices that projected strong magnetic fields. Where is this
> research now?
The 'old newsreels' were probably of the Avrojet vehicle. Current
technology is dealing with superconductors, zero point field
manipulation, and near-relativistic energy centrifuge inertial drives.
Stay tuned, or to quote Eliezer....
near term technologies are the Moller Air Car and another personal one
man VTOL aircraft.
>
> If this were perfected I could see the navy becoming airbourne with aircraft
> carriers taking after the S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier which Nick Fury sometimes
> lead his striketeam's from. Now that would impress the neighbors! And
> could you imagine the bomb tonnage you could drop on someone with such
> craft?
Vertical takeoff technologies of any kind tend to be less efficient at
carrying heavy payloads than normal fixed wing aircraft. The largest
helicopter in the world can lift some 26 tons, while the largest
aircraft can carry some ten times that amount.
>
> Greg wrote:
> The point of this digression is that the military think-tank establishment
> is already developing a mind-set that could evolve into one adaptable to
> "nano-war": The factors described above in connection with anticipation of a
> strategic and tactical environment characterized by a tiered deployment of
> increasingly autonomous and smaller and smaller munitions seems capable of
> evolving into the ultimate development of "robo-warfare" at the molecular
> scale.
> (end)
>
> The present military mindset of the pentagon does seem to be very forward
> looking. I know they love to write reports about 'war in 2020' a great
> deal! The military has had a fascination with pilot-less weapon platforms
> for awhile and now the tech is getting here to makes such things a reality.
> Go Bolo! For the glory of the Corps!! :) I also see a natural process
> going on that will ultimately lead to nano-warfare. And I am sure the
> pentagon already has reports written on the big picture! lol
They do do big picture stuff, and see individualist technophiles like us
as a potential threat to the security of the power of the state.
They have put a big priority on developing nanotech and defenses against
it.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:04 MDT