[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 284 KB, 670x460, afghan_eros_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2128311 No.2128311 [Reply] [Original]

What's up, /sci/entists and mathemagicians. I'm from /k/, and I was wondering what you think the future of warfare will be like.
Thanks!

>> No.2128317

leave troll..

>> No.2128319

In an ideal world where peoples' beliefs stem from reason and logic, there would be no future of warfare.

>> No.2128322

>Discuss future
>Discuss warfare
Pick one.

>> No.2128323

Not trying to troll, honest. I just wanted to see what technologies will be big in the near future.

>> No.2128329

>>2128323
And how they could be applied to warfare.

>> No.2128335

>>2128329
nuclear war caused by religious ideologues wipes out humanity

>> No.2128338

We will fight over Lithium crystals, using negative energy beam weapons. Present day weapons will be rendered useless by the ionized argon damper force fields.

Navy battles will be held in the sky, by using ships made out of zinc.

>> No.2128343

War has and will always be the same damn thing; greedy arrogant governments bidding for control or superiority while enlisting their own huddled masses to perform the dirty work.
Fuck off.

>> No.2128353

>>2128311
depends on the enemy, I'd say.

If we're fighting insurgencies, we will have little reason to develop large, sophisticated equipment, instead focusing communication between ground troops and increased mobility.

If we fight large armies, we will probably see more of a tiered strategy. Troops, tanks, tank killers, tank killer killers, etc. There will also likely be an increase in the use of drones (air, ground and sea) and of countermeasures for drones (electrical jamming, hacking, EMP, etc.)

my $.02, spend it as you will.

>> No.2128356

Ok, I get it. Wrong place. Thanks anyway.

>> No.2128362

>>2128323

Spending resources on destroying others instead of spending those same resources on science and research to make a better world for humanity is always a bad idea. War results in some technologies taking major leaps, but the space program also did the same. And while War was the initial purpose of computers, the gaming and science (modeling) research industry now dwarfs that of the war industry when it comes to computer development.
When humans think things logically war will never be the next step.

>> No.2128365
File: 154 KB, 720x542, america_fuckyeah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2128365

sure is pacifist faggots ITT

face it, morons. Military applications has and will continue to be the most prominent drive behind scientific advance.

>> No.2128370

Information warfare, with a chance of orbital bombardment. Possibly powered exoskeletons on soldiers to enhance staying and firepower and provide longer marching range.

Also, how far into future are we talking about?

>> No.2128373
File: 84 KB, 331x500, 400000000000000108679_s4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2128373

>>2128311
OP see image, he will explain the future of warfare to you.

USA!
USA!
USA!

>> No.2128376

>>2128365
>don't know if serious

>> No.2128383

>>2128362
Don't you think the "space race" was a part of the "cold war"?

>> No.2128391

>>2128383

Yes, and thanks to the cold war we got six flags-and-footprints missions to the moon instead of a serious scientific effort to explore space.

>> No.2128402

The third great war is soon, China vs America are the headliners, but there are many significant players - Korea is the nuclear touchpaper. The power that emerges from the ashes is a post-national corporate entity. Wars from then will be digital, segregating New Man who will grow less distinct from his computers, merging with them genetically by the year 2130, from Old Man, the off-grid farmers who will follow New Man to the sky, and become over a millennium subsumed within him. War then is redundant, force exercised only to control non-human organisms and the environment.

>> No.2128406

>>2128362

Follow up on my previous post... that being said, in the near future (<100 years) we will most likely see more networked warfare come into play and less physical. Attacking networks and online infrastructure rather then real.
But when fighting on the ground, in close range house to house, we will see much more communication and use of GPS by our troops. Making it more and more like a video game. The "spotting" system of BC2 for example might make it's way into real combat. Soldiers fully integrated into the command structure at base and receiving real time updates from other people on the ground via their HUD instead of it being yelled in their ear.
Weapons tech, rail guns on navy ships, or if they feel like breaking the law, in LEO.
It wouldn't even be strange to see some asteroids being put into orbit and set up to be tossed at targets as an easy way to destroy cities without the nastiness of nuclear weapons. The US is planning that asteroid landing mission after all..

>> No.2128411
File: 51 KB, 752x459, 1289079499391.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2128411

>>2128391
my point exactly. We didn't go into space to explore, or for scientific reason. We just want to be the monkey on the highest branch in the tree.

Its all pretty basic.

>> No.2128416

>>2128383
i will let sagan talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&v=0xUAR6vbxxU&annotation_id=annotation_316072

>> No.2128433
File: 185 KB, 1300x833, 1911_Solvay_conference.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2128433

>>2128416
>>2128416
God faggot, I stopped listening after "it was a sultry night"

Why do idiots insist on using c&p text and video links as an argument?

Do everyone a favor and STFU.

I bet you have a front bum, don't you?

>> No.2128437

>>2128406
>rail guns on navy ships, or if they feel like breaking the law, in LEO.

I'm writing my thesis on this very topic, and let me tell you: placing a kinetic weapon in orbit breaks no laws. The Outer Space Treaty only prohibits WMDs with an emphasis on nuclear weapons. The catch is, however, that the term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is not defined in any international treaty, therefore, this aspect is impossible to enforce. Coming closest is the Missile Technology Control Regime treaty, which lists the NBC-triad as WMDs, but since this wasn't universally adopted, it's nowhere near an official definition.

Thus, it is perfectly legal to deploy crowbars in orbit and use them against any target valid under the laws of war, even if they DO have WMD-level yields.

>> No.2128462

>>2128356
OP COME BACK
DON'T MIND THOSE FAGGOTS
LET'S DISCUSS WARFARE AND THE FUTURE IN PEACE
PEACE BETWEEN THE BOARDS
WE ARE ALL ONE
WE ARE ALL 4CHAN
COME BACK OP ;(

>> No.2128482

>>2128462
"Warfare in peace": Am I the only one who sees the problem? :)

But yeah, this could turn into an intersecting discussion...

>> No.2128484

I think Norman Schwarzkopf said it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7_TTq_EwXE

>> No.2128487

>>2128482
No, the only problem I see is that you keep sag-- OH GOD IS THAT YOUR EMAIL?

AH HAHAHAHA WHAT A FAGGOT

>> No.2128491 [DELETED] 

>>2128484
you son of a bith

>> No.2128511

>>2128487
There's a reason it's a disposable address, dontcha think?...

>> No.2129185
File: 3 KB, 126x95, kramer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2129185

This.

http://www.amazon.com/Wired-War-Robotics-Revolution-Conflict/dp/1594201986

A MUST read

>> No.2129595

Artillery.

Most military leaders and weapon developers believe that the future of warfare is going to be going back to long range, low yield artillery rounds which makes a lot of sense.