Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just a strange thought I had...

Here in the distant future year of 2009 all modern militaries follow the same basic form. Men, in cameo, with helmets and maybe chest armor, and assault rifles (backed up with SAWs or light MGs).

No one had tried to create super soldiers using steroids and hypnois. No one fields 5' tall martial-artist gymnasts armed with crossbows. No one uses head to toe ceramic armor and grenade launchers.

It's interesting.

Are there just no other viable models out there?

Not as of yet, the only real difference between armies is delivery system and level of training/mechanization. For the current level of tech they have pretty much exhausted the abilities of an average foot soldier. The reason we havn't gotten into the bio soldiers yet is two part. The ethical shitstorm such a move would create and we lack a lot of the necessary understanding of genetic splicing to create a cloned/bio-engineered army.

Ratbarf wrote:Not as of yet, the only real difference between armies is delivery system and level of training/mechanization. For the current level of tech they have pretty much exhausted the abilities of an average foot soldier. The reason we havn't gotten into the bio soldiers yet is two part. The ethical shitstorm such a move would create and we lack a lot of the necessary understanding of genetic splicing to create a cloned/bio-engineered army.

I'm kind of surprised I never heard of the soviets or warsaw pact experimenting with steroids or other pharmacuticals to create a better soldier.

Sure someone might be doing it now but I'd assume we'd never hear of it.

Ratbarf wrote:Not as of yet, the only real difference between armies is delivery system and level of training/mechanization. For the current level of tech they have pretty much exhausted the abilities of an average foot soldier. The reason we havn't gotten into the bio soldiers yet is two part. The ethical shitstorm such a move would create and we lack a lot of the necessary understanding of genetic splicing to create a cloned/bio-engineered army.

The big one is lack of need. When an IED knocks out a hummer no-one is thinking 'if only the soldiers inside were genetically engineered seven foot tall supermen'. Bigger and tougher is nice, but compared to improved intel from superior technology, I think most people would stay away from the supersoldiers.

Funny you mention IEDs because I guess that is another model.

Relatively untrained militia, in civilian clothes, striking form ambush or with car bombs or against soft (ie civilian) targets. Effective at disruption but not at establishing governments of their own.

I'd still rather have 5' tall gymnasts with crossbows. that would be awesome.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Funny you mention IEDs because I guess that is another model.

I though of that but in your OP you said modern militaries, which I took to mean NATO and other similarly developed forces, and to exclude the Iraqis and other forces.


The difference being, I think, that the methods of war used by the Iraqis are forced on them through a lack of resources, whereas, for instance, the Persians and the Greeks could theoretically both have undertaken similar structures, strategies and equipment, but chose very different methods of war.

In WWII, the nazis gave their troops amphetamines, but surely that would have become a serious long-term problem had they not been defeated. The next big advance in technology will probably be powered armor and autonomous cruise missiles.

I think we'll see drones before power armor. Why build something with a human operator when you can elminate him, make a more efficient and cheaper machine, AND save the lives of your highly trained specialists.

Of course that assumes your communications are ROCK SOLID secure.

But if we continue the asymetical pattern of the 21st C, developed militiaries vs militias, bandits and terrorists hacking won't really be a threat.

But if we continue the asymetical pattern of the 21st C, developed militiaries vs militias, bandits and terrorists hacking won't really be a threat.

Aside from you know, China.

I'm kind of surprised I never heard of the soviets or warsaw pact experimenting with steroids or other pharmacuticals to create a better soldier.

There was a show on the National Geographic channel awhile back that said the British government was testing out vaccines and some bioagents on their own troops.

The next big thing on the warfare list is remote controlled robots. Once you have the robo tank it doesn't really matter how many IEDs the bad guys plant because they can literally just throw money at it and have it solved.

Having "been there" and "done that" I can say that there is quite a bit of variety. Just within one particular countries forces I have seen a wide variety of units and capabilities (including hunter killer missiles). Then you get into the multinational forces, no giant super men yet but I've seen people just a stupid as orks (unfortunatly quantity has a quality all of it's own).

sebster wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Funny you mention IEDs because I guess that is another model.

I though of that but in your OP you said modern militaries, which I took to mean NATO and other similarly developed forces, and to exclude the Iraqis and other forces.


The difference being, I think, that the methods of war used by the Iraqis are forced on them through a lack of resources, whereas, for instance, the Persians and the Greeks could theoretically both have undertaken similar structures, strategies and equipment, but chose very different methods of war.

The Greeks and Persians had very different social and geographical backgrounds which caused them to develop very different military systems.

Greek armies were composed of citizen soldiers, who gained their place through social position. Every man rich enough to afford the panoply was a member of the army. They needed their wars to be fought and decided quickly so that the men could go back to their civilian lives.

The Persians used professional soldiers who would serve as long as they were paid and fed.

The Persians had access to huge resources of horses while Greece being mainly mountainous was not good territory for horses. Only in the plains of Thessaly was there any significant Greek cavalry.

Super soldiers would be good,even better would have been if Stalin got his wish and he made ape/man hybrids and used them to wage war.

Kid_Kyoto wrote: Men, in cameo, with helmets and maybe chest armor

Sounds like Broadway...

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I'm kind of surprised I never heard of the soviets or warsaw pact experimenting with steroids or other pharmacuticals to create a better soldier.

Sure someone might be doing it now but I'd assume we'd never hear of it.

There's some articles and thoughts to do with this sort of thing on here... hope you can read that !

The "pain vaccine" sounds quite cool and the most viable for non military use too.

Flying Ape/Shark hybrids with lasers for eyes are the way to go.

Psychic girls in high school outfits.

Rubber coat guns and give them to lLARPers and trick them into going on 'holiday'.

"Ohhh those Taliban look really authentic, shall we shoot 'em?"

On a side note, does the Russian military still have greatcoats as part of its uniform?

Speaking of Russians and Larpers with guns these guys are both:


http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/rpSlideshows?articleId=USRTXD594#a=10

I'm surprised no one has mentioned any of the power assisted exoskeleton platforms the U.S. military is working on.


Either way the idea of a supersoldier is somewhat outmoded by the idea of a tank or strike aircraft. Combat capable machines with capabilities far beyond anything soldiers with steroids could ever be capable of. Modern warfare is a pushbutton affair, it's still brutal but physical capability isn't nearly as important as accurate information. One bomb accurately placed can do the work of a hundred soldiers. And does.

Perhaps the answer is that ordinary soldiers are good enough for what they need to do.

As soon as you create a race of 7-foot tall power armoured soldiers you've got a problem with all your vehicles because they are suddenly too small, and a problem with FIBUA because the soldiers won't be able to get into normal sized buildings, and unless the armour can withstand an RPG round they are going to be nearly as vulnerable as ordinary soldiers and a lot more expensive and harder to support.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
But if we continue the asymetical pattern of the 21st C, developed militiaries vs militias, bandits and terrorists hacking won't really be a threat.

Hacking itself is becoming an increasingly viable weapon for the developing world. China is already thought to have carried out a major penetration of the US intelligence network, and is most likely working to improve its capabilities in that area while India, North Korea, and Iran are developing similar faculties. And, given the nature of the internet, it wouldn't be impossible for an asymmetrical force to employ some form of cloud computing utility in order to multiply their overall processing power for a directed strike on the US domestic infrastructure. Mind you this would not directly affect our armed forces, but do harm to national morale and logistical services which are far more crucial to US battlefield capabilities than those of other nations.

The threat to drone systems doesn't come from hacking, but more traditional E-War technologies like broad spectrum interference.

The US Army has a lot of projects under development at any given time; most of the work ends up being used as research material for their future developments though.

Nanotechnology is a big thing and there's a soldier-centric nanotechnology deparment at MIT http://web.mit.edu/isn/aboutisn/index.html

Bionics, nanotechnology, and other things orginally from science fiction have surfaced as projects for several militaries especially the US. Here's a link to the US Army department that will handle the future development of our infantry http://nsrdec.natick.army.mil/about/ss&t/index.htm

Preparing for credit transfer!