Before all the hate brigade from people who have never set a foot outside the states.
As someone who interacted with troops in combat before (in Iraq before immigrating), I am all for anything helping soldiers do their job more effectively and modernizing their tech.
No they aren't seen as an Imperial force, in 2003 they were seen as liberators by most people (I was against the war, it was dumb, replaced a dictator with 500 mini dictators with no real plan besides theft). In 2013, realistically, without the US support ISIS would still be a threat on the ground. And now majority of the population would want more US intervention as a hedge against being an Iranian puppet state.
> I am all for anything helping soldiers do their job more effectively and modernizing their tech.
As someone who's spent time on the ground, both humping packs, and doing more sophisticated work, I can tell you a couple of things about what soldiers value. The lower down the food chain you are, the more you value simplicity, reliability, and ease of use.
If you're a ground pounder, you don't want expensive, fragile gadgets that require lots of maintenance and extra battery packs, things that distract you or dull your senses. I had to carry a large expensive camera system for a time, and it was not only a PITA, but it constantly was down from sand in the bearings, battery packs not charging right because the contacts were dirty or corroded. And even when it was working right, the setup and teardown times made it almost unusable. The wear and tear on it was insane, it was constantly out if calibration.
That being said, the higher up the decision making process you go, the more useful tools like that are. If you're a combat controller or working out of a base, some tech like that can be really handy. But don't try to load Joe Average down with that mess, cause he'll break your toys, then yell at you that all he needed in order to make a combat plan was a stick and some sand.
The rest of your anecdote was really interesting, thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the info and your service. I hope they take durability in mind when making these. The HoloLens does seems like something more for the second case (higher ups) than ground pounders.
> The rest of your anecdote was really interesting, thanks for sharing!
No problem :) of course what I typed is simplistic but such is the case for mediums like these
I recommend Al Basheer Show if you want to know more, think John Stewart but Iraq, I linked some English episodes
Current Protests against the government, assassination's of civil rights activists and intellectual figures by Iranian backed militias - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc0EOr_Rq_w
I believe you misunderstood Eisenhower's intent if you believe it applies to a science project like this.
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.
The key there is "unwarranted influence". AR toys are not a tail wagging the dog. It's not the military overstepping the extremely limited boundaries in which it should be operating.
To muddy the waters by bringing it up with every little acquisition the military does harms the wholly justified effort to restrain and constrain the military industrial complex.
Soldiers naturally face immense PTSD from harming human beings. There is only one natural end game of this technological progression uninterrupted; soldiers will be coddled by tech to dehumanize the enemy.
> Soldiers naturally face immense PTSD from harming human beings. There is only one natural end game of this technological progression uninterrupted; soldiers will be coddled by tech to dehumanize the enemy.
I disagree
1. We don't need tech to dehumanize people, you can say that it brings down the barrier of cost to do it to mass but governments can already do this without this tech
2. Assuming tech does make the dehumanizing part easy, this isnt the only "natural" end game. I can easily see how this can help higher ups make more effective decisions and reduce civilian causalities
>Soldiers naturally face immense PTSD from harming human beings.
Yes of course. That's why the most important part of military training is to break you down and turn you into a mindless killer who obeys orders. Doesn't always work but that's the goal.
I recently read Stand on Zanzibar (John Bruner, 1968) which trained the military to kill through “EPTifcation”(education for particular tasks). It’s set in 2010 and some (many?) of the predictions are spot on- E-cigs, relations with China, shiggy circuit (dating/hookup apps), widening social divides, scanalyzer (Twitter/Social “media”), militarized police force, corporations with near nation-state power, and of course an AI named Shalmaneser.
10 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 31.6 ms ] threadAs someone who interacted with troops in combat before (in Iraq before immigrating), I am all for anything helping soldiers do their job more effectively and modernizing their tech.
No they aren't seen as an Imperial force, in 2003 they were seen as liberators by most people (I was against the war, it was dumb, replaced a dictator with 500 mini dictators with no real plan besides theft). In 2013, realistically, without the US support ISIS would still be a threat on the ground. And now majority of the population would want more US intervention as a hedge against being an Iranian puppet state.
As someone who's spent time on the ground, both humping packs, and doing more sophisticated work, I can tell you a couple of things about what soldiers value. The lower down the food chain you are, the more you value simplicity, reliability, and ease of use.
If you're a ground pounder, you don't want expensive, fragile gadgets that require lots of maintenance and extra battery packs, things that distract you or dull your senses. I had to carry a large expensive camera system for a time, and it was not only a PITA, but it constantly was down from sand in the bearings, battery packs not charging right because the contacts were dirty or corroded. And even when it was working right, the setup and teardown times made it almost unusable. The wear and tear on it was insane, it was constantly out if calibration.
That being said, the higher up the decision making process you go, the more useful tools like that are. If you're a combat controller or working out of a base, some tech like that can be really handy. But don't try to load Joe Average down with that mess, cause he'll break your toys, then yell at you that all he needed in order to make a combat plan was a stick and some sand.
The rest of your anecdote was really interesting, thanks for sharing!
> The rest of your anecdote was really interesting, thanks for sharing!
No problem :) of course what I typed is simplistic but such is the case for mediums like these
I recommend Al Basheer Show if you want to know more, think John Stewart but Iraq, I linked some English episodes
Confessionalism in post 2003 Iraq - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-KVPWXWlNk
Infamous PM Nouri al Maliki - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbPMDBebSRk
Current Protests against the government, assassination's of civil rights activists and intellectual figures by Iranian backed militias - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc0EOr_Rq_w
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.
The key there is "unwarranted influence". AR toys are not a tail wagging the dog. It's not the military overstepping the extremely limited boundaries in which it should be operating.
To muddy the waters by bringing it up with every little acquisition the military does harms the wholly justified effort to restrain and constrain the military industrial complex.
Highly recommend watching this episode: (spoilers on Wiki obviously) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Against_Fire
Soldiers naturally face immense PTSD from harming human beings. There is only one natural end game of this technological progression uninterrupted; soldiers will be coddled by tech to dehumanize the enemy.
I disagree
1. We don't need tech to dehumanize people, you can say that it brings down the barrier of cost to do it to mass but governments can already do this without this tech
2. Assuming tech does make the dehumanizing part easy, this isnt the only "natural" end game. I can easily see how this can help higher ups make more effective decisions and reduce civilian causalities