Page 6 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 Feb 2015, 3:36 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
My father worked behind the Iron curtain in Hungary in the 1960s. He has said thing have never been this volatile. In fact the USSR, you sort of knew what to expect with the soviet. He also has some knowledge of Russian thinking.

Your assessment of Urkane merely being an isolated problem I don't agree, not for Putin. He see this in terms of a broader show of strength. Putin does try to test the waters see how far he can push, so the idea of doing nothing doesn't make sense. I'm going on Putin own idea of Russian nationalism, Russian and Soviet history, and his nostalgia for that.

Putin started out, more liberal, and has become more an more autocratic, to the point he doesn't tolerate any criticism from nationals.

Sanction are a tool that are sometime applicable sometimes not, and if think it is preferable for the time being.

Iran is talking to us partly becuase the sanctions were effective.

I have advocated withdrawing of all the foreign mediators and envoys in Israel/Palestine, implore them to meet regularly but come up with their own solution rather than relying on the world. If there is failure to do so I advocate sanctions, on the leadership. This is about creating an incentive. When Kerry naively tried to create peace plan, both Abbas and Netanyahu did everything the could to kill this, because neither asked for it or wanted it. This becuase their whole careers are based on their entrenched positions. So naturally there no incentive on these leaders.

I was born in South Africa. Apartheid was defeated becuase the the incentive was created. Although the US was initially clueless. The combination of the South African campaigners, end exiles, the influence that had on Europe interest eventually spreading to the US, and crucially sanctions, made it happen. Do not underestimate US sanctions on the South African government for creating the incentive for change. I'm not saying he US had the moral high ground or even knew what they were doing, I'm saying that US sanction were a major factor in that resolution, that is often overlooked.

Yes the sanction were crude, and often could have been more refined and targeted, but in the end it did work.


I just don't think the best solution to a volatile situation is to escalate it further, we want peace not confrontation right? If the point is to destabilize Russia and put economic hurt on it, then what is the more likely reaction from them? To capitulate our demands or to harden their opposition to the west? Putin's approval ratings are higher than ever right now, I'm not sure it is true that Putin is more autocratic now than he was before or that he's worse than Yeltsin in this regard(who if you remember correctly actually shelled the Russian parliament with tanks) but what is the desired result here? If the worry is this alleged growing nationalism and autocracy in Russia, wouldn't sanctions and isolation just intensify this? A wounded Russia seems much more dangerous than the current one if that is truly the worry.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Feb 2015, 4:01 pm

You see this as I one sided affair, I do not. I take Putin as he comes from his whole career. I think Putin has a plan for the whole for eastern Ukraine including the north. It need to be held where it is, becuase like or not it not all one homogenous group, not even the Cossacks are one homogeneous group or Russian speakers. The Russian strategy has always been to test the water, to see with how far they can go. Like I said the sanction at the moment are sufficient, they don't need to be ramped up. If talks are successfully sanctions are reduced or eliminated.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 Feb 2015, 5:06 pm

I would take it that you take someone like Aleksandr Dugin very seriously but I think his ideas as pretty fringe worthy and not some guiding principle in Russia, I think Russia's interest and even alleged involvement in Ukraine are pretty rational and straight forward rather than some quest to recreate the Russian Empire or USSR. I see it as more reactive to a unique set of circumstances than some power play testing how far they can push. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, I dunno. I think the more you punish and isolate Russia tho the more popular fringe ideas like those of Dugin will become tho. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of things, I will eat my shoe if Russia starts seriously meddling in the Baltics or especially Poland. Perhaps a good response in these countries would be to make overtures to their Russian minority and make assurances that their rights will be protected in order to curb any potential Russian argument they could make about the persecution of their diaspora.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

23 Feb 2015, 5:47 pm

No I see it purely in terms of Putin's popularity, and need to stay in power. After all his popularity was waning.

I don't see Putin himself as a nationalist, but knowing the power of nationalism.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

23 Feb 2015, 8:32 pm

Getting back to the drones, I was just binge-reading some wiki stuff on gunships and close in air support, and how that role is projected to be performed by drones soon due to the increasing firepower of man portable anti-aircraft weapons and the vulnerability of lumbering cargo aircraft retrofitted with Gatling guns, which seems close to what I'm thinking with a gun based system rather than missiles. For something designed for close in work in a support role, I'm thinking along the lines of a copter design with a flechette weapon, as the light weight and recoil would be ideal on a small drone, and the deflection problem of the flechettes wouldn't be a problem at the range it would be used within.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Lazar_Kaganovich
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 412

23 Feb 2015, 10:38 pm

Dox47 wrote:
So, I've been incredibly unhappy with the way my country has been using drones over the years, indiscriminately and dishonestly, and illegally, as a technological pragmatist I see some potential for the things, if a few modifications were made.

Firstly, the payload. Currently, we seem to equip our drones with Hellfire missiles or something similar, guided high explosive weaponry that takes out not only the intended target, but anyone unfortunate enough to be in the general vicinity, which is problematic enough on its own, but even worse in light of our extremely blase attitude towards target identification. My solution is to replace the missiles with a large caliber guided kinetic projectile, i.e. a bullet, which has already been developed in .50 caliber for use in machineguns. This way, discrete individuals could be targeted, and collateral damage minimized, which is both morally better and more efficient, as it is less likely to inspire more hatred of us from the relatives of said collateral damage. Depending upon the altitude and attitude towards the target, a bullet might not even be needed, something akin to a laser guided lawn dart could be just as effective, and cheap too.

Secondly, integrated facial and pattern recognition, both for the obvious reasons, and for ones I'll get into in my next entry. This technology is another that makes me deeply uncomfortable, but is out there and not going away, and so may as well be adapted for good purposes, which again, I'll make clearer momentarily.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is to switch the mission parameters from hunter/killer of terrorists to peacekeeping, in areas that would be impractical to cover through other means. The textbook example for me would be Africa and groups like Boko Haram, who could be run down in days by drones equipped with thermal gear to see them through cover, and the armament to engage them discretely. That's where the pattern recognition software would come in, spotting anomalous groupings, or specific patterns such as an armed convoy attacking a village, and drawing the attention of human operators, who could then illuminate the particular individuals and engage them while summoning conventional airborne troops.

None of this stuff is perfect mind you, and certainly subject to abuse, but it could also be a powerful tool fighting insurgencies that are traditionally difficult to engage with without inflicting significant civilian casualties, in a cost effective way, that doesn't require the troublesome deployment of ground troops, and that strikes at the morale of the targeted groups. Coming under sniper fire is widely considered to be the worst experience as a soldier, the most frightening, most demoralizing, etc, and a sniper in the sky that can strike at any time and place would be that much worse, not only weakening the resolve of those who experience it directly, but making the whole enterprise seem much less attractive, cutting off recruiting efforts.

Anyway, just a weird idea I've been thinking about off an on that I felt like putting out there.



Honestly, I'm surprised there aren't sniper drones equipped with .50 caliber single shot rifles to take out a single person without the collateral damage. I've been in favor of drones armed with M134 miniguns for a very long time. However, it's about time they develop electromagnetic railguns that can fire small arm rounds for increased accuracy and greater range(since the bullet has greater muzzle velocity it has greater momentum and is less likely to drift due to air currents).



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

24 Feb 2015, 3:55 pm

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
I've been in favor of drones armed with M134 miniguns for a very long time.


Eh, the mini is heavy and has prodigious recoil, it would have to be mounted to a very large drone that couldn't really maneuver at the relatively close range where it would be effective, and I don't really see drones as a suppressing fire weapon anyway, which is what 6000rpm is all about. The Bullet Storm weapon might be a more viable choice for that role on a drone.

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
However, it's about time they develop electromagnetic railguns that can fire small arm rounds for increased accuracy and greater range(since the bullet has greater muzzle velocity it has greater momentum and is less likely to drift due to air currents).


I think you're over-complicating it, the guided bullets I mentioned earlier in the thread only require a stabilized laser designator to follow in, and that's easily accomplished with Steadicam type technology. If you really want the high velocity sub caliber stuff, conventional APFSDS rounds, such as fired by the Steyr AMR would do the trick without the hassle of inventing a railgun small enough to put in a drone, or if you really want to get fancy, maybe a light gas gun, but I still think that's pushing it.

Incidentally, the AMR ought to look very familiar to HALO players...
Image


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Nebogipfel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 509

24 Feb 2015, 6:26 pm

I have a new idea that could drastically cut down on the collateral damage that is incurred when evil doers are brought to justice. Everyone on earth, when they get vaccinated, could be injected with a device with the capacity to cause instant death. The device would remain dormant until a person poses a threat, then law enforcement could activate the kill mechanism with the press of a button. The way I imagine it is that on your personal profile somewhere there would be a kill button linked to the device. Imagine if someone is about to commit a criminal act, and law enforcement didn't have to put any lives at risk. They could just push a button and rectify the issue with a minimum of fuss and no collateral damage.

The main issue with my idea is that currently not everyone gets vaccinated, so there would need to be incentives in place to ensure that even the anti vaxers get implanted with the mechanism. A deadly epidemic could potentially be a good motivatior for them, especially if the symptoms were dramatic. Technology is at the point where viruses can be tailor made with specific symptoms. I know anti vaxers whose paranoia or laziness concerning vaccinations could predominate if the threat is undramatic, but would become staunch vaccination advocates if the disease in question caused body parts to spontaneously amputate or something. It's a chance for psychologists to come together with bio weapons experts to create the right motivations for different psychologies. I know that the bio weapons field gets a lot of bad press, but this is a chance for them to do something with a humanitarian basis.

I know that there are technologies that can induce certain thought patterns. What I don't understand is why something like that isn't deployed in every city. We can promote our objectives in the media all day long, but it's never going to be as effective as any of the invasive behaviour modification options. Too many deviant people are falling through the cracks despite everything that is being done to pacify them. It's time to seal those cracks.



Lazar_Kaganovich
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 412

24 Feb 2015, 7:20 pm

Magneto wrote:
Why is it so hard for people to believe that most Russians actually do support Putin? That the reason he keeps winning elections with such a large majority *is because the majority of people actually do vote for him*, rather than ballot stuffing?




Because many people in the west have this blind faith in democracy and stubbornly cling the idyllic notion that freedom and equality can coexist with each other(this notion is the staple of the American left FYI). Remember Bejamin Franklin's famous quote:

Quote:
Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.


Most Americans believe that to be true without question. But the historical record shows otherwise. The loss of economic security that followed the collapse of communism in the former USSR during the ruinous reign of Boris Yeltsin(and other leaders with the exception of the dictators of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) also lead to increased personal freedom.....But the citizens of Russia were dissatisfied. Putin came to power in late 1999 when the Russian military, which Yeltsin deliberately underfunded, threatened a coup to depose Yeltsin and remove him from power unless he voluntarily resigned and chose a successor. That's how Mr Putin came to power. The reason the coup of 1991 by hardline communists failed is because the Soviet military remained loyal to Gorbachev(a decision that many ex-Soviet commanders later regretted).



Lazar_Kaganovich
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 412

24 Feb 2015, 7:45 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
I've been in favor of drones armed with M134 miniguns for a very long time.


Eh, the mini is heavy and has prodigious recoil, it would have to be mounted to a very large drone that couldn't really maneuver at the relatively close range where it would be effective, and I don't really see drones as a suppressing fire weapon anyway, which is what 6000rpm is all about. The Bullet Storm weapon might be a more viable choice for that role on a drone.

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
However, it's about time they develop electromagnetic railguns that can fire small arm rounds for increased accuracy and greater range(since the bullet has greater muzzle velocity it has greater momentum and is less likely to drift due to air currents).


I think you're over-complicating it, the guided bullets I mentioned earlier in the thread only require a stabilized laser designator to follow in, and that's easily accomplished with Steadicam type technology. If you really want the high velocity sub caliber stuff, conventional APFSDS rounds, such as fired by the Steyr AMR would do the trick without the hassle of inventing a railgun small enough to put in a drone, or if you really want to get fancy, maybe a light gas gun, but I still think that's pushing it.

Incidentally, the AMR ought to look very familiar to HALO players...
Image



The drawback to electromagnetic railguns is they require a Marx generator, which needs a huge capacitor bank. Not to mention there is the problem of resistive heating and the stress on the rails due to repulsion by the 2 parallel currents flowing in the same direction. A better alternative to be investigated and tested is the Coil Gun(which also requires a large amount of power). To power such a device, an additional turbine thruster coupled to a DC generator could be added for larger drones to provide the electric power needed for a mounted coil gun.

As for the Minigun, rotary cannons have been standard features on combat aircraft for decades. Any machine gun is going to produce a lot of recoil so the gun would be housed in a self-contained pod and utilize recoil adapters(kinda like the A-10 warthog has for the tremendous recoil produced by its GAU-8 Avenger cannon). Machine guns in war are used for 2 main purposes: Suppressive fire AND ambush. The problem with the metal storm gun is that is not easy to reload; unlike a Gatling gun.

The Soviet/Russian GShG-7.62 Gatling gun is self-powered and has a similar rate of fire although it has only 4 barrels. I've often wondered about the Fokker-Leimberger which was also self-powered but very little information about it exists and its claims of up to 7000RPM haven't been verified. Nevertheless, it *is* possible to design and build a self-powered Gatling gun that could be mounted on an attack drone and be used to take out designated enemies.



Nebogipfel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 509

25 Feb 2015, 2:45 am

Then again, if you think about the objective, which I assume is combating militancy, that can be achieved through medical means instead of military means. Mass lobotomisation of some form could avoid the need for bloodshed entirely. In fact, this and other techniques of soft coercion could also be used domestically to more harmoniously enable our transition into a slave economy. I feel that modifying the hardware of the mind is superior to utilising drones and other means. Shock tactics will only go so far.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Feb 2015, 3:47 am

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
As for the Minigun, rotary cannons have been standard features on combat aircraft for decades. Any machine gun is going to produce a lot of recoil so the gun would be housed in a self-contained pod and utilize recoil adapters(kinda like the A-10 warthog has for the tremendous recoil produced by its GAU-8 Avenger cannon). Machine guns in war are used for 2 main purposes: Suppressive fire AND ambush. The problem with the metal storm gun is that is not easy to reload; unlike a Gatling gun.


Still doesn't answer why you think a drone needs a machine gun, I mean I'm trying to brainstorm a way to make drones more discriminating and able to engage individuals, where as machineguns aren't really ideal for that usage. I actually think that an automated bolt action rifle cycled electromagnetically and aimed via stabilized laser could achieve a very similar effect for much less weight, without the ammunition requirements of an automatic, and much more accurately, I just don't see the point if a better solution is available for the problem.

Even if a machinegun was an appropriate armament, why a minigun or other rotary cannon? They were originally designed for dogfights where pilots only had a fraction of a second to hit opposing aircraft and 100 bullets per second made sense, then scaled down for fire suppression during Vietnam, but really the high rate of fire isn't necessary for this sort of use, if anything it's a hindrance.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Feb 2015, 3:50 am

Apparently I'm not the only one having these kinds of ideas...

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/white-house-drone/


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

25 Feb 2015, 5:52 am

I don't know why the US government is trying to keep it a secret. It's fairly obvious to anyone who thinks about it, censorship is useless. I've often thought about how easy it would be to assassinate someone with a microdrone equipped with a hypodermic needle, no bigger than a large insect. A sharp sting, then the target is on the ground dying. I could probably build such a device for a few hundred dollars in parts - maybe ricin for the toxin? Bonus points if the drone is automated and self-destructs, so the attack can't be traced back.

Another thought I've had is a drone designed to sycthe through crowds, causing mass terror. Maybe another drone (explosive?) could get close enough to disable it. Provided, of course, that people have such drones to hand.

Making drones illegal won't do anything to help, unless you make servomotors and cameras illegal as well. Drones are here to stay, what we need now are anti-drone defence systems.



Lazar_Kaganovich
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 412

27 Feb 2015, 4:03 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
As for the Minigun, rotary cannons have been standard features on combat aircraft for decades. Any machine gun is going to produce a lot of recoil so the gun would be housed in a self-contained pod and utilize recoil adapters(kinda like the A-10 warthog has for the tremendous recoil produced by its GAU-8 Avenger cannon). Machine guns in war are used for 2 main purposes: Suppressive fire AND ambush. The problem with the metal storm gun is that is not easy to reload; unlike a Gatling gun.


Still doesn't answer why you think a drone needs a machine gun, I mean I'm trying to brainstorm a way to make drones more discriminating and able to engage individuals, where as machineguns aren't really ideal for that usage. I actually think that an automated bolt action rifle cycled electromagnetically and aimed via stabilized laser could achieve a very similar effect for much less weight, without the ammunition requirements of an automatic, and much more accurately, I just don't see the point if a better solution is available for the problem.

Even if a machinegun was an appropriate armament, why a minigun or other rotary cannon? They were originally designed for dogfights where pilots only had a fraction of a second to hit opposing aircraft and 100 bullets per second made sense, then scaled down for fire suppression during Vietnam, but really the high rate of fire isn't necessary for this sort of use, if anything it's a hindrance.


The higher the rate of fire, the more bullets hit the target per second. Ergo, the there is a greater sustained force on the target and that means greater cumulative damage. That being said, to answer you question as to why a combat attack drone needs a machine gun, for 2 reasons: Ambushing and killing multiple enemy targets(including those that might be inside an armored vehicle) and suppressive fire if the drone is spotted on the ground by enemy combatants who attempt to shoot it down with rockets, artillery, or machine gun fire.

That being said, a Coil Gun, as opposed to a rail gun, can propel bullets to greater velocities than a conventional gun and without the recoil. Greater bullet velocity means greater range and less drifting without the need for any sort of onboard guidance....And more importantly the force of impact will be greater and thus they have better penetrating power.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Feb 2015, 9:26 pm

Nebogipfel wrote:
Then again, if you think about the objective, which I assume is combating militancy, that can be achieved through medical means instead of military means. Mass lobotomisation of some form could avoid the need for bloodshed entirely. In fact, this and other techniques of soft coercion could also be used domestically to more harmoniously enable our transition into a slave economy. I feel that modifying the hardware of the mind is superior to utilising drones and other means. Shock tactics will only go so far.


I'd prefer a chip that administers a shock when clumsy satire is attempted, but your idea's also good.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson