Theme: Coercion

Thinking…. Something is wrong with the military’s robotic warfare initiative, that has to do with how it’s using vulnerable monolithic modules on top of heavy armor, and cramming too much into each platform. But my intuition is that they’re applying missile and airframe tech to land vehicles, and putting it on a platforms rather than building AI capacity into the platform – because Missiles and airframes face very different problems from vehicles. Going to have to look into the requirements if I can spare a couple of hours, because current AI tech shouldn’t need this vulnerability. Given that people in that industry aren’t stupid I clearly don’t understand something. Other issue is that we have to fly armor to the battlefield and if that’s true we shouldn’t rely on armor. Most obvious example is success of the Abrams, but failure of our personnel carriers, particularly Bradley and Humvee, but inability to copy the Russians’ use of tank platform and armor as personnel carriers because of weight. Third is our failure to equip light infantry with an intermediate weapon – a more advanced version of the Russian RPG, and transport. And I am not sure why we should be looking at overseas deployment strategies if we’re getting out of the policing business – and if we can’t possibly compete with china and Russia in arming the not-first-world, and we need Europe to rearm on their own. I am not sure we should be engaging in urban warfare rather than adopting the Russian strategy of just using artillery to reduce it to rubble, or the Chinese strategy of just building a fortress and overwhelming the opposition. There is no chance for the USA to fight a land war in Asia or Africa without a colony or base structure, and we no longer have an economic interest or the economic ability to do finance a world of bases. The policing strategy has to end. The only way of fighting a war not on our territory – where we want to preserve capital – is to use the Russian strategy of saturation with artillery or in our case, bombs and missiles. The only reason to have people on the ground is political. Reducing a country to rubble, their infrastructure to rubble, and their military to scrap doesn’t take standing there. It takes AI’s and drones to discover targets, long range bombers, and missiles – and lots and lots of them. the only reason to put people on the ground is to police and hold the territory – which we shouldn’t be doing other than where we can fight land wars: in our homelands. We also have to come to terms with the reality that nuclear weapons that White People have refused to deploy against each other are going to be used in the future, and probably not infrequently.

Thinking…. Something is wrong with the military’s robotic warfare initiative, that has to do with how it’s using vulnerable monolithic modules on top of heavy armor, and cramming too much into each platform. But my intuition is that they’re applying missile and airframe tech to land vehicles, and putting it on a platforms rather than building AI capacity into the platform – because Missiles and airframes face very different problems from vehicles. Going to have to look into the requirements if I can spare a couple of hours, because current AI tech shouldn’t need this vulnerability. Given that people in that industry aren’t stupid I clearly don’t understand something. Other issue is that we have to fly armor to the battlefield and if that’s true we shouldn’t rely on armor. Most obvious example is success of the Abrams, but failure of our personnel carriers, particularly Bradley and Humvee, but inability to copy the Russians’ use of tank platform and armor as personnel carriers because of weight. Third is our failure to equip light infantry with an intermediate weapon – a more advanced version of the Russian RPG, and transport. And I am not sure why we should be looking at overseas deployment strategies if we’re getting out of the policing business – and if we can’t possibly compete with china and Russia in arming the not-first-world, and we need Europe to rearm on their own. I am not sure we should be engaging in urban warfare rather than adopting the Russian strategy of just using artillery to reduce it to rubble, or the Chinese strategy of just building a fortress and overwhelming the opposition. There is no chance for the USA to fight a land war in Asia or Africa without a colony or base structure, and we no longer have an economic interest or the economic ability to do finance a world of bases. The policing strategy has to end. The only way of fighting a war not on our territory – where we want to preserve capital – is to use the Russian strategy of saturation with artillery or in our case, bombs and missiles. The only reason to have people on the ground is political. Reducing a country to rubble, their infrastructure to rubble, and their military to scrap doesn’t take standing there. It takes AI’s and drones to discover targets, long range bombers, and missiles – and lots and lots of them. the only reason to put people on the ground is to police and hold the territory – which we shouldn’t be doing other than where we can fight land wars: in our homelands. We also have to come to terms with the reality that nuclear weapons that White People have refused to deploy against each other are going to be used in the future, and probably not infrequently.