From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:30:12 GMT

In article <14SEP199213315181@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.064805.16276@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes...
>>
>>Doc, two questions...
>>
>>1.  Why the heck do you think it will be hand to hand even then?  Even
>>in Vietnam there was very little hand-to-hand combat.
>
>But there was still needed.  If you bypass the basics, you're dead if you lose
>your technology advantage.  Case in point (and off the subject), kids who grow
>up using a calculator and don't learn the multiplication tables are toast when
>the batteries run out.  How is a soldier, who is dependant on high-tech, going
>to survive when his high tech gives out?  And it always gives out, you know.
>They only way to survive is with basic training.
>
Which is why professional soldiers equipped with high-tech equipment
will tend to do well. Until the high-tech gives out, it will wreak
havoc on your low-tech enemies. Once it gives out, the professional
soldier will still be better trained than the low-tech, who will often
be a conscript because, for low-tech wars, numbers count for a lot.
Conscripts are simply not going to be as well trained as volunteers
in professional forces. As for abandoning basic training, this is
unlikely. The Services are conservative institutions (the USAF
teaches drill - marching for you civilians - to all its recruits.
The only uses for this are to teach you left from right, to
"demonstrate the effects of the individual on the group" - if
you turn left when everyone else turns right, its embarassing, and
to impart a martial attitude to the recruit - remind him he's in the
service). Hand-to-hand combat training will be around *forever* -
there is nothing like telling someone you are teaching him how to
kill the enemy to make him feel like he is joining the brotherhood(*)
of arms - plus it gives him something to swagger about. The
justifications may change - see Haldeman's Forever War for an
explanation of why it is important to learn how to kill people
when you are going off to fight aliens - but it will be there.

(* right now it remains a brotherhood - I'm sure it will become a
personhood eventually - this is a PC note):-)

>>2.  What on earth makes you think that those electronics aren't
>>hardened against EMP?  It seems like a pretty obvious system
>>requirement.
>
>Is it possible to completely harden a device against all EMP?  It depends on
>the strength of the pulse.
>
It is possible to harden devices against reasonable levels of
EMP - reasonable being decided based on the devices your enemy has
to generate EMP. Hardened devices designed for use in a strategic
environment will stand up against EMP generated by tactical nukes,
which was the original postulate. Storage sites for spares can be
hardened against EMP to a level which depends on the grounding capability
of the planet on which they are sited (this means that, if the sun
goes supernova, the electronics will definitely fry - of course,
there may be other problems, too - and if your enemy can make the
sun go supernova just to mess with your electronics, you should
really work harder on negotiations:-)

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts

Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:5988 rec.arts.sf.misc:2831 alt.cyberpunk:4177