How to Make the Best Super Soldier

[The Philosoraptor]

Protective, mostly. Unless the child itself acted out against the machine, the drone would ignore the kid in the first place. I mean aggressive against the machine in particular.

And as for the Lord Marshall - the movie kind of ended without making it very clear if Riddick took the job. I'm just not sure he's the military type. He's a good leader and all, but he doesn't really delegate.

Wait a minute... Have you not watched beyond Chronicles of Riddick? You know that the third movie came out, right?

Also, the mother would act aggressively towards the machine, trying to threaten it away from her kids. You can't program a robot to react to hostility but expect it not to respond to something like motherly instinct.

 

[Brovo]

The future of warfare won't be decided by super soldiers. It'll be decided by this guy.

In all seriousness though, the idea of one soldier taking on one hundred soldiers and winning is hilariously laughable. Unless we're talking such a humongous technological discrepancy that it may as well be Warhammer 40K versus Toddlers. At which point the argument invalidates itself by having to reach to such ridiculous fantasy-level extremes that we may as well say "well the targeting lasers in the Star Wars defense grid would annihilate any of the bad people."

Wars aren't decided by individual soldiers. They're decided by wielding strategy and tactics, by properly using what you have. The example that constantly comes up of the Spartans is a good example: Persia just kept throwing its men into frontal charges against highly trained spearmen. Even then, back in the medieval era, one could at least argue that due to the nature of melee warfare there was some need for individual skill. Any idiot can point and shoot a gun with reliable accuracy using only a little training.

Also, anyone who keeps using the argument of thousands of peasants needs to stop. If the only thing your super soldier can kill is people who've never used a gun in their lives and are likely pissing themselves as the commissar behind them literally throws them onto the front line with zero training, your argument again is reaching for an extreme to justify how and why a super soldier could take on hundreds and win.

Air superiority wins modern wars. Logistical superiority wins modern wars. Drone strikes and carpet bombing, then cleaning up with tanks and infantry, wins modern wars. Not fantastical super soldiers you'd find in the discount bin at Walmart.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

The future of warfare won't be decided by super soldiers. It'll be decided by this guy.

In all seriousness though, the idea of one soldier taking on one hundred soldiers and winning is hilariously laughable. Unless we're talking such a humongous technological discrepancy that it may as well be Warhammer 40K versus Toddlers. At which point the argument invalidates itself by having to reach to such ridiculous fantasy-level extremes that we may as well say "well the targeting lasers in the Star Wars defense grid would annihilate any of the bad people."

Wars aren't decided by individual soldiers. They're decided by wielding strategy and tactics, by properly using what you have. The example that constantly comes up of the Spartans is a good example: Persia just kept throwing its men into frontal charges against highly trained spearmen. Even then, back in the medieval era, one could at least argue that due to the nature of melee warfare there was some need for individual skill. Any idiot can point and shoot a gun with reliable accuracy using only a little training.

Also, anyone who keeps using the argument of thousands of peasants needs to stop. If the only thing your super soldier can kill is people who've never used a gun in their lives and are likely pissing themselves as the commissar behind them literally throws them onto the front line with zero training, your argument again is reaching for an extreme to justify how and why a super soldier could take on hundreds and win.

Air superiority wins modern wars. Logistical superiority wins modern wars. Drone strikes and carpet bombing, then cleaning up with tanks and infantry, wins modern wars. Not fantastical super soldiers you'd find in the discount bin at Walmart.

A: The whole point of this thread is discussing super soldiers, not trolling with your drone nonsense/sense.
B: Drone warfare is so hilariously risky, there's no point in it. When EMP waves are so easy to generate these days, a drone could get blasted out of the sky without even risking any lives (and helping along nuclear disarmament too. Neat). And say one weren't to do that. A UAV is controlled. That means somewhere, someone is using a controller. How hard is it for anyone (not just defined enemies) to commandeer that controller, or at the very least disrupt it so the drone is rendered useless?

 

[Brovo]

A: The whole point of this thread is discussing super soldiers, not trolling with your drone nonsense/sense.

B: Drone warfare is so hilariously risky, there's no point in it. When EMP waves are so easy to generate these days, a drone could get blasted out of the sky without even risking any lives (and helping along nuclear disarmament too. Neat). And say one weren't to do that. A UAV is controlled. That means somewhere, someone is using a controller. How hard is it for anyone (not just defined enemies) to commandeer that controller, or at the very least disrupt it so the drone is rendered useless?

A. You didn't define a soldier as a human being. ;) My point is mostly that the idea of a single super soldier fighting 100+ men and winning, assuming those men aren't literally peasants pissing themselves armed with sticks and rocks, is illogical.

B. You can EMP proof things like your computer. We could EMP proof our entire power system. EMP is an irrelevant argument.

As for "commandeering" or "jamming" a drone, it's actually surprisingly difficult to do. Combine with firewalls and an AI (ex: smart bombs) and your super soldier will get targeted and merc'd outside of his ability to even see it coming. Logistics, air superiority, strategy, tactics.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

A. You didn't define a soldier as a human being. ;) My point is mostly that the idea of a single super soldier fighting 100+ men and winning, assuming those men aren't literally peasants pissing themselves armed with sticks and rocks, is illogical.

B. You can EMP proof things like your computer. We could EMP proof our entire power system. EMP is an irrelevant argument.

As for "commandeering" or "jamming" a drone, it's actually surprisingly difficult to do. Combine with firewalls and an AI (ex: smart bombs) and your super soldier will get targeted and merc'd outside of his ability to even see it coming. Logistics, air superiority, strategy, tactics.

WHO SAID THEY WEREN'T?! OPERATION: FIRE COBRA CLAW WAS EXTREMELY UNETHICAL!

Firewalls can be broken, and in the modern day there is no such thing as an AI (artificial intelligence implies that it is man-made, but can do EVERYTHING that a human can feel, think, or do). Maybe well-programmed computers, but no artificial intelligence that can adapt the same way a (wo)man can.

And if a man is smarter than you, logistics, strategy, and tactics fall flat. And air superiority... My answer to that is the Battle of Mogadishu. Civilian militants shot down two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters. FUCKING. CIVILIANS. Carpet bombing isn't precision, and helicopters can be easily destroyed if you're good at what you do. Bunker busters take down specific targets, but can be prevented with other aircraft. In the end, air combat ends in a stalemate when both sides are equal, and can be countered on the ground with decent anti-aircraft weaponry.

 

[Brovo]

Killing is, in of itself, unethical. It's a necessary evil when someone threatens you to have to kill them, but to pretend they aren't human beings to keep your conscience clean is silly.

One battle (Mogadishu) does not in any way erase the significant tactical advantage that air superiority has brought to battlefields everywhere for over fifty years. Carpet bombing is effective, you don't need precision to take out a target. Again, if we are speaking strictly of a "super soldier", of someone with the utmost of efficiency in removing the threat: Then annihilating a city block is an acceptable compromise if it means the target is guaranteed dead. Sending one guy in is no guarantee of success in any way. Air superiority often comes with artillery, but that would mean understanding tactics, and I'm not sure you do (I don't say that to be offensive). If we're speaking strictly of two sides completely (or at least relatively equal) in all military categories from air to sea to land, we had that. It was called the Cold War. Nobody dared to ignite it because it would have been M.A.D., super soldiers be damned.

I'd argue further, but you conflate ethics with soldiery, when the two have little in common and often come in direct opposition of one another. I tip my hat to thee, and shall now bound off in pursuit of something small and shiny to steal.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

Killing is, in of itself, unethical. It's a necessary evil when someone threatens you to have to kill them, but to pretend they aren't human beings to keep your conscience clean is silly.

One battle (Mogadishu) does not in any way erase the significant tactical advantage that air superiority has brought to battlefields everywhere for over fifty years. Carpet bombing is effective, you don't need precision to take out a target. Again, if we are speaking strictly of a "super soldier", of someone with the utmost of efficiency in removing the threat: Then annihilating a city block is an acceptable compromise if it means the target is guaranteed dead. Sending one guy in is no guarantee of success in any way. Air superiority often comes with artillery, but that would mean understanding tactics, and I'm not sure you do (I don't say that to be offensive). If we're speaking strictly of two sides completely (or at least relatively equal) in all military categories from air to sea to land, we had that. It was called the Cold War. Nobody dared to ignite it because it would have been M.A.D., super soldiers be damned.

I'd argue further, but you conflate ethics with soldiery, when the two have little in common and often come in direct opposition of one another. I tip my hat to thee, and shall now bound off in pursuit of something small and shiny to steal.

Adieu, Monsieur Brovo! Go hide in a shoe!

Edit: Forgot to say goodbye in French. Fixed that.

 

[Asuras]

B: Drone warfare is so hilariously risky, there's no point in it. When EMP waves are so easy to generate these days, a drone could get blasted out of the sky without even risking any lives (and helping along nuclear disarmament too. Neat).

I'd like to point out that EMP technology is currently ineffectual against missile-borne nuclear weaponry. Currently our modems of generating a pulse render the devices in question too cumbersome or large to mount of something that can intercept a mid-flight nuclear missile. The only thing viable would inherently be another nuclear weapon detonated in high-atmosphere, which is obviously counter intuitive to what you're trying to achieve.

Detonating an EMP when the missile is close enough too is utterly useless considering nuclear missiles detonate upon impact. Even if shorted out, the mechanical design of the missile ensures that impact would produce a detonation.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

I'd like to point out that EMP technology is currently ineffectual against missile-borne nuclear weaponry. Currently our modems of generating a pulse render the devices in question too cumbersome or large to mount of something that can intercept a mid-flight nuclear missile. The only thing viable would inherently be another nuclear weapon detonated in high-atmosphere, which is obviously counter intuitive to what you're trying to achieve.

Detonating an EMP when the missile is close enough too is utterly useless considering nuclear missiles detonate upon impact. Even if shorted out, the mechanical design of the missile ensures that impact would produce a detonation.

My point was detonating a nuclear device to generate the EMP to take out something like a drone or maybe just throw a city into chaos à la "Beware the Batman". Not to counter another missile.

 

[Asuras]

That would be a dumb move, don't you think? Nuclear silos are EMP resistant, so as soon as you use a nuclear weapon for something as petty as disabling drones, you'll have a fleet of nukes headed for your country to simply blow it up altogether.

Nuclear weapons are never tactical. They're the end game.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

That would be a dumb move, don't you think? Nuclear silos are EMP resistant, so as soon as you use a nuclear weapon for something as petty as disabling drones, you'll have a fleet of nukes headed for your country to simply blow it up altogether.

Nuclear weapons are never tactical. They're the end game.

Ahem. Tactical nuke? Duh.

But seriously. Having the monopoly on nuclear weaponry gave victory to the Allies during World War II, and likely could have gone to the Axis if Germany had developed nuclear missiles first. Currently, yes. They are the endgame. Then? They were the greatest weapons ever gifted to mankind and were used as such to great advantage. Even though the USSR and US couldn't deal with the concept of mutually assured destruction and pussied out with theirs.

We are getting way off topic though. This thread is about SUPER SOLDIERS. Not reality and how useless they'd be in reality. BUT SUPER SOLDIERS. IN FICTION. YOU SEE THEM EVERYWHERE ON THIS WEBSITE. Admittedly it is good to know realistic military facts, strategies, tactics, etc. and how real super soldiers would be virtually useless. But we're not in reality, are we?

 

[Asuras]

Tactical nukes pose the same exact ending issue as with strategic nuclear weapons. Use of tactical nuclear weapons could very easily escalate into the usage of strategic nuclear weapons.

In any case you supposed a nuclear weapon being used above an enemy city, so it pretty much carries out the same intent as a strategic nuclear weapon regardless of yield.

They were the greatest weapons ever gifted to mankind

gifted

Yea no. As much as I'd love to witness a nuclear explosion in person, I wouldn't call them a gift.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

Tactical nukes pose the same exact ending issue as with strategic nuclear weapons. Use of tactical nuclear weapons could very easily escalate into the usage of strategic nuclear weapons.

In any case you supposed a nuclear weapon being used above an enemy city, so it pretty much carries out the same intent as a strategic nuclear weapon regardless of yield.

Yea no. As much as I'd love to witness a nuclear explosion in person, I wouldn't call them a gift.

Fuck yea they're a gift! The ultimate weapon to completely annihilate your enemies! The very scythe of Thanatos! The touch of Izanami! THE ULTIMATE GIFT OF GOD TO HIS CHILDREN IS TO HAVE POWER OVER THE LIVES OF THEIR BRETHREN!

Perhaps not the best thing for the world, but in the terms of weaponry they outdo almost anything else ever created. For now.