Warfare has reached levels of absurd

I guess shorter range missiles will always be much more precise, so you will always need a navy and/or oversea bases to launch these missiles from.

Also, these missiles are probably extremely expensive, so it might not be very economic to waste tens of thousands of them when you could also use slower, cheaper rockets.

This is the technological "progress" that we have been striving for. Weapons of war so destructive that they WILL destroy our civilization. The advanced civilization we built brought with it weapons so advanced that when used, they will destroy that same civilization. The pandora's box was opened long ago, and the Unabomber was right all along.

In the end, we all die. Either of war, or old age, or some other cause. What survives forever though, is the spirit of the warrior. If no one is around to pull the trigger or push the button, then war will end forever. Until that day comes, we will strive on. Take the iron pill /pol/.

US carrier groups are the most important element to US global power projection. Its the one thing that makes the US the indisputable military hegemon of our age.

>He posted using military technology

do carriers have defense measures against fifth generation fighters and bombers?

Carrier groups do.

They literally are carrying air superiority fighters around you brainlet.

He was right in the end

he was never right about anything

So long as wars are fought over who gets what stuff, you will need men with weapons to sit on and control said stuff. If the stuff is far away, you'll need some manner of navy to take them there, and provide all the logistics and for support necessary to fight a modern war. Modern missiles make the logistics difficult, but they do not change the fundamental nature of war

But so you guys agree that there is such thing as a military industrial complex

Yes, we get it, you're woke.

Why don't we do something to end it then

Why would we?

war as we know it will die out as soon as military power equalizes across the world. at that point it'll be a delicate balancing act by everyone not to completely annihilate each other.

Because having a functional military-industrial complex is key to a sustainable foreign policy.

What for?

Are you actually this retarded? Granted, most people would deny that it couldn't use better oversight/less waste. But literally the entire free world relies on us having the biggest, most powerful cocks and not being afraid to use. Which is exactly why this is the most peaceful time to be alive in recorded human history.

Okay, apart from repelling an invasion, what for?

Can you not fucking read you inbred goat fucker? We provide protection for virtually everybody. Now make the world a better place by killing yourself.

oh please, the only guarantee we have is that if we do not advance enough to get off this planet our species WILL go extinct

I'll take a chance for destruction over guaranteed destruction. I welcome the bomb.

>other from being able to exist

Does anyone think that next major conflict will see such strong ECM capabilities on both sides that most of the really high tech stuff wont work?

>sustainable foreign policy
>Neoliberal and Neoconservative shilling intensifies
WW2 was a mistake.

electronic countermeasures aren't near sufficient enough to deny a major nation full communication and information

also there won't be another large scale conflict between (near) equal nations because the threat of nuclear warfare is to significant

Then you think it's important that ONLY the united states has a military industrial complex?

If only armies only defended.

I found Das Kapital to be pretty spot on desu.

Both powers blow up each others satellites, then what?

If the US wasn't there to play world police, your insignificant shithole country would be invaded by its bigger neighbor tomorrow.

t. not an American

It's true, you can do more than just defend with an army.

However, you cannot defend with anything except an army.

not particularly likely
they might fuck up the LEO sats and deal with the most accurate information, but in doing so they'd create a massive debris field which would make taking out all the MEO's and GEO's quite difficult

And yet if any country tries to develop the means to defend itself, it becomes an enemy of America.

Wouldn't America be happy at countries developing the means to repel American intervention?

Seeing shit like this is pretty spooky, but remember the economic aspects, odds are these shits cost billions and probably wont get cheaper for a long time, if a global superconflict emerges likes ww3 no nation on Earth could mass produce these to the point of redefining warfare in a drawn out conflict

also see the fundamentals of war wont change, missiles cant secure objectives, only destroy positions

Nukes on the other hand...

Sending something up through debris isn't hard, it just has a short 'half-life'. You can still send up things to destroy satellites, anything that doesn't have to stay up there for a long time will work the same.

Where the fuck do you want to go? Mars is the only remotely liveable planet in reach and even if humanity exerts every inch of its strength it will probably not have enough resources to have it form a decent atmosphere.

Objectively false. America actively assists its allies in developing the means to defend itself.

100 years ago the moon was impossible to reach
500 years ago the sky was impossible to reach
4000 years ago the ocean was impossible to reach

all I know is that stagnation equals destruction, we don't know what we may be capable of in the future, but we do know what we will face.

>it's allies
You mean colonies

This, training other armies in high conflict zones has been up there in americas priority list for some this now.

Wait, are you that user who thought that it was more effective to mine coal in outer fucking space than to switch to solar and wind energy?

actually, debris is a major fucking deal in everything space travel
LEO debris takes decades to decay and microscopic fragments carry enough energy through their sheer velocity to disable a missile capable of reaching GEO

No I mean its allies.

no I'm not, I'm saying that in 1 billion years earth will no longer be inhabitable, either we find ourselves a new home or we die

and that's only in the best possible scenario that a technologically stagnant humanity makes it that long

It absolutely IS. It's just not the case that it would immediately frag anything that goes up there. Right now we can keep things up there for decades, post-Kessler effect, days.

however the debris fields would severely reduce the available launch windows for the anti-satellite missiles which in turn can be anticipated by both parties to attempt to disable eachother's anti-satellite systems

the end result is most likely one major power retaining sufficient control over it's satellite fleet to successfully guide it's military

Agreed. Whoever has the capacity to keep a number of satellites active despite anti-satellite weapons or a debris field will have a huge advantage.

Can't discount the possibility that the same functions could be achieved by deploying blimps and AWACS type aircraft in large numbers.

That ignores the number of satelittles in orbit that already have anti-sat cabapilities installed in their satellites.

Indeed

Did he have foresight on how horrifying TNT weapons could be? Or shrapnel grenades?

Lasers are a "humanitarian" weapon meant to kill in precise fashion. Where as bombs are meant to kill everything in the vicinity with little regard to collateral/precision.

Just like in Iraq, that turned out great!

...

No matter how bad earth gets, space will always be worse. The reason for colonising another planet is not for resources, it's for redundancy against massive natural disasters like asteroids.

White peoples ruined the world when they invented nukes

Yep

No, Americans were

>No matter how bad earth gets, space will always be worse
lets see how the earth looks like in 1 billion years

-All surface water has evaporated
-Average surface temperature reaches 100°C and continues to rise
-the only remaining living organisms are single celled extremophiles in the higher atmosphere or underground
-the atmospheric composition has long since stripped the protective ozon layer and without a biosphere to sustain it decreases in oxygen rapidly

our planet will not last, we need technological advances to survive

These weapons are the reason we're living in the most peaceful period in human history. Without the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction, the world would have already experienced a war more catastrophic than the Second World War. Be grateful.

That only adds to the problem. They will create more debris, and eventually shoot themselves down.

Mid-war launch capacity will be more important if there is a peer on peer war in the future. First day satellite capacity will be important for a week or a month.

>"White people"

At least that doesn't wipe out the species.

To quote myself from a previous thread, something people don't understand about projected energy is that it's not a very humanitarian weapon. You can say that about bullets too, but bullets are less horrific. Here is a description of what a 40k Lasgun (a very basic type of directed energy rifle) would realistically do if you got shot with one.

>Being hit with a lasgun would (could) look and feel more like you were hit by a concussion grenade held up to your chest. You would see a bright flash of light as your skin or clothing vaporized into plasma, much like a high-end camera flash going next to the wound. Higher-power laser weapons might cause enough of an explosion to blow you back and maybe knock you unconscious, or if you got hit by one of the Lasgun's anti-tank big brothers, vaporize you outright turning you into an impromptu plasma grenade for the rest of your squad to deal with. The explosion would create enough hydrostatic pressure to likely scramble your internal organs and maybe snapping your bones in parts of your body distant from the explosion. You don't have to worry about laser back scatter or (to a lesser extent) lasers sucking at range. Lasers of sufficient power don't reflect. As in at all. Their light and energy is basically absorbed on impact. So the only light you'd have to worry about is the plasma flash of the impact and beam (if present). Also, lasers that can blast holes in to you may suffer from dust or distortion effects, but non-vacuum frequency lasers will get through air well enough simply on the basis that air is much much less dense than what it is intended to actually bore through. Also adaptive optics can at least partially mitigate said effect. As far as inverse square law goes, lasers are COHESIVE beams, and can easily be focused and stay focused well within firing range.

Also as bad as bullets are, they don't liquify all your organs on contact. And they don't blind the user from firing them without heavy sunglasses or the equivalent of a welder's mask

TL;DR if we actually used these things, it would be a serious "are we the baddies?" moment. Here's more info
projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sidearmenergy.php

>le subtly homoerotic underwear model man

Stops you on your path.

>light explosions
>light impact
>light knockback
>light not reflecting
w40k has some of the dumbest mechanics in sci-fi

None of that is in the crunch, because quite frankly everything is so durable in it that the only way a lasgun will kill something is if a hundred guns all fire at once.

That being said, it's still a good idea to read in the link I posted , it clears up a lot of the misconceptions people have about directed energy weapons.

>light explosions
Explosions are caused when a material expands a whole lot because of heat. All a nuclear reaction produces is broad spectrum light, in fact in space they're practically harmless, unless they go off close enough to something to melt it.
A laser is a bunch of concentrated light that heats shit up. A powerful enough laser blast would absolutely make whatever it hits explode violently

the world will go back to fighting with swords

>navies will be obsolete
Conventional warfare between nuclear powers has been wholly obsolete for decades now my guy. It's all about subversion and espionage now

Thats dum.

Yes, Why *dont* you?

After you m80. Nobodys stopping you.

Makes me think of that episode of Star Trek TOS where two civilizations literally fought a war through simulated attacks and would have their people step in to suicide chambers to kill of the casualties from the simulated attack.

That's probably how warfare will evolve on Earth eventually.

You'll be dead LONG before then, so why the fuck do you care?

>not for resources, it's for redundancy against massive natural disasters
resources play the crucial part in that

Do you remember the name of the episode? Sounds interesting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon

Why are acting like non whites are idealistic nutjobs like europeans who want utopia?

Muslims dont give a damn if Iran irradiates Pakistan.

>le cauterized wound meme
No retard a military laser would cause your torso to explode from the sheer heat retard. You could boil someome's eyes with lasers.

No. Front lines are history. Uniforms, helmets, machine guns - those things belong in museums. Warfare has been dominated by special activities since early Cold War. In the last 60 years or so, secret ops have been practically perfected. Undercover operations are the tip of the spear and intelligence gathering is the bulk of the shield of every geopolitical power. You might not read it in the news, but do not for a second laugh at the idea of tremendous amounts of action happening every second in every part of the world. Chinese hackers preparing to shut down the American power grid, North Korean sleeper cells waiting for the signal to assassinate the entire presidential line of succession, Russian agents ready to blow up US nuclear power plants, Mossad ghillie snipers searching for Assad in Syria, a sexy MI6 agent posing as a waitress and pouring a drop of poison in a weapons dealer's martini when nobody was looking, a one hundred million dollars bank robbery in some third world country made by CIA's SAD. Etc.

Navies in the 21st Century are essentially mobile air platforms with additional anti-air defense craft.

Missiles and ballistic weaponry are capable of inflicting damage on stationary targets anywhere in the world, but struggle to maintain pressure on a larger political region, differentiate allies, and use non-extreme tactics such as enforcing blockades, searching regions, and deterring aggression

None of that will matter once we build the technology to glass whole planets in an instant.

Getting someplace isn't that much of an achievement in terms of what you get out of it. When we reached the ocean it allowed to reach other places and exploit their resources. When we reached the air we were on our way to creating extremely fast vehicles that could travel over pretty much anything, and get you almost anywhere on earth in less than a day. When we got to the moon we got... national pride. Woohoo. People seem to somehow think the main problem of overpopulation is space, it's not, there is plenty of uninhabited or extremely sparsely inhabited areas on earth, the problem is resources, as well as space that's actually useful. Making mars farmable would be many times more difficult than doing the same with the sahara, and if you didn't notice there isn't a whole lot of useable water on mars.

Where the hell did he mention "cauterize wounds"?

Mechanized war was a mistake.

Maybe it's just romanticization but while war was always a shitty, brutal affair it provided a place for people of merit to prove themselves through their deeds and actions and a chance for heroism, pride and valor. In twenty years, thirty years, whatever it'll be the domain of autists rased on video games firing missles from whatever new drones at one another and hacking each others' computer systems and unlike anime the cool bipedal/humanoid combat mech is obviously absurd.

Then use it on the russians?