Future Army Battle Uniforms - Wired, Lethal

ssyladin writes "CNN is running an article about the future US army battle dress, code-named 'Scorpion'. It says that "..soldiers of 2011 will step into wired uniforms that incorporate all the equipment they need. The uniforms will monitor vital signs and plug them into a massive network of satellites, unmanned planes and robotic vehicles the military has planned." There will be sensors to monitor heartrate and blood-pressure, built-in tourniquets, a HUD to connect to GPS info, overhead maps, infrared and starlight cameras, and even the venerable M16 rifles are slated for an overhaul."

Comments

Haven't we heard this all before?

[brocheck]

I seem to recall a while back about the Urban Warrior System and all that nonsense that it was supposed to do and how every soldier would be using it by the new millenium. Frankly I don't expect something like this to be adopted for a long time. It adds another point of failure (`Fuck! My clothes have crashed!') requires maintenance, and replenishable energy of some sort ('Everyone, remember to recharge your helmets before the battle'.) Its redicilous, supposedly all soldiers will be networked and you will know the location of every soldier, and whether he is hurt, etc etc. We can do that now, slightly more laboriously (radios) perhaps but I think it gets the job done pretty well.

This seems to be just your average pork barrel gee whiz military contracting.

america is scary

[kop]

It freaks me out a little bit, why should a country that is allready so powerful still invest so heavyly in arms. who needs these arms? what for? There is nobody strong enough to challenge the US and nobody will be in the foreseeable future.
As a non american i feel threatened.
Am i to be 'liberated' next?

Re:america is scary

[misterpies]

and how will all that new hardware prevent terrorist attacks? souped-up soldiers on every internal flight? x-ray goggles to determine the contents of every passing truck?

the US is easily capable of defeating any army in the field. unless military intelligence is expecting alien invaders to land in the near future, this hardware will in no practical way affect US military superiority. Dictators won't suddenly think, shit, now the US can defeat me in 24 hours instead of a 48, so I'd better fall into line. It's hard to see why any of this stuff is necessary for anything except justifying ever-increasing military spending.

If the US govt put a fraction of the money and effort it expends on the military into addressing the grievances of dispossessed people around the world, it wouldn't have a problem with terrorism. Most current anti-American terrorist activities is focussed in countries where either the US maintains an unpopular and repressive regime (eg Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Israel - if you're a Palestinian), countries where the US formerly maintained an unpopular and repressive regime (Iran), or countries where the US made explicit or covert military interventions which did nothing to help its people (Lebanon, Afghanistan in the 1980s)

Unless the US govt changes its m.o. since the end of the Marshall Plan and returns to a long-term commitment to building sustainable states -- based on the needs of their people, not US corporations -- in countries that it has helped to devastate, we can expect Iraq and Afghanistan to become major sources of terrorists in the next few years.

Re:america is scary

[lovebyte]

Just naming a few successes does not mean there were no failures. I'll quote Terry Jones from an article in the Observer:

/* Start Quote */
Since the Second World War, the US has bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Guatemala (again), Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala (third time lucky), Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia - in that order - and in not a single case did the bombing produce a democratic government as a direct result.
/* End Quote */

And that is scary.

Re:america is scary

[The Original Yama]

Excellent points. The Worldwatch Institute a few years ago estimated it would cost $US196.3 billion to meet urgent environmental and social needs worldwide. The USA spent a similar amount on its war in Iraq. If that money had been spent in the method recommended by Worldwatch, the world's (not just Iraq's or the Arab world's) population would be much better off and hence would be much less likely to retaliate against US interests.

Re:america is scary

[GypC]

And how long would we have to meet these needs? Would this include getting 3rd world countries to stop wasting time killing each other, spreading AIDS, dumping garbage and sewage in the streets and rivers, rallying around the latest thug with a gun that claims he is their savior? Or would it just allow them a couple of years to have a few more kids to add to the problem?

Real change needs to happen from within, and can only happen when the people are willing to work for it. No amount of relief is going to make a difference in the long run against superstition and bigotry.

Re:america is scary

[Talisman]

Bombs aren't always dropped to achieve democracy. Sometimes it's just for self-defense, in various forms.

Blowing up a cocaine factory in Columbia, for example, is a form of self-defense as the drug industry negatively impacts our people, both the users and the dealers. People die and go to jail, in no small numbers, because of the drug trade.

And you might want to not believe every quote you hear. Go read about the former Yugoslavia and the governments that now are in charge of the independent countries.

Also, just because an American bomb exploded on a certain piece of geography doesn't mean we 'bombed' that country. During WWII we accidentally dropped bombs on Switzerland, but we didn't BOMB Switzerland. Shit, we had to explode ordnance in France during WWII, but France doesn't run around saying we BOMBED them.

There are reasons for what we did in every country that article mentions. I'll just take Somalia as an example, because I recently sailed off its coast.

We tried to FEED the Somalis. That is why we were there. Local militia took OUR food and started 'selling' it to the very population we were trying to feed. They demanded money, valuables, and if the person didn't have anything, sex. Or, sometimes they would demand to have sex with the person's child.

You object to kicking the shit out of such people?

Such people DESERVE to have bombs shoved up their asses.

Awwwwww.... POOR SOMALIS!

Do you realize Somalia is now regarded as the most dangerous coast in the world for piracy? The *minimum* recommended distance from shore is 50 miles. 100 is preferable.

Don't be so quick with the knee-jerk anti-U.S. reactions.

When you find yourself defending countries like Iraq, you are probably on the wrong side of the argument. Dictators *love* people like you.

Blocking on battery technology

[skookum]

I seem to remember seeing this hashed over various times in the past. It sounds great and all, but when you give all this crazy crap to a marine and ask him what he thinks, he says "This is 27 pounds I *don't* need." (Well, he may not say that if his CO is around, but that's what he's thinking.)

Technology is great and all, but until they can pack it all down to a few ounces, I really don't see it taking off. Every soldier knows how much burden something like just an extra pound adds to a pack. It can really make a difference. In the end it seems to always come down to the battery. They can shrink LCD screens, keyboards, earpieces, whatever. But to have a useful lifetime they still need a heavy battery pack and I think that's what's really holding this back.

The military is all about "total information access" or whatever they call it. But in fact, sheer information alone is useless. I was at Quantico a few years ago presenting a research project and during a presentation, the director of this program emphasized that current technology gives them boatloads of data, the rub is in making sense of it and presenting in a useful way -- both to the soldier and to the people at base camp (or whatever.) So just strapping a GPS module, encrypted digital radio, digicam, etc. on a soldier's back isn't neccessarily useful for anyone involved. Somehow you've got to figure out how to make it all useful.

...And yet....

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

...None of this is going to do much against terrorist attacks.

Yes

[Redking]

I think you're trolling but I'll respond. A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. In 2011, 40 year old weaponry will be an M-16 / M-60 / AK-47 / AK-74. Last time I check those weapons fire projectiles that will kill a human being. I'm pretty sure the same results will happen 8 years from now too.

The point is not to worry about future opponents, the point is to be modular, to quick deploy and to be tactical - all at the same time. Send soldiers to police a public demonstration in NYC, equip them with body armor, gas mask and non-lethal projecticles. Send soldiers to police Baghdad, same equipment as above but include lethal projecticles, GPS with maps and translation software.

Re:Yes

[aerojad]

If in 2011 the military is sent in to police public demonstrations then that's not the country I feel like living in. You can have it.

thinking things through

[Lord Prox]

I am wondering if having everyone and everything automated and wirelessly networked is a hot idea. A technologically adept adversary could take advantage of this fact and, say, feed false info into the system, or order an air strike, remote acivation of the automatic tourniquit(sp?) system, what have you. Even if they didn't hack the system a captured unit might be just as good.

Re:Good Riddance

[x0]

Having been a Marine for a number of years, I have to call bullshit on this. Unless you are incompetent, *never* cleaned your rifle, or are incapable of grasping the concept of proper lubrication, M16s just work.

In all of the years I qualified on the KD (Known Distance) course, I had only one failure to feed (which can happen to *any* semi-auto firearm), and I never had a 'jam'. Of the others firing the same course with me that did have jams, the overwhelming majority were due to having a 'dry rifle'; ie: no, or improper lubrication. The others did have mechanical failures, but that is to be expected when you consider the age and actual use of those rifles.

To answer to some of the other replies below: M16s are pretty damned accurate as well with the proper load. The Army Marksmanship Unit shoots the M16 now... And they have won some pretty tough matches with those rifles. Even out to 1000 yards. I left the Corps a few years back, but it wouldn't shock me to hear that the USMC Rifle Team switched from the M14 to the M16.

For what its worth, with the exception of boot camp and the first year afterward, I qualified expert every year averaging 230 out of a possible 250 points. (And 286 out of 300 shooting an off the rack M16 on the NRA High Power course during Marine intramural competition.)

Re:Good Riddance

[Pxtl]

Plus, locallized, controlled EMP is becoming more and more doable every day - the use of all this high-tech computer equipment may be vulnerable to that (though I'm sure the computers on these things are shielded out the wazoo, I still worry)

And speaking of computer control - did you notice the mention of autonomous robotic artillery vehicles? Doesn't that bother anyone? Currently, robots function as spy planes, spy jeeps, bomber planes, and now artillery tanks. This is a bad trend. They seem to be giving the robots all the heavy firepower. Whether the catastrophe is SkyNet or some ham radio guy who knows his crypto, this does not seem to be a good trend.

Power Source

[Bugmaster]

All this sounds great, but where will the gear draw its power from ? At 50lbs, it doesn't seem like the standard lead-acid batteries are an option.

In fact, power storage is really what is hampering any major advances into the portable, semi-autonomous electronics. Wireless phones, laptops, robotic flies, cybersoldiers, etc. -- we need some sort of a major breaktrhough in power storage until we can produce actual designs as opposed to mockups that you need to plug into the wall socket.

Re:Skins

[thebigmacd]

Lets not put money into the military and watch as we get run over by warring nations.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

+1 Anti-american
(betraying your own country seems to be all the rage these days on slashdot) You stinking traitor.

You, and all those like you, are wrong. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights enshrine free speech and dissent as the right of every US citizen, and the basis of freedom. Without free speech, there can be no free country. And don't give me this "wartime" idiocy. If dissent during wartime was unAmerican, then sign Abraham Lincoln up as unAmerican. He dissented during a war, from the Senate floor.

You might want to do some reading to brush up on what is and isn't "American". I would suggest the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, president John Quincy Adams' speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, and Emma Lazarus' poem "The New Colossus" (Lady Liberty).

You'll only be happy when America is once more awash with blood from another Islamic attack, won't you?

I don't know about the other poster, but I will only be happy:

• When the US and the World are free of terror attacks.
• When the causes of terrorism are uprooted and banished for good. The proposed Department of Peace is a good start.
• When tyrants are cast out by their own people (who then are free to choose their own form of government).
• When no father has to watch his kids decapitated by a bomb because some rich kid lied his way into playing with his nation's oh-so-hightech military hardware. (Where are those silly WMDs anyway? Time, Newsweek, and the American people, nay, the world, wants to know.)
• And when the one power greater than the world's greatest superpower, Invincible Peace, rescues her fairies Liberty and Justice, and reigns supreme. (Grant us this, Mothra!)

From someone with a better grasp of what America is all about:

She [America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821