Comments on: Flocking Drones, Stress-Free Soldiers

By: Steven Snell

Steven Snell — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:11:21 +0000

Thanks Byron, Matt, Brenda
I’m glad to read a whole series of posts without swearing or accusations of one thing or another and we can actually discuss the issue. Look forward to more of the same.
Steven Snell

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:49:21 +0000

Good Evening Matt,
I’m more or less in agreement wil most of what you said. My only execption might be Jarad Diamond.
Prof. Diamond ignores the evolution of the brain in his progression of humoniods. In the case of the Neanderthals over 500K years and in Homosepiens less the 50K years.
So far the popular theories of the Neanderthals demise, the mating with modern man and thus geniticaly leading himself to extention or conflicts between the two species that doomed the Neanderthal can’t be shown beyond educated speculation in the Archological evidence so far.
Your other observation on the structure of current U.S. forces I can only agree with. The United States currently has a “Volunteer Force”, half of more enlistees leave after their first enlistment. If Sec. Rumsfeld’s Military comes to actulazation the Military has to transform itself into a “Professional Force”.
Requiring Military personal to master two or more MOS’s (skill sets) will be a huge investment in labor (training) and capital (economic costs) that can’t be wasted on a four or even six year enlistes. The current Military Careers of 20, 25 or 30 years or out at 55 will need to be changed.
This will mean better pay and benefits, better planned deployments, newer and better equipment, more generious Veterans Benefits and stronger public support of the men and women who serve.
The days of the worlds best and most able Military on the cheap will be over if Sec. Rumsfeld’s plans are put into effect and followed and improved upon by future generations of Military leaders.
Raising children for a Military career will become a common way to introduce the Military as a life choice to the next generation. Although likely canidates to have their children raised this way are the serving Military the non Military public will also have to become involved.
The use of medical technology to increase upper body strenght, smaller body size, 20/10 vision, increased lung capasity, even sleep deprevation tolerence and other advantigious physical and mental attributes for military needs will come about with the children who’s parents chose to “Enlist” them in these programs.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:47:46 +0000

Good Morning Steven,
To answer you concluding question first. Soldiers don’t make wars, non soldiers do.
Intelligent societies might be an oxymoron. Soldiers loved the “Cold War”. All show and no go. Both side knew from the get go that neither was inclined to go nuclear so the sabre rattleing was just show.
Non soldiers want more land, expanded markets, new raw material sources etc. Since all the worlds land is occupied, if you want more of anything you have to push someone else off their Mountain. Soldiers are the ones who must back up the Politicans words.
To you other topic. We are talking about DARPA here. This is the agency that sponsered Adm. John Poindexter and his “Research” into Economic warfare. His idea shook Wall Street so badly he got fired from DARPA and his research was terminated.
If DARPA is not looking into Genetics and Biological Soldier I would be very disappointed in them, because South Korea and China to name two countries are not so bashful about doing this kind of research and are clearly showing where it’s going.
Like it or not Geneticaly specialized Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen are comming. The technologhy is already happening, think Barry Bond, Mark MacGuire and Homeruns.
To study the Genetice make up of Neanderthals might be very important.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:35:22 +0000

Good Morning Ms. Von Ahsen,
Thank you for you response.
The idea that Homosepiens had a larger brain and thus assumed to be more intelligent then the Neanderthals is not in dispute, at least by me.
The Neanderthals were and still are the most successful humanoids to roam the surface of the earth, they were around for about 500,000 years if I recall. I think in large part this negates the changing enviroment therory. They lived through many climate changes and adapted.
The competation between Neanderthals and Homosepians along with the absorption through inter mating theory can’t be, to my knowlede supported through either Archological or Genetic data.
I’m of the opinion that at the end of there evolutionary line the Neantherthals simply couldn’t evolve any longer, perhaps genes do ware out.
Near the end on there existence game in Northern Europe increased as the ice receded during the next to the last ice age, then the Neanderthals started to declin rapidity. The Neanderthals appears to have used this as an opportunity for a small population blip and using up their food supply simply went extinct.
It is my opinion that by adopting farming and settleing down in small family groups that lead to the clan, village etc. was the key to Homosepieans survival. This method of food production was not as efficient as hunting but the labor burden could be spread out over all members of the group.
The hunter gather was doomed because he could store food for the future and support non food gathers so they could do other things.
To go back to my origional point. I believe that as Homosepeians became more dependent on non hunting for their food supply the genes that gave hunters and warriors their edge became recessive.
The archological evedience suggests that the Neanderthals lead a short violent life as Homo sepiens came on to the picture there lives remained just as short as the Neanderthals but individual violence became group violence.
Today individual acts of violence are called criminal acts, acts of state violence are condoned as heroric.
That obnoxious running on TV for “Capitol One” with the out of work “Pillagers” might be truer then intended.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”

By: Brenda VonAhsen

Brenda VonAhsen — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:36:50 +0000

“The intriguing question here might be; Did the Neanderhal become extinct because the males refused to settle down into farming villages and give up the hunting (warrior) culture?“
No, I don’ think so. Neandertals became extinct because homo erectus was smarter and adapted to the changing environment faster. That’s the traditional answer, anyways:
“Neanderthals disappear around 35,000 years ago. Speculation holds that modern Homo sapiens invade Neanderthals territory and kill them off in war-like encounters. Others maintain that perhaps modern humans adapt more quickly and adroitly to environmental changes and replace older species.
http://global-awareness.net/book/CHAPTER%202.htm
Also, our ancestors may have reproduced more quickly. I think that was probably decisive in determining the evolutionary winner.
BTW, I think that people support the military more than ever these days. As I see it, many people on either side honor and respect the sacrifices of our soldiers a great deal. Much more than in decades past. Recuitment is down for political reasons right now.

By: B. Bradley

B. Bradley — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:01:53 +0000

"If the good folks at DARPA had ever been in sustained combat the answer wouldn't be a mystery at all, you fall asleep you die. End of story." I don't think the answer *is* a mystery. I think it's their explicit knowledge of this which is causing them to pour millions of dollars of research money into extending a soldier's period of effective wakefulness. You believe 'the answer' lies in 'the genetic code', but you also don't state any line of reasoning why we should agree with you. Rationally, it seems roughly equivalent to suggest that soldiers who can function better on less sleep are assisted by angels, chakra powers, or magical gnomes. If you're hoping that irrational suppositions will be better accepted because you base them vaguely on a more scientific idea, I would remind you of the following points: 1) You are assuming that 'warrior genes' are selected primarily through warfare, and not through other activities, although superiority in the areas you describe would contribute to success in survival generally. Although I suppose it would contribute more significantly to a soldier's survival, there is no telling whether it would be significant enough to affect some kind of natural selection favoring soldiers. 2) If these are controlled genetically (and I would not deny the possibility that genetic factors are involved), it's not necessarily an all-or-nothing package. Individual genes assisting in the above areas could all be present individually, instead of as one 'survival mechanism'. Furthermore, when discussing something as general as 'heightened senses', multiple genes could exist that could affect this in a variety of ways, where some may act alone or in combination, or their may be additional redundant genes providing the same or similar functionality. I'm clearly (if you can't already tell) no expert on genetics, but I think you're greatly oversimplifying here. 3) We don't live in Sparta. The lack of a closed system where soldiers are only reproducing with other soldiers would greatly reduce their individual impact on the gene pool. Soldiers with better inherent survival abilities may have a statistically better chance of survival and reproduction, but so they may not reproduce with other people who have similar genes (if the genes are not dominant or whatnot), and furthermore their children may not be soldiers themselves, they may be carpenters or schoolteachers or homeless people who may have no statistically higher chance of survival due to these than any other member of society. Even if those particular conditions favor certain genes, the conditions themselves are not hereditary, so there's no telling whether or not it would simply average out among the general population. 4) People aren't born as soldiers. There's nothing to stop an inept and 'genetically unfit' soldier from having children before he even reaches combat. While it could determine the chances after this (assuming that it's a statistically significant determinant of survival compared to other contributors, such as individual armament, tactics, etc.) you would really need to provide statistical evidence, I think, that this is at least likely enough to prove a factor at all. 5) Who cares? Honestly, there's nothing but paranoia to say that a slightly less effective soldier, while supplemented by additional technology, manpower, etc. is going to mean that your Axis of Evil is going to stomp over here and force us to wear turbans or whatever the US military is afraid of this week. Furthermore, better survival skills don't necessarily make a better person. Soldier's can be jerks just as well as anyone else (in fact, they're notoriously good at it). You also seem to suggest they are lousey, and who really wants a bunch of soldiers around, giving everyone lice? Not me, that's for sure.

By: Flashman

Flashman — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:27:10 +0000

Mr Skinner, I believe your percentages neglect both the growth in America’s population, and the relative sizes of those wars.
Basically, while the American population has grown markedly over the last sixty years, its deployment of military personnel in any single theatre has decreased. I would be surprised if the US armed forces needed to grow in step with its population — though it’s possible.
On the topic of sleep deprivation, it’s certainly the case that tired soldiers aren’t given any more leeway to make mistakes than fresh soldiers are. And tired soldiers must make more mistakes, so any improvement is good — whether or not military service is a kind of ‘natural selection’.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:52:25 +0000

Stressed Out;
If the good folks at DARPA had ever been in sustained combat the answer wouldn’t be a mystery at all, you fall asleep you die. End of story.
It seems that soldiers have a built in survival mechanism that keeps them awake, slows bleeding, defeats fatigue and in general heightens the senses. Although the caused of these behavior traits may be the secreation of chemicals to/in the brain or the CNS I believe the answer lays in the genetic code.
Their are some men and women who have evolved “Warrior” survival genes, since I guess from the begaining of our species. I believe that they are now the minority of the DNA pool.
As the need for warriors in society has declined over the generations, warriors have not reproduced at a level to sustain there numbers.
Like it or not warriors make lousey mates, they are not producers of goods with in society, they must be supported by the common, if they survive the fighting they become a burden on the others, they tend to be volatile in temperment, have health problems related to combat, (like missing eyes and limbs) die young and in general make poor providers for mothers and children.
With the evolution of more stand off fighting the warrior in American culture will continue to decline. The percentage of the current generation fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is aboy .75% of the generation. In WWII it was about 5%, in Vietnam it was about 1.25%. There is a definate developing trend here.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”