World War I and II are futile to the might-be incoming war, the third World War. You might laugh this time, but it will happen. Due to the recent events of the 21st century, it will happen. Some of the events are: 9/11, Sabah crisis, and N.K.'s declaration of war. So be prepared. I think it would be a nuclear war. But cyber warfare is more likely than the former.
[quote]"Wars will subside, but war can't be prevented" ---------- Anonymous
I do think there will be a World War III eventually, the world feels much smaller now than it did before. I also think more events that promote terrorism will occur, such as a group of terrorists getting a hold of a nuclear weapon in which they would likely hold someone, who knows how to use a nuclear missile, as a hostage, or even multiple countries having nuclear strikes on one another.
The 21st century is going to be very interesting. One day the US could have another civil war, one day there could be more "wastelands" on Earth, one day we'll have helmets that take control of a soldier's nervous system and commands will be given to them in their heads (they've been working on that since the 1970's). Who knows what will happen, all I know is that this is going to be a rough century!
such as a group of terrorists getting a hold of a nuclear weapon
Because, you know, "terrorists" don't already have such capabilities...
one day we'll have helmets that take control of a soldier's nervous system and commands will be given to them in their heads (they've been working on that since the 1970's)
I fear the Americans will get us into WW3, the war that will end the world, with all their meddling into other people's affairs. They have difficulty preventing their own citizan's massacring each other. Yanks, stay home.
Vietnam became communist. Isnt that mean USA lost? The goal was to ston NVA from taking over the Democratic south. Sure USA showd muscles, but in the end its dosent matter.
Vietnam became communist. Isnt that mean USA lost?
Your poor English aside, yes, technically the Americans were tragically defeated. They were hanging off helicopters (literally) trying to get out.
The main reason for the U.S.'s failure were two factors; The hippie movement against war, violence, etc., but primarily disrepute and disrespect towards officers during combat. The officers sent to Vietnam were known to be poorly trained and inexperianced. At the time, the U.S. Army was partially dismantled, and as a result, there were bad connections along the chain of command. Indeed, even the NCO force lost their place; they felt they needed to be closer to officers than the men. This caused the rift between the two main groups. This inefficiency caused low morale, and eventually led to "fragging" officers. The lesson? Don't dismantle your defenses.
The main reason for the U.S.'s failure were two factors;
dont forget the the army was nearly impossible to move in the jungle. they had no Knowles of the jungle and it was literally full whit traps made by the Vietnamese.
Vietnam became communist. Isnt that mean USA lost? The goal was to ston NVA from taking over the Democratic south
That had more to do with US withdrawal of forces than an actual military defeat.
primarily disrepute and disrespect towards officers during combat.
Could you perhaps give some documentation that this was widespread during Vietnam, and played an actual role in impeding operations?
dont forget the the army was nearly impossible to move in the jungle.
Don't forget the army had helicopters, napalm, and BLU-52s.
Fun..and yet states nothing about the "mind control" of humans or soldiers
It shows the potential is there, and the key words in his post were "in the future." And since DARPA is funding it, it's rather obvious the Pentagon thinks it can be weaponized or utilized in some fashion by the warfighter.
Ho Chi Minh had studied communism and he became a devoted communist long before the Vietnam War, back in the 1920s.
Don't forget the army had helicopters, napalm, and BLU-52s.
not that it helped.
It shows the potential is there, and the key words in his post were "in the future." And since DARPA is funding it, it's rather obvious the Pentagon thinks it can be weaponized or utilized in some fashion by the warfighter.
would you join the army when you know that you wont have control over yourself in a war situation? those people that get controlled are nothing more then robots made from flesh and actually living. this shows me once again the stupidity of washington. (if it's true)
Could you perhaps give some documentation that this was widespread during Vietnam, and played an actual role in impeding operations?
In the United States military, fragging (from fragmentation grenade) refers to the act of murdering another member, or members of the military, particularly (a) member(s) of one's own command or fighting squad. Additionally, the term can be applied to manipulating the chain of command in order to have an individual, or unit, deliberately killed by placing them into harm's way, with the intended result being their deaths. An example would be to order a single soldier to perform a particularly hazardous task, and repeat the said task until he met his demise. The term originated during the Vietnam War and was most commonly used to mean the assassination of an unpopular officer of one's own fighting unit.
As Vietnamization began, young enlisted men lost a sense of purpose in fighting the war. The stress that the war brought upon military officers and NCOs initiated societal problems such as racial tension, drug use, and resentment toward authoritative leaders within the ranks. As the lack of purpose for the war gradually affected soldiers, the relationship between enlisted men and their officers deteriorated. Due to generational gaps between officers and enlisted men, and different perceptions of how the military should be conducted, resentment was directed from enlisted men toward officers. Enforcement of military regulations, especially if done overzealously, led to complaining and eventually threats of physical violence directed toward officers.
Fragging most often involved the murder of a commanding officer (C.O.) or a senior non-commissioned officer perceived as unpopular, harsh, inept or overzealous. As the Vietnam War became more unpopular, soldiers became less keen to go into harm's way; they preferred leaders with a similar sense of self-preservation. If a C.O. was incompetent, fragging the officer was considered a means of self-defense for the men serving under him. Fragging might also occur if a commander freely took on dangerous or suicidal missions, especially if he was deemed to be seeking glory for himself. The motive of individual self-preservation was often obstructive to the goals of the overall war effort. Fragging in the military was not a secret among the lower enlisted-rank soldiers. Sometimes a warning would be given to the target by placing a grenade pin on his bed. Fragging would take place if his actions continued as before.
The very idea of fragging served to warn junior officers to avoid angering their enlisted men through recklessness, cowardice, or lack of leadership. Junior officers in turn could arrange the murder of senior officers when finding them incompetent or wasting their men's lives needlessly. George Cantero, who served as a medic in Vietnam during the early 1970s, explained that incompetent officers who gave dangerous orders and refused to listen to reason or threats were fragged because that was the only way to get a new (presumably safer) commanding officer.
It shows the potential is there, and the key words in his post were "in the future." And since DARPA is funding it, it's rather obvious the Pentagon thinks it can be weaponized or utilized in some fashion by the warfighter.
But the way he presented the idea..he gave the impression that the works being done were specifically for mind control of soldiers
As for its potential in war..it could be used for such an action..but for now we are just assuming they would do so
[url]would you join the army when you know that you wont have control over yourself in a war situation? those people that get controlled are nothing more then robots made from flesh and actually living. this shows me once again the stupidity of washington. (if it's true)[/url]
You know nothing about my personal situation; kindly refrain from passing judgment on what you believe it to be.
No one knows how it will ultimately be used. Why do you think you can defermine what it'll be used for? Further, I trust the capabilities of a room full of highly educated professional than the babblings of an anti-americal dutch nationalist.
But the way he presented the idea..he gave the impression that the works being done were specifically for mind control of soldiers
As for its potential in war..it could be used for such an action..but for now we are just assuming they would do so
We'll have to wait and see if he defends himself then. I've merely presented what I know with whats avaliable.
