I dont mean computer controlled, I mean controlled remotely by someone on the ground
I dont mean computer controlled, I mean controlled remotely by someone on the ground
This type of fighting was explored in the Ender series of books, and also a version in an episode of the original Star Trek. Two planets had made war so computer controlled that actual weapons weren't needed. Simulations told each side where they were hit and how many died. The people of both sides who were 'hit' then reported to centers to be killed by their own side. Suppsedly this reduced the risk of all out catastrophic war, but when Kirk & crew were among the 'casualties', they violated the prime directive, messed up the computer transmissions and forced the two sides to actually confront the possibility of peace.
Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney
they do this for survalience plane but to fight by remote would be impossible at best, a human in the plane would wail a remote control fighter.
there are so many reasons why i just won't go farther than that opinion.
just think about the lag on long range missions!!!
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
>>> Star Trek.
I remember that episode. The war business had become so clean and oredered, there was no pressure to stop it. Kirk made the planets face the possibility of real war, and suddenly everyone wanted peace.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
>>And most of the pilots in WW2 would say they didn't give a *UMM* about dying. They were brave men.<<
The name Douglas Bader springs to mind. Was shot down in the BOB in his spitfire. Had to have both his legs amputated. Then got back in a another plane and continued fighting.
Check oiut somme of the recent back issues of Popular Science. The airforce has been working hard at this concept, in fact if I remember correctly the next generation of bombs are designed to fit onto the next generation of Preditor, or unmanned recon, planes.
That's not the point, some may have not given an "UMM" about dying... but given the choice they'd certainly choose life.Originally posted by Fountain
And most of the pilots in WW2 would say they didn't give a *UMM* about dying. They were brave men.
The simple fact that they were facing death would push them to the absolute limit. Having a parachute there would give them some insurance of survival... hence they wouldn't be in the same state of mind moments before they were shot down.
Fear would push some pilots to bail out prematurely... but without a parachute that wasn't an option.
Where's the fun in controlling from the ground?
I suppose there could be a remote pilot to take over in certain conditions, with a manual, total-override well within reach of the real pilot.
The only good thing about freezing beyond feeling in the final Nordic ski race was that I couldn't feel that tumble I did going about 30 mph, maybe more.
On the other hand, not feeling any part of my body for 30 minutes was scary, especialy for my manhood.
Windoze: XP, hate it, though its more stable than my old 98SE
Dream: linux, mandrake, then slackware.
>> Where's the fun in controlling from the ground?
Where's the fun in dying in the air? Or being catputed by the enemy after ejecting?
