Future War Speculation

ITT we speculate on the future development of warfare, in the near term I would expect ground based vehicles to become faster, lighter, wheels replacing tracks. The focus will move more towards mobility.
>Faster more agile tanks etc
In the air I would expect to see the rise of a drone carrier type deployment system, that deploys drone craft from low orbit or what have you. Remember when they were testing craft profiles through atmosphere? That's part of the R&D on drone craft deployment I believe.
>Drone craft carrier systems deploy from low orbit
It's the same concept as an aircraft carrier parked off shore to engage in an air war.
As for space based weapon systems, I could see the utility of solid munitions throw-away rail gun systems. I don't believe for a second that a space laser would prove to be an efficient weapon of war in case you were curious.
>Single use disposable MAC gun satalite network
Thoughts PrepHole?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >pic

    We already have rapid dragon through

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      shut the fuck up, rapid dragon is a turd

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >We already have rapid dragon through
      what about Rapider Dragon?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Foxholes
    Horses
    70 year old tanks

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    MIRVs with loitering munitions

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bio weapon that simply kills every person from your enemy's country. America knows we can do this and our enemies will be able to soon. That's the true meaning behind "diversity is our strength" because without genetic diversity it's extremely easy to simply for example design a disease that will kill every single Russian but only give other people a mild flu or nothing at all

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bioweapons are fucking stupid for the same reason chemical weapons are. You could never control that shit and keep it from not doubling back on you.

      Even if you could- killing say 20% of the American population is only going to succeed in starting a worldwide depression. Soldiers are a very small fraction of the population and you're not going to be able to select to hit only the soldiers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not designed to only kill soldiers. Just because you're moral doesn't mean your enemies are. Until recently it was fairly common to simply murder everybody in the country you invaded anyway, there are plenty of people who wouldn't care about taking a temporary economic hit in order to kill 100% of people in your enemy country wiping them out forever. And yes, you absolutely can design a bio weapon that only targets people with a genetic makeup specific to a single country.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Name one war in the last 200 years when that happened

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Come on Anon, you know, that one war and uhhh... that other one. You know. Dont be so fucking dense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What the fuck are you talking about we're talking about future wars. Someone would be a general that gets ass blasted because you refuse to accept ideas that haven't already happened

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He said "until recently" and you said "200 years". That's the same difference.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Wiping out such a large population isn't going to be a temporary hit. It's going to cause a massive depression. And what's the point of going to war if you're gonna lose money in the long run?

          And whose to say a bioweapon you unleash isn't going to mutate? The genetic markers that designate different ethnic groups are incredibly miniscule. Certainly the difference between a white guy and asian guy is much much much smaller than the difference between birds or cows or pigs and humans.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Until recently it was fairly common to simply murder everybody in the country you invaded anyway
          No, this has not ever been the norm. The reason things like Mongols killing everyone in a city that resists, or the 30 Years War leaving Mecklenburg basically unpopulated and reverting to wilderness, is that they are OUTLIERS.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There is the possibility of targeted bioweapons using some sort of genetic information to pinpoint certain groups or carriers of particular genes.

        One could imagine still having blowback as most developed countries have varying degrees of admixture with other human populations.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Damn, americans have been muttifying themselves for two centuries to counter this. They truly are the world's superpower

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >bioweapon
        To be the devil's advocate it's entirely dependent on how much you actually control the virus and if you can make your population immune.
        If aliens wanted to wipe out mankind without touching the fauna I would bet on such self-replicating weapon with a timer to ensure it isn't detected too soon.
        Obviously it take a very xenophobic culture, or maybe some radical eco-warrior who think it's necessary to save Earth.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bullshit you'd just target the part of the population worth a shit. If the US was just 85 IQ morons and 86 IQ Hispanics it would instantly collapse. They are a net economic loss as it stands.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Shhhh you're going to make the neoliberal narcissists furious

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    escort carriers sizeminned ryuujou-style that basically only carry, service and launch drones, printed out by the dozens

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    MRE pizza that won't give you indigestion or constipation

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    African, Indian and Central Asian infantry fighting each other

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear peer to peer conflict will likely focus on delivery methods. Each side will look for the upper hand on delivering nukes faster and in ways that will cannot be detected until the explosions take place. To put it most more briefly, nuclear countries will look for any way to break the mutually assured destruction paradigm.

    After we nuked the Japanese into surrender, there were people in the US government who thought we should do a prememtive strike on the USSR before they acquired nuclear weapons.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They were correct, we should have nuked the USSR. Look at us now.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I would argue the opposite, with surveillance and guiding going through the roof you want ground units that are nearly indestructible even if they advance at one mile a day.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The future, as it was with the past, will be determined by Gavins

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The doctrine of fifth generation warfare places an importance on electronics and information, including cybersecurity attacks and "social engineering" AKA online propaganda as a means of conducting warfare. Major online media sites get considerable traffic from military installations for this reason.

    More than anything, public support shapes the outcome of modern wars. First, domestically in the outset of a war, and later internationally. Without monopolistic control of media, it is difficult for nations to control the propagandic narrative of a war.

    This is described as a war of intelligence and information. With guided munitions and live satellite imagery, as well as a vast network of digital surveillance, it is easy for superpowers to identify and destroy targets extremely quickly.

    Physically, the largest threat to major conventional forces is unconventional warfare. Large conventional forces are equipped for direct confrontation with large conventional enemies. Unconventional guerrilla warfare neutralizes an overwhelming technological advantage.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Future War Speculation
    Future war will be fought with sticks and stones, as Einstein or whoever put it.

    And I don't even think nukes might be the cause, as this quote is usually understood. I mean, given the catastrophic effects of climate change we are steering towards a future of food shortages and lack of clean water in vast parts of the world, so a full exchange isn't unlikely.

    But even if we were able to avoid nuclear holocaust, climate change itself will cause civilization to slowly regress to the point where it is unable to produce sophisticated machinery and all.

    So my prediction for future war is: It will be everywhere, people will fight over petty shit like "that stretch of fertile desert" like in the olden days. And any weapons they carry will be relics of the old world. Maybe they still retain the ability to at least produce ammunition, maybe all they have is their remaining stockpiles, and once they're empty, they're empty.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >In the air, I would expect to see the rise of a drone carrier type deployment system that deploys drone craft from low orbit or what have you. Remember when they were testing craft profiles through the atmosphere? That's part of the R&D on drone craft deployment, I believe.
    I thought that's basically what NGAD was? Or would that be 7th gen+?
    >tires replacing tracks... emphasis on mobility
    anon... the reason tracks are used instead of tires is because it gives mobility in terrain that tires kind of suck in.
    >space-based single-use MAC rounds
    so... Rods From God? It does the exact same thing to the target, but it doesn't require big fuck off generators. The only reason for a space-based MAC would be to shoot at things that aren't on Earth
    But to answer your question, I want to see Battleships make a comeback when rail/coil guns become viable, but I think we'll need to figure out fusion energy first and maybe a superconducting lubricant as well
    every grunt will have a small drone to give him and his squad real-time updates on the battlefield. From that, we'll probably get a heads-up display on a visor that protects against shrapnel. Hopefully, digital night vision gets on par with analog soon, and we can have digital and thermal overlays on the HUD without a stupid amount of weight and bulk.
    I don't see energy weapons becoming viable because, according to my layman's understanding of physics, it's always more efficient to break something with kinetic energy than to use that energy to try to burn or melt something.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    probably some kind of mini patriot system that can protect troops from artillery

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    WWI but with drones

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    let's be honest it's literally nothing but drones
    any current countermeasures to block them just prevents you from using them as well
    they can also fly a few feet off the ground to avoid your expensive antimissle shit
    >cheap as fuck
    >can be scaled up to a fleet of millions using AI control
    >deployed in the atmosphere anywhere on the planet
    >when deployed can use advanced strategies and tactics for maximum damage
    >provides insanely good intelligence while blowing up your enemies

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      spoken like a true 14 year old hearts of iron player that does artillery/air only playthroughs. Combines arms will always be the name of the game, pipsqueak

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The correct answer for drones is laser batteries that are capable of destroying the drones control surfaces for pennies on the dollar near instantly and then moving onto the next target.
    This is also why the US is working on drones that don't actually make use of control surfaces at speed and just use some black magic shit to stay level using air currents or some shit.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *