B-2 Stealth Bomber Compromised?

[Big-E]

Not quite. As we build robots for battle, it has to become smarter, AND SMARTER. This is not a simple mechanism of automated fire control anymore, the AI will have to start figuring out complex pattern and strategies as the opposing side will do the same, and soon, as competition bears the fruit of advances, AI will evolute by itself. (they already are in many labs..rudimentary genetic algorithms) It will soon beyond human level of comprehension, and THAT, is exactly where we lost our control.

I'm playing the Terminator track as I write this...

Watching the levels of AI are interesting to see develop. But I must admit the level needed for an intelligence that can actually develop awareness is very very very far off if it is even possible. Engineers and computer gamers alike constantly bitch and moan about the crappy AI of their systems and games. The AI in US comabt simulators should be top notch but it is the same crap you get on any computer game. The super computers the nerds at NSA run with don't even have AI but run complex calculation simulations. Applying AI to the battlefield on a large scale will probably never happen. There is simply too great a risk for error.

The human condition with our higher reasoning is a wonderful thing. I don't even know if it is possible to make a self-aware AI. Are we God, can we re-create intelligence? I think giving something the IQ of an animal would be more the case than anything that could make value decisions. Animal intelligence runs on instict which is one thing that can be programmed but to actually contain reasoning intelligence is something completely different. The level of programming required for something that big would require something bigger than conventional storage space allows. It would actually have to come down to biological storage devices. Computers aren't nearly as complex as the human brain and if it doesn't reach a biologic level probably never will.

 

[merocaine]

One or two years ago for example germany was said to be the loser of europe. Not nearly all of the problems are gone but suddenly we gave th red lantern away and are going to have a economical growth of ca. 3,4% in the last quarter of this year.
And these 3,4% are much more than twice the growth of most countries in the world.
Maybe in three years we are again at 1% growth.

Yeah your economic growth is pushing up my morgage! It was happy days for Ireland until germanys economy started to improve again!
I never thought Germany was the loser of Europe, only free marketers in britian and the US thought that, to many to notch engineering firms for that to ever happen.
I think your being to pessimistic about the EU's potental, typical German!

I'm interested what is the EU's GDP taken as a whole? is it really that small compared to the US?

ok just looked it up

European Union 13,502,800
United States 12,455,825

there yeah go, we could actully out spend them on defence if we wanted. o well all that military potental going to waste!

 

[Ths]

Artificial intelligence:

dio ditto: Again I think You are wrong: My 82 year old aunt uses the internet - which was beyond comprehension when she went to school.

She could not make paper or ink (actually she could, as she is a pharmacist - but you get my drift) - that was beyond her comprehension.

Even given time enough I couldn't programme this web log with all the connections, routers and what have you; but occationally I'm able to pester my sour-roundings with my devine insights.

Tell You what: We have a cabinet maker, and he tries his hand with other stuff to with success. He is neither a genious nor a nerd - he is a craftsman.
I stood in awe as he updated our kitchen: Waved a bit with his ruler - returned with drawers, plate for table and shelves: not only did it fit (on the invisible side as well) - the boards were chosen so as to give the best visual impression. Others would have had the chabang fall apart as soon as they blinked.

As to things having a life of its own: I have yet to see a tv-set getting a foodprocessor pregnant with as much as a lightswitch.

As to artificial intelligence: One of the disadvantages of progressing in age is that you hear the same nonsense perpetrated by yet another generation.
As long as our comprehension of intelligence is so rudimentary as it is - any attempts to create it artificially are as inept as the alchymist using lead, dragons blood and plain horsemanure to create gold - and even if he had succeeded: A large part of the worlds gold is sitting in Fort Knox - completely useless.

 

[Waylander]

Arrrgh, Merocaine you got me. I had other datas in mind. :hitwall

Maybe I looked for older datas not including all the new members.
But the problem remains that you cannot use this money like a single country.
If I just look at the money spending of the EU I get a headache as big as the Mount Everest.
In the end I don't think that the EU is getting more like a single country in the near future.
We are already too big and the new members are not ready for membership.

And yeah we germans are the happy and optimistic people of europe.

 

[merocaine]

Yeah I know its hard to see when were ever going to get our act together, but the EU's militarys are being intergrated(EU battle groups) and there have been some pan european defence project (euro fighter). Its a small beginning I know but its a start.
We've come a long way in 40 years, who knows what could happen in another 40. I think my basic point is still valid, American military advantage is so pronounced because Japan and to a lesser extent Europe have decided not to compete in the military plane. This is passing phase, its lasted since the end of the 2nd worlds war, and is ending now, as the reasons for the alliance disappear.

 

[.pt]

Before EU could ever atempt to achieve Us levels of technology and defense spending, it would need to work and function as a single country.
In fact, for the moment EU it´s just an economic block, since it´s member states cannot agree on external policies, let alone defense policies, and procurement. The potential is there, but the realization is very far away. If it will ever happen.
Basically you have 4 or 5 nations pulling the train (UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain) and the rest are folowing...And these nations cannot agree on fundamental points in Defense and other political issues.
That is the main reason EU cannot compete (in a friendly manner) with US in defense issues, instead relying on US to, as a close ally, provide weapons systems and manpower to assure its defense.
All the defense projects that are starting, as well as integration of forces will only bear fruits in years. But their actual utilization depends on a common agreement on external policy and again on defense policy, and that i cannot see happening in the near future. Something like a Federal government or collegial government could do the trick..
.pt

 

[Big-E]

Yeah I know its hard to see when were ever going to get our act together, but the EU's militarys are being intergrated(EU battle groups) and there have been some pan european defence project (euro fighter). Its a small beginning I know but its a start.
We've come a long way in 40 years, who knows what could happen in another 40. I think my basic point is still valid, American military advantage is so pronounced because Japan and to a lesser extent Europe have decided not to compete in the military plane. This is passing phase, its lasted since the end of the 2nd worlds war, and is ending now, as the reasons for the alliance disappear.

The EU battlegroups while symobically respectful have no real power numbering at only 1,500. The loose confederation of the EU will always be the problem of deciding on a single force structure. The analogy to the US in it's struggle for freedom can be applied by the uslessness of it's confederation of forces. It was a total disaster and shows that to have any real military effectiveness authority must be given to one body. The overlapping and reduncy of forces the EU militaries comprise make a concerted effort by the Council wasteful. Unless the EU morphs into a single republic it's militaries will never have the cohesiveness it needs to be equal to the US military. There are just too many conflicting interests.

I agree that NATO is headed for the trashcan. I not only forsee it but welcome it. The useless attempts of the administration to find some kind of relevence for the alliance grow more absurd everday and only destroys US/Russian relations. It's existance only precipitates Cold-War tendencies that proved to be destructful to the CCCP and costly to the US. It is time to do away with this dinosaur of the Cold-War and have Europe take up defense of herself with US forces based elsewhere. There are other places that we could forward deploy that would be more relavent to the GWOT and make transport and reaction time cheaper and faster.

 

[Waylander]

The Eurofighter is not more a european project than has the Tornado been 30 years ago.
And especially the EF project shows us that not even a small amount of countries is able to find one allied way. Just look at the French deciding do building their own fighter and the struggles for budgets and capabilities.

 

[Ths]

There is one point where the anology between USA and Europe falls apart completely: The USA started with one government and a regulated way for that government to form and what was to be done at different levels.
Everything in US history has been about gaining power, so there were payoffs to everybody.

Europe tries to bring together 4-5 intact governments plus assorted minor governments that are quiete capable themselves. 10 different electoral systems each designed to cater for problems in their neck of the wood.
In Europe they bicker about giving up power. Demoting people always bring resentment.

Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Spain each have their own agenda - these agendas are not incompatible, had they been so EU wouldn't have gotten as far as they have; but they are agendas competing for attention and money.

Finally for many EU partners there is the USA. Whatever anti-american feelings that may stir in left wing cesspools: It is realised that all in all even the smaller european (and some of the larger) allied got a square deal from the USA: The Yanks have their agenda - they don't like a nuclear gun to their head, and we might not always think the USA is going about it the smartest way.

But when it comes to national security smaller nations ask themselves:

What would have happened if the Soviet Union had won the Cold War?
After a violent shudder:
What if France?
What if Germany?
What if Britain - oh wait they are asking the same questions.

Now this means that the smaller nations of Europe can get a better deal by helping the americans - and we know the price up front. So what has the EU to offer the small nations.
In a union it is the small nations that determine the security policy if they have an alternative. What do we want?
1. Put a cork in Germany - tick that one.
2. Put a cork in Russian - we are getting there.

French and British empire - couldn't care less.

Which option has worked so far?

 

[Gremlin29]

I've been away for awhile and this is as good a place to start back up as any.

With technology theft such as this I think it's more relevant to consider how the technology can be put to practical use, how perishable it is etc. I'm not convinced that the information will be all that useful if the end user doesn't have the means money to put it to good use.

Technology is more than just idea's. It's the industrial base and financial resources to put that technology into tangible form that matters. Enriching plutonium is a good example, the technology is old and available but the resources in industry and finance become the major hurdles, as the Iranians are well aware of.

Finally, China and the EU will have to out spend the US for many years just to reach parity, matching the American defense budget isn't going to close the vast gap that already exists in any short period of time and the US isn't waiting for anyone to catch up. Love or hate the Americans for whatever reason, the US armed forces aren't going to be seconded by anyone any time soon in terms of shear capability.

 

[icelord]

'm playing the Terminator track as I write this..

I'm playing U2s until the end of the world, felt it was appropriate
" You, you were talking about the end of the world"

Ok, we are finally getting to the point, and that is the Euro is too many competing nations for their own Goals. Right now they might be working on the Same Economic level, but when it comes to Military, they still have a long way to go. Look at NATO, they have just bought 4 C-17s to be operated by multi national Crews, this is amazing in that it may or may not last, how many countries will not support action in operation and revoke their pilots from the flights?

The Euro is too many nations competing for too many Interests, mainly their own. The US congress works the same, most Military contracts seem to go to Committee members states or those who are on the same level for projects, they look after their state to get re-elected, the Euro works like this, everyone is looking after his country, to get him re-elected(or her ) the only difference is that the US common goal is America, while the Euro is well, the nation in question. The US also has a Leader, the US Media...nfloorl: I mean the President of course, and don't the Congress love him, while the Euro has a rotating leader with no fixed term or Goals. For it to be competitive, it needs someone who will work in everyones interests for 5 years, so good luck with that.

The big problem for a competing Euro is that its countries don't always share their Classified or Top Secret Projects with others, as they are still suspicious or Competing with companies from other Euro Nations. If their was a common sharing of Tech then maybe they could catch up, but this would be counter-productive in that the US would find it easier to learn what they are doing and create their own, and in turn China would learn and try to catch up. Yes Industrial Espionage is not just for the French.

China may take a while to catch up with the world in terms of Tech, but it can also mobilise to create a pretty sweet internal War machine if ever needed, which would pump out all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas. But at present, in peacetime, it is slow and some parts, dissorganised, if its going to catch up with the USA, it will need to keep stealing from the world, and no racist intent meant, but there are a hell of a lot of Chinese Heritage people living throughout the world, who can be easily pushed to steal or hand over Technical information to the PLA.
A good example is Chinas attempts to acquire the Aussie Metal Storm and its technology's, even its scientists and Directors, China is not just seeking US project, but any others it can get its hands on, this includes Euro, so don't be surprised if yet again China unveils something that a Euro nation has been working hard, all because they were not keen to share it with their own neighbours.

 

[tphuang]

There is a reason China spends billions on Russian weapon systems. If they could make it themselves they would.

China uses the walk on two leg approach, wait for its indigenous systems to mature while buying Russian stuffs for immediate needs.

To ths:
China economy not growing if the currency rises?
i wonder how China still managed 9% growth in the 80s and 90s when it didn't have the export surplus back then.

 

[Grand Danois]

Look at NATO, they have just bought 4 C-17s to be operated by multi national Crews, this is amazing in that it may or may not last, how many countries will not support action in operation and revoke their pilots from the flights?

These four aircraft will be organised along the lines of the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force. IOW not under direct control of national govts, but rather where the participating govts in the programme buys flight hours from NATO.

NATO Airborne Early Warning Force doesn't seem to have any problems re deployments. And I wouldn't expect such issues with this particular programme.

 

[Grand Danois]

I've been away for awhile and this is as good a place to start back up as any.

With technology theft such as this I think it's more relevant to consider how the technology can be put to practical use, how perishable it is etc. I'm not convinced that the information will be all that useful if the end user doesn't have the means money to put it to good use.

Technology is more than just idea's. It's the industrial base and financial resources to put that technology into tangible form that matters. Enriching plutonium is a good example, the technology is old and available but the resources in industry and finance become the major hurdles, as the Iranians are well aware of.

The UK nuclear submarine industry is the first thing that I think of when reading this. The ability to design and manufacture, not just understanding a concept/having the blueprints. On the EU topic, I can't imagine neither France nor UK is going to give up their respective SSN/SSBN programmes in favour of a joint. But it is really hard to maintain such specialised industrial capability.

Finally, China and the EU will have to out spend the US for many years just to reach parity, matching the American defense budget isn't going to close the vast gap that already exists in any short period of time and the US isn't waiting for anyone to catch up. Love or hate the Americans for whatever reason, the US armed forces aren't going to be seconded by anyone any time soon in terms of shear capability.

Again Astute, Barracuda etc. as an example of duplication of effort. EU doesn't even spend anywhere near the levels the US does and more of it is used in this way. More money, more coordination... can it be done?

Anyhow, I read some article recently where a statement along the lines of 90% of the capability with 40% of the cost appeared. May be that this is the level of ambition we should seek.

And that could be good enough, as we don't need to match the US.

Re China, I note that US defense R&D is bigger than the highest estimate of Chinese defense spending in its entirety. Not bashing China, but China is so far off from being a challenger.

 

[ever4244]

You are not bashing any country when you say their power is far from US.
I never say china will replace US as an superpower. I just said maybe 50 year later china or india can challenge because the nature of these nation are same.
US, india ,china ,russia. All the type of vast nation with all the potential to rise .All with ambitions and a stream of nationalism.All with unification inside and aggressive to outside.All with man-power and resources All has ocean out door.

EU I believe if they are in utmost danger, they can cope with US. because their GDP significantly larger than US and nealy equal in science and tech.
But the problems they are so devide and not so ambitious that they look inside rather than look outside like US did.

US s downfall will not because other s. If oneday US rise to it peak and begin to think He s omnipotent and can do whatever he want . his down will not be far.------the iraq war is merely a omen and result maybe show 100 years later if US continuned to become more arrogant .

 

[gf0012-aust]

You are not bashing any country when you say their power is far from US.
I never say china will replace US as an superpower. I just said maybe 50 year later china or india can challenge because the nature of these nation are same.
US, india ,china ,russia. All the type of vast nation with all the potential to rise .All with ambitions and a stream of nationalism.All with unification inside and aggressive to outside.All with man-power and resources All has ocean out door.

EU I believe if they are in utmost danger, they can cope with US. because their GDP significantly larger than US and nealy equal in science and tech.
But the problems they are so devide and not so ambitious that they look inside rather than look outside like US did.

US s downfall will not because other s. If oneday US rise to it peak and begin to think He s omnipotent and can do whatever he want . his down will not be far.------the iraq war is merely a omen and result maybe show 100 years later if US continuned to become more arrogant .

Admin: This response is completely off topic. Please stay on track with the subject title. Its not a forum for political debate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can everyone please remember to stay on track with the actual topic titles.

There are too many responses recently that are political in focus and invariably have nothing (or extremely little) to do with the subject matter.

Any further off topic responses will be automatically deleted

 

[mehdi_mu]

Mod edit: See Gf's response below.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Congratulations. You've just won yourself 31 days in the sin bin for being an idiot.

God Bless The Usa

God Bless The Usa

God Bless The Usa

Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa Usa

 

[powerslavenegi]

Hm... talking of espionage ,it seems that post cold war era the soviets have been replaced by the PRC when it comes to spying on US weapon programmes.B-2,DDX and remember the W88 warhead atop the trident-II these all have been compromised and the benificiary all the time is the same .

COMMITEE ON SCIENCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HEARING CHARTER

In this case what is particularly alarming is that B-2's key features have been compromised,and I boy wont be surprised if next Gen PRC's bomber closely resembles the former.