Sea Kit(sea-kit.com)
sea-kit.com
Sea Kit
https://www.sea-kit.com
127 comments
For the primitive versions, compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ship
The best open source of technical info on this whole topic area is http://www.hisutton.com
When you are caught up in asymmetrical warfare (like Ukraine) I definitely see the advantages and potential.
But I wonder if for a normal navy a small submarine with a torpedo isn't more effective.
More so because right now there aren't thatany effective counter measures (some drunken sailors firing wildly in the dark), but that will change.
But I wonder if for a normal navy a small submarine with a torpedo isn't more effective.
More so because right now there aren't thatany effective counter measures (some drunken sailors firing wildly in the dark), but that will change.
I also wonder about a point raised by russian propagandists (which imho is valid): the ukrainian things are relatively low and don't have that mast (see here: https://www.twz.com/ukrainian-drone-boat-appears-to-have-bee...). So how do they find their (relatively small as of late) targets in a 20x100km² area 600km off their deployment point without a) sending those on an industrial scale (unlikely given the western supply chain...), b) these things loitering for days (unlikely given the size?), c) having some very advanced sonar things (which also would need some more depth if I look at publically deployed solutions), d) Russian captains are really incompetent (likely) or e) they are actually guided by the plentiful western surveillance assets. Which would be just like the Houthi missiles which are a) fired in volleys and b) probably depend on data by the iranian/chinese ships lurking around ...
The last 2 points make this thing really very good in this specific war (surveillance assets can do whatever they want and russian captains seemed very complacent), but very inefficient anytime else. Also I'd say you should be able to easily adapt something like the various CIWSs (which currently have ancient designs...) to this threat. Also: once you notice the threat (which 2/3 last incident did?), why not level the playing field for your (hopefully not all drunken...) sailors and just flare up the whole environment (which should have helped here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXzaBixvL8 - also I don't really agree with this guy, that more ships help in defending against a swarming attack when they don't know how to kill the swarm...)
The last 2 points make this thing really very good in this specific war (surveillance assets can do whatever they want and russian captains seemed very complacent), but very inefficient anytime else. Also I'd say you should be able to easily adapt something like the various CIWSs (which currently have ancient designs...) to this threat. Also: once you notice the threat (which 2/3 last incident did?), why not level the playing field for your (hopefully not all drunken...) sailors and just flare up the whole environment (which should have helped here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXzaBixvL8 - also I don't really agree with this guy, that more ships help in defending against a swarming attack when they don't know how to kill the swarm...)
Every Russian naval ship sunk by Ukraine in 2024 has been sunk in sight of land, at a small port or bay that they have been stationed at.
It's not that Ukrainian USV are making pinpoint attacks in a vast ocean, rather they are driving over to a port that a ship has been hanging around for months.
- Ivanovets, sunk in "Lake Donuzlav", where it had been for months - Tsezar Kunikov, sunk in sight of Alupka, and located right where drones would pass on their way around Crimea. - Sergey Kotov, sunk in the tiny confined space of the port next to a bridge it was guarding.
It's not that Ukrainian USV are making pinpoint attacks in a vast ocean, rather they are driving over to a port that a ship has been hanging around for months.
- Ivanovets, sunk in "Lake Donuzlav", where it had been for months - Tsezar Kunikov, sunk in sight of Alupka, and located right where drones would pass on their way around Crimea. - Sergey Kotov, sunk in the tiny confined space of the port next to a bridge it was guarding.
It's (e). They're getting intelligence from NATO countries.
I thought that was publically acknowledged? Could be wrong.
I thought that was publically acknowledged? Could be wrong.
Well, in some countries the chancellor acknowledging that is publicly ostracised for "disturbing the opinion". Which is very fun, because apparently that's not something people want to have put into the remaining mainstream media. All that in countries which a) claim not to be at war (and crucially not doing an inch of the economic adjustments), b) are the good democracies and c) are trying to play this down to things like "satellite" and internet comms. Noone is putting this out: https://en.defence-ua.com/events/what_awacs_see_as_they_tran... . If you would go into a debate and say: "hey, we are fighting this war already and without our direct involvement Ukraine would be gone from the map" - I guess that would be called fakenews.
What confuses me is, how is this even a talking point? Under what theory is EU supposed to sit back and watch a bordering country get invaded and not pass that country intelligence?
Are we supposed to believe that if the EU invaded Belarus, that Russia wouldn’t pass any intelligence to the Belarusian government?
Are we supposed to believe that if the EU invaded Belarus, that Russia wouldn’t pass any intelligence to the Belarusian government?
That. Plus the fact that everyone (Russia included) gave Ukraine security guarantees when in the 90s we convinced them to give their nuclear missiles to the country that had occupied them just before.
At the time everyone was very nervous about proliferation of nuclear weapons and it seemed a sensible promise. But when push comes to shove it seems more complicated.
At the time everyone was very nervous about proliferation of nuclear weapons and it seemed a sensible promise. But when push comes to shove it seems more complicated.
>Under what theory is EU supposed to sit back and watch a bordering country get invaded and not pass that country intelligence?
Has EU, or more aptly the comprising countries thereof, declared war?
The only thing I hate more than warmongering are proxy wars.
I'm all for Ukraine winning, because if they lose then Putin and Russia are vindicated in warmongering as a proper form of diplomacy, but I'm sick and tired of proxy wars.
As an aside: Yes, as an American I stand with the Republicans in denying further aid to Ukraine if we're going to continue doing the same thing. If we're going to lend more aid, either we punt the money figures up a few orders of magnitudes or we send in American boots to settle it ourselves. No more halfassed "aid" that only prolongs the war indefinitely and enlarges the suffering of civilians.
Has EU, or more aptly the comprising countries thereof, declared war?
The only thing I hate more than warmongering are proxy wars.
I'm all for Ukraine winning, because if they lose then Putin and Russia are vindicated in warmongering as a proper form of diplomacy, but I'm sick and tired of proxy wars.
As an aside: Yes, as an American I stand with the Republicans in denying further aid to Ukraine if we're going to continue doing the same thing. If we're going to lend more aid, either we punt the money figures up a few orders of magnitudes or we send in American boots to settle it ourselves. No more halfassed "aid" that only prolongs the war indefinitely and enlarges the suffering of civilians.
The definition of "proxy war" is "a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved".
Regardless of the scale or nature of the aid, since Russia is directly involved, the Ukraine war can only be a "proxy war" if you believe it was instigated by the EU/NATO/the US, which is essentially assuming the Russian talking point that it was somehow forced to invade Ukraine because it felt threatened.
I disagree with that position and if you do to please do not describe it as a "proxy war" even if you think that other countries providing a limited amount of aid rather than getting actively involved will cause the war to be prolonged.
Regardless of the scale or nature of the aid, since Russia is directly involved, the Ukraine war can only be a "proxy war" if you believe it was instigated by the EU/NATO/the US, which is essentially assuming the Russian talking point that it was somehow forced to invade Ukraine because it felt threatened.
I disagree with that position and if you do to please do not describe it as a "proxy war" even if you think that other countries providing a limited amount of aid rather than getting actively involved will cause the war to be prolonged.
Who made that definition? There can be proxy wars in some regions between nations that are at the same time involved in open wars against each other in other regions. This happened a lot in WWII.
That looks like the Oxford Dictionary's definition. That checks out, the poster is correct.
It makes sense, helping an ally who is attacked doesn't sound like a proxy war to me.
It makes sense, helping an ally who is attacked doesn't sound like a proxy war to me.
> I am against help, because we do not help enough.
And he is using a website made for the smarter kids. This election is going to be golden.
And he is using a website made for the smarter kids. This election is going to be golden.
> And he is using a website made for the smarter kids
Being in a group that accepts people that say "this group is smart" annoys me to no end as the lowest form of circle jerk. Specially when it's not even true.
There's no IQ test to access this site, there's no merit on the part of the users, the merit is on the part of the moderation, since the user pool is the same as any public website written in english.
Being in a group that accepts people that say "this group is smart" annoys me to no end as the lowest form of circle jerk. Specially when it's not even true.
There's no IQ test to access this site, there's no merit on the part of the users, the merit is on the part of the moderation, since the user pool is the same as any public website written in english.
Has China, Iran, Belarus, etc decleared war? All of them help Russia. Are those doing proxy wars?
This is not a proxy war, neither EU or US are interested in Russian territory. They made it clear that no Western weapons are to be used outside Ukraine. This is defensive support for a sovereign state, not a scheme to topple Putin (who is the sole aggressor in this conflict without any formal declaration of war).
Furthermore, I’m having a hard time understanding your reasoning regarding US aid.
Currently, Russia is paying an enormous price while the US risks no lifes and gets to send its old weapons to Ukraine. This might not be a winning strategy for Ukraine, but it sure sounds better than an open war between 2 major nuclear powers which puts billions of lifes at risk or draconian Russian occupation of large parts of Ukraine.
Furthermore, I’m having a hard time understanding your reasoning regarding US aid.
Currently, Russia is paying an enormous price while the US risks no lifes and gets to send its old weapons to Ukraine. This might not be a winning strategy for Ukraine, but it sure sounds better than an open war between 2 major nuclear powers which puts billions of lifes at risk or draconian Russian occupation of large parts of Ukraine.
>neither EU or US are interested in Russian territory.
But the west is interested in depleting and weakening Russia, which we can accomplish by prolonging this war as long as we can by supplying just enough aid to keep Ukraine from losing but not so much that Ukraine would win.
>Furthermore, I’m having a hard time understanding your reasoning regarding US aid.
You know what is worse than war? An unnecessarily protracted war. The longer a war goes on, the exponentially worse the civilians caught in the crossfire suffer.
I want Ukraine to win for reasons already stated, but I also do not want to see this war go on any longer than it has to. The west is more than opulent enough to supply enough equipment to end this war sooner, and if we go as far as to send in our own boots we can end this war overnight.
But we don't. Instead we provide just enough aid to keep Ukraine afloat. It's now over 2 years since Russia began its invasion.
As an aside, the military industrial complex is making a killing (pun intended) selling new gear to replace the ones donated to Ukraine.
What the fuck.
So no, no more aid unless enough is provided to end this war in Ukraine's favor as soon as fucking possible. I do not agree to aid that is any less and would keep prolonging this war at great cost to civilians.
But the west is interested in depleting and weakening Russia, which we can accomplish by prolonging this war as long as we can by supplying just enough aid to keep Ukraine from losing but not so much that Ukraine would win.
>Furthermore, I’m having a hard time understanding your reasoning regarding US aid.
You know what is worse than war? An unnecessarily protracted war. The longer a war goes on, the exponentially worse the civilians caught in the crossfire suffer.
I want Ukraine to win for reasons already stated, but I also do not want to see this war go on any longer than it has to. The west is more than opulent enough to supply enough equipment to end this war sooner, and if we go as far as to send in our own boots we can end this war overnight.
But we don't. Instead we provide just enough aid to keep Ukraine afloat. It's now over 2 years since Russia began its invasion.
As an aside, the military industrial complex is making a killing (pun intended) selling new gear to replace the ones donated to Ukraine.
What the fuck.
So no, no more aid unless enough is provided to end this war in Ukraine's favor as soon as fucking possible. I do not agree to aid that is any less and would keep prolonging this war at great cost to civilians.
I'm not so sure that your theory is a fact. There are a lot of plausible explanations for the course of this war. I follow this conflict closely and personally I think the West never had a coherent strategy and there would have been better ways to decimate the Russians.
I still don't see how letting Russia conquer half of Ukraine minimizes civilian cost. Russia has a long history of deadly deportations and it has already established systematic torture in occupied Ukranian territory. A landlocked Ukraine will be very hard to stabilize. And will Russia stop or will it continue in Moldova, Georgia or Kazakhstan?
There's also the question if the link between Western aid and warmongering holds up. All aggression comes from Russia and it alone is responsible for this destruction. As long as the victims, the Ukraine people, ask for help to defend themselves the West should deliver. The current aid is not enough but it surely is better than fighting Russia alone.
I still don't see how letting Russia conquer half of Ukraine minimizes civilian cost. Russia has a long history of deadly deportations and it has already established systematic torture in occupied Ukranian territory. A landlocked Ukraine will be very hard to stabilize. And will Russia stop or will it continue in Moldova, Georgia or Kazakhstan?
There's also the question if the link between Western aid and warmongering holds up. All aggression comes from Russia and it alone is responsible for this destruction. As long as the victims, the Ukraine people, ask for help to defend themselves the West should deliver. The current aid is not enough but it surely is better than fighting Russia alone.
The US is not trying to prolong the war; quite the opposite, actually.
The US has consistently advocated for a different strategy than what Zelensky is doing. If anything, it is Zelensky who is still trying to figure out how to fight this war.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/politics/ukraine-war-u...
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/us/politics/ukraine-count...
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/politics/zelensky-bide...
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-wa...
[4]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/us/politics/ukraine-us-mi...
The US has consistently advocated for a different strategy than what Zelensky is doing. If anything, it is Zelensky who is still trying to figure out how to fight this war.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/politics/ukraine-war-u...
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/us/politics/ukraine-count...
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/politics/zelensky-bide...
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-wa...
[4]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/us/politics/ukraine-us-mi...
A proxy war is when you have two countries who are not otherwise affected by a particular war, sponsoring opposing sides for geopolitical advantage.
Syria was a proxy war. Ukraine is not. Invading a neighboring country is a direct threat to the EU’s security, as evidenced by the large number of Ukrainian refugees that the EU now has to support. Had Putin succeeded in installing a figurehead regime in Kyiv, what is to say he wouldn’t have started marching on Moldova as well? Europe has seen this before.
Declaring war is a bit passé nowadays anyway.
Syria was a proxy war. Ukraine is not. Invading a neighboring country is a direct threat to the EU’s security, as evidenced by the large number of Ukrainian refugees that the EU now has to support. Had Putin succeeded in installing a figurehead regime in Kyiv, what is to say he wouldn’t have started marching on Moldova as well? Europe has seen this before.
Declaring war is a bit passé nowadays anyway.
> I stand with the Republicans in denying further aid to Ukraine
Meanwhile, the UK has opened to Ukrainian refugees (3 families in our street have accommodated refugees) and has pledged unconditional support.
We learnt our lesson that appeasing dictators, like Putin, does not work.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Meanwhile, the UK has opened to Ukrainian refugees (3 families in our street have accommodated refugees) and has pledged unconditional support.
We learnt our lesson that appeasing dictators, like Putin, does not work.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Because, firstly, EU is not a country, I'm a EU citizen and I certainly do not approve of this policy but there's no way for me (or for other people who think the same as me) to vote out the people that make those decisions (I'm also not a French citizen, maybe that way I could have had an effect on Macron holding power or not).
It's a double-edged sword for the EU leaders in the middle to long-term, because once a great part of the European population will start realising that they have been in effect disenfranchised then said population will have no qualms in following new political leaders that will leave "democracy" at the side, and thus leaving the concept of the EU for dead.
It's a double-edged sword for the EU leaders in the middle to long-term, because once a great part of the European population will start realising that they have been in effect disenfranchised then said population will have no qualms in following new political leaders that will leave "democracy" at the side, and thus leaving the concept of the EU for dead.
If you're an Eu citizen - you should care that russia is stopped in Ukraine as they said multiple times - their goal is up to Lisbon.
> their goal is up to Lisbon
That was in fact Mitterand's goal in late 1989 - early 1990, the other way round, that is, until the Americans (well, the honorable James Baker) freaked out and nothing came out of it. I still think from time to time what could have been if "from Lisbon to Vladivostok" had become real, just as Mitterand had wanted it. [1]
[1] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155777507.pdf
That was in fact Mitterand's goal in late 1989 - early 1990, the other way round, that is, until the Americans (well, the honorable James Baker) freaked out and nothing came out of it. I still think from time to time what could have been if "from Lisbon to Vladivostok" had become real, just as Mitterand had wanted it. [1]
[1] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/155777507.pdf
Last time I checked, Lisbon was in fact in the EU... Vladivosstok not so much.
> there's no way for me (or for other people who think the same as me) to vote out the people that make those decisions
You can vote for your country's elections. You can also vote for the EU parliament.
And ever EU nation supports Ukraine, with the exception of Hungary. In this case the policy of the EU is very much aligned with the policy of ... pretty much the entire EU.
You can vote for your country's elections. You can also vote for the EU parliament.
And ever EU nation supports Ukraine, with the exception of Hungary. In this case the policy of the EU is very much aligned with the policy of ... pretty much the entire EU.
My country, Romania, has no effective say in this matter at the EU level. As for the European Parliament and its democratic legitimacy, the lesser said the better. We also used to have “elected” representatives under Ceausescu’s Romania, with the same effective results.
Your country is going to be invaded and reoccupied by Russia if Putin gets his way in Ukraine and Trump delays article 5 just long enough for it to be "not worth it".
Because why should we waste hundreds of thousands of lives on protecting "just some land".
Because why should we waste hundreds of thousands of lives on protecting "just some land".
Let us care for ourselves, we did just fine before (we actually fought the Soviets/Russians on their home turf before, unlike the majority of the Western countries), and use those troops you mention for the defense of your own realms, we don’t need them here.
If I was your neighboring countries, I would absolutely not let you “care for yourselves”. That puts my border at risk. Nothing is in a vacuum.
> That puts my border at risk. Nothing is in a vacuum.
Ah, yes, when it is a Western border at risk it is totally fine, it's not fine if that is a Russian border.
Hypocrisy.
Ah, yes, when it is a Western border at risk it is totally fine, it's not fine if that is a Russian border.
Hypocrisy.
It funny that those people claiming to be disenfranchised have no problem with leaders who won't give them any rights at all.
It makes it more honest, for one thing.
And second, it may sound as a paradox, but those authoritarian leaders are more connected with the masses and their needs (and vice-versa) compared to a pseudo-democratic and very opaque assembly composed of some hundreds of members (what are now called “parliaments”) of which no-one knows all that much, for that matter.
So a switch to an authoritarian leader would in effect, and comparatively speaking, mean a return of effective power to the masses, because it is on those masses that the legitimacy of said leader depends. Today’s parliamentarian regimes have long lost their legitimacy (notice senile 90+ years old ladies being parliament members in the most “democratic” country on Earth), it’s all a Glasperlenspiel [1] at this point, following prior moves blindly while the reason behind those moves has long been lost.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game
And second, it may sound as a paradox, but those authoritarian leaders are more connected with the masses and their needs (and vice-versa) compared to a pseudo-democratic and very opaque assembly composed of some hundreds of members (what are now called “parliaments”) of which no-one knows all that much, for that matter.
So a switch to an authoritarian leader would in effect, and comparatively speaking, mean a return of effective power to the masses, because it is on those masses that the legitimacy of said leader depends. Today’s parliamentarian regimes have long lost their legitimacy (notice senile 90+ years old ladies being parliament members in the most “democratic” country on Earth), it’s all a Glasperlenspiel [1] at this point, following prior moves blindly while the reason behind those moves has long been lost.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game
Yeah it's not a secret that this is happening. UK/France/Germany are helping with targeting.
[deleted]
I know nothing about the area, but it strikes me that it's all about the amount of resources you put into each weapon. In the same way that you can make more drones than planes for your $, you might be able to make more underwater drones than submarines for your $.
Although I guess the line between torpedo, mine and underwater drone gets blurry.
Although I guess the line between torpedo, mine and underwater drone gets blurry.
Since modern torps, much like cruise missiles and anti-tank missiles as well as rockets, a more often than not guided (laser, wire...), yes, the line of what isba drone and what is a torpedo get blurry.
Drones, IMHO, have more loitering capability. It is very interesting to see how drone warfare develops.
Drones, IMHO, have more loitering capability. It is very interesting to see how drone warfare develops.
So at some point most war machinery will be automated and not carry humans inside, I think this is easy to accept. A little bit harder to accept, but what would be really cool is to just realise that if there's no humans, and the whole thing is automated, why not just simulate it?
The same way mythical armies of literature used champions to fight it out - causing less mysery, why not just simulate the war itself and figure out who wins?
I guess the main issue with this is that right now there's multiple components that help you win a war that are still super relevant, logistics, manufacturing and so on. Once algorithms become the dominant aspect and those other physically bound ones are no more, could we move war fully to the digital realm?
The same way mythical armies of literature used champions to fight it out - causing less mysery, why not just simulate the war itself and figure out who wins?
I guess the main issue with this is that right now there's multiple components that help you win a war that are still super relevant, logistics, manufacturing and so on. Once algorithms become the dominant aspect and those other physically bound ones are no more, could we move war fully to the digital realm?
> why not just simulate it?
The same reason we don’t simulate Facebook Farmville plots to produce all of our food.
War isn’t some hobby soldiers play at to earn points for their side, it’s the continuation of policy by other means. There is no “simulating” it anymore than you can force someone to kill themselves and all their friends and family by asking nicely.
The same reason we don’t simulate Facebook Farmville plots to produce all of our food.
War isn’t some hobby soldiers play at to earn points for their side, it’s the continuation of policy by other means. There is no “simulating” it anymore than you can force someone to kill themselves and all their friends and family by asking nicely.
It's not the same thing. The outcome of war is "who gets to impose their will", which is something that can change without any physical change. We could declare tomorrow that there's a new king of the world and if everyone accepts that, nothing actually needs to change. Producing food is not like that.
The point is eventually all that matters is algorithms. If everything is automated, if a lot of war is cyber war etc, you know already that the best algorithms applied to physical stuff will win, so why not just pit them against each other virtually?
As for the argument of "why wouldn't they just go at it in the physical world next", well they could, but after 10 or 20 wars where you see the outcome is going to be aligned to the algorithmic winner anyway you see there's no point other than to kill your own population.
For what it's worth I don't think this happens in 10 or even 100 years - it's stretching it to a much longer timespan.
The point is eventually all that matters is algorithms. If everything is automated, if a lot of war is cyber war etc, you know already that the best algorithms applied to physical stuff will win, so why not just pit them against each other virtually?
As for the argument of "why wouldn't they just go at it in the physical world next", well they could, but after 10 or 20 wars where you see the outcome is going to be aligned to the algorithmic winner anyway you see there's no point other than to kill your own population.
For what it's worth I don't think this happens in 10 or even 100 years - it's stretching it to a much longer timespan.
If we could all agree to go along with who the leader is, then we're all living in the same society.
But that's not the point: the point is "who's going to make me?" when our disagreements are significant.
And significant is minor details like "I believe I own this land" and "I have a right to exist".
EDIT: it's also worth noting that we resolve wars by simulation all the time - that's what diplomacy and it's supporting institutions are. Both sides present their objectives, tend to outline their military forces and escalation priorities to each other, and then go away and decide if they believe the outcome is substantially worse then what could be achieved by negotiation - which with war it usually is.
But that's not the point: the point is "who's going to make me?" when our disagreements are significant.
And significant is minor details like "I believe I own this land" and "I have a right to exist".
EDIT: it's also worth noting that we resolve wars by simulation all the time - that's what diplomacy and it's supporting institutions are. Both sides present their objectives, tend to outline their military forces and escalation priorities to each other, and then go away and decide if they believe the outcome is substantially worse then what could be achieved by negotiation - which with war it usually is.
> The outcome of war is "who gets to impose their will", which is something that can change without any physical change.
That’s not how that works. The nation that gets to impose its will is the one that can put boots on the ground and hold them there. Doesn’t matter if they’re cyborg or robot boots, but they have to physically be there. That’s a lesson as old as history.
I understand what you’re getting at, and maybe someday smaller powers will participate in “simulated warfare” (which means something else) in lieu of total destruction like some hunter-gatherer and monkey tribes do, but it will always be in the physical world and involve death or destruction.
Otherwise, why would anyone go to war even now? If any other mechanism other than physical violence would have worked, we wouldnt go to war.
That’s not how that works. The nation that gets to impose its will is the one that can put boots on the ground and hold them there. Doesn’t matter if they’re cyborg or robot boots, but they have to physically be there. That’s a lesson as old as history.
I understand what you’re getting at, and maybe someday smaller powers will participate in “simulated warfare” (which means something else) in lieu of total destruction like some hunter-gatherer and monkey tribes do, but it will always be in the physical world and involve death or destruction.
Otherwise, why would anyone go to war even now? If any other mechanism other than physical violence would have worked, we wouldnt go to war.
Agree, I think countries already run their simulations, and when they believe they are on the winning side, they invade. Doesn't matter if the simulation is rolling a dice.
If you don't invade, you haven't taken control.
Or putting it from other perspective, you could run the simulation between 2 parties, be the winner and "impose" your will. But I don't think that the other side will now leave their houses and leave their own city voluntarily, at that point you need to invade anyways.
If you don't invade, you haven't taken control.
Or putting it from other perspective, you could run the simulation between 2 parties, be the winner and "impose" your will. But I don't think that the other side will now leave their houses and leave their own city voluntarily, at that point you need to invade anyways.
People don’t fight wars they don’t think they might win. High fidelity simulations might actually help with that.
Do we not have a pair of counterexamples going on right now in current world events.
> why not just simulate the war itself and figure out who wins?
This only works if the consequences of losing are no big deal.
If all that changes is which set of leaders get to collect taxes vs having to swear off politics and go into industry or whatever, then sure.
If instead the losing population is removed to provide more land for the winners? Maybe expecting them to do as the simulated result says is a bit much
.
Also on a vaguely related topic, I'd like to note that bank robberies are still a thing despite being well known to be approximately impossible to get away with.
This only works if the consequences of losing are no big deal.
If all that changes is which set of leaders get to collect taxes vs having to swear off politics and go into industry or whatever, then sure.
If instead the losing population is removed to provide more land for the winners? Maybe expecting them to do as the simulated result says is a bit much
.
Also on a vaguely related topic, I'd like to note that bank robberies are still a thing despite being well known to be approximately impossible to get away with.
It cannot be simulated because many aspects of military capability are a secret by design and as a matter of functional necessity. The available information is supposed to be inaccurate. Uncertainty around capability and causality is a fundamental part of the deterrent and battlefield shaping effects during conflict.
How do you prove the fidelity of the simulation with respect to actual military capabilities? How do you prevent a party from claiming capability in the simulation that they do not actually possess? Countries like Russia constantly churn out supposed super-weapons that are routinely found out in real combat.
If war became all about simulation engineering rather than actual capability, a country is going to recognize the arbitrage opportunity and take advantage of it in the physical world.
It is a bit like conflating e-sports with the real thing. One is not a substitute for the other because the constraints and incentives are fundamentally different, optimizing for very different things in execution.
How do you prove the fidelity of the simulation with respect to actual military capabilities? How do you prevent a party from claiming capability in the simulation that they do not actually possess? Countries like Russia constantly churn out supposed super-weapons that are routinely found out in real combat.
If war became all about simulation engineering rather than actual capability, a country is going to recognize the arbitrage opportunity and take advantage of it in the physical world.
It is a bit like conflating e-sports with the real thing. One is not a substitute for the other because the constraints and incentives are fundamentally different, optimizing for very different things in execution.
1967 Star Trek presented one take on this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
Awesome, thanks for the share. What a gift to come up with a funky idea and having a ready to go Star Trek episode about it! If only it was like this with all the cooky ideas we come up with.
> If only it was like this with all the cooky ideas we come up with.
It probably is :) Any other ideas you'd like us to come up with a Star Trek episode for? There are nearly a thousand to select from these days!
It probably is :) Any other ideas you'd like us to come up with a Star Trek episode for? There are nearly a thousand to select from these days!
Interesting thought. I guess war is a kind of "proof of work" which identifies the society that is more able to productively employ its resources. This includes strategically and tactically on the battlefield but also all the logistical and economic support. Simulations fall short on that. Cyberwarfare might come closer though as we become more digitalised so maybe that's the direction things will move in?
How do you simulate attacking someone who is not expecting to fight a war with you? What do you do when the simulated loser refuses to concede?
From what i understand this is already mostly the case. The military excercises by USA and China produces reports that shows an attack is too expesive or leads to a standstill. This is works as a deterrence to the other side, unless the other side acts irrationally, which is known to happen…
> So at some point most war machinery will be automated and not carry humans inside, I think this is easy to accept. A little bit harder to accept, but what would be really cool is to just realise that if there's no humans, and the whole thing is automated, why not just simulate it?
War is effectively just an escalation of using force to impose one's will over another. You don't need a war if you're China and trying to get your shipping passage rights through Suez or Panama. You'd need a war it you're Russia trying to obtain land illegally from your neighbors.
War is effectively just an escalation of using force to impose one's will over another. You don't need a war if you're China and trying to get your shipping passage rights through Suez or Panama. You'd need a war it you're Russia trying to obtain land illegally from your neighbors.
What’s to stop the side that loses the virtual war just having another go in reality? Can you really imagine Putin or Saddam Hussein just accepting a loss and giving up?
Meanwhile a delay in real time while the virtual war is prepared and fought would almost alway be significantly more beneficial to one side over the other.
So many other factors, but that’s a start.
Meanwhile a delay in real time while the virtual war is prepared and fought would almost alway be significantly more beneficial to one side over the other.
So many other factors, but that’s a start.
What’s to stop the side that loses the virtual war just having another go in reality? Can you really imagine Biden or Zelensky or Netanyahu just accepting a loss and giving up?
I'm dead serious here.
I'm dead serious here.
No? What is your point?
Of course, absolutely. It’s a serious question.
There is the issue that Biden or any other elected leaders are answerable to their electorate, and other institutions in their country, in a way that authoritarians are not, so it’s a matter of the commitment of the nation too, but that’s not directly an issue with the simulated war concept. It’s nonsense for purely practical reasons.
There is the issue that Biden or any other elected leaders are answerable to their electorate, and other institutions in their country, in a way that authoritarians are not, so it’s a matter of the commitment of the nation too, but that’s not directly an issue with the simulated war concept. It’s nonsense for purely practical reasons.
War games stop would-be belligerents all the time. It's probably the only thing keeping Taiwan a democracy.
> could we move war fully to the digital realm?
Not if we can't even get belligerents and defenders to uphold their treaty agreements.
Not if we can't even get belligerents and defenders to uphold their treaty agreements.
I can’t cite any but there were several old (i.e. 70s era) science fiction story where disputes were decided by having, essentially, Champions of sorts battle each other using war simulations. Such as re-fighting some famous ancient battle using a war game console.
Early eSport if you will.
Early eSport if you will.
There was a YA book series about exacty this topic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/87427.Virtual_War
There was even a Star Trek: TOS episode about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
[deleted]
This is fine until the other side flies a plane into your skyscrapers.
A really good read along those lines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)
Imagine the money and human cost that could be saved if nations would agree to settle international disputes over the board game of "Risk."
James Gosling before joining Amazon, he worked for a similar company. I remember listening to one of his fascinating talk about building USV like those, leaving them run for months, and flying to a remote location to dive underwater to debug them.
You are thinking of Liquid Robotics[0]. I always found it interesting that they used a Java implementation of MapReduce to do their substantial onboard data processing, which seemed very much at odds with the other issue of being extremely power constrained.
[0] https://www.liquid-robotics.com
[0] https://www.liquid-robotics.com
If you are doing all of the processing on a single node, isn't MapReduce just another name for batch processing?
Not in this case. The onboard processing of data from the sensor suites was a Beowulf-style cluster of mobile phone ARM systems. All the computing hardware was carefully selected and engineered to be extremely frugal with power.
Which is why I found it ironic that the software architecture was done in an overtly wasteful "throw hardware at it" style. Some basic attention to software performance engineering could have increased efficiency by an integer factor. It was quite the contradiction.
Which is why I found it ironic that the software architecture was done in an overtly wasteful "throw hardware at it" style. Some basic attention to software performance engineering could have increased efficiency by an integer factor. It was quite the contradiction.
I like the idea that someone out there didn't want an ugly helicopter on their yacht, so they got a second yacht just for the helicopter.
Bezos has a particularly enormous one
https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/news/damen-75m-supp...
What an ugly yacht. Having pretty much any helicopter on that would improve the appearance.
I see a small, autonomous boat carrying a torpedo. Make that boat something like a lifeboat, but filled with foam instead of air and it is almost unsinkable. Design it to sit low in the water like narco submarines do, and it will be hard to detect. A flotilla of those can effectively shut down a straight without the expense of manned submarines.
Torpedo is not a wunder weapon. It may miss, there are lots of anti-torpedo techniques since WW1. Ukrainian drones are hand-guided until the moment of impact.
I imagine you can strap a detachable, properly sized solar panel to a torpedo and use the sensors and engine on the torpedo to do most of the work and seed it everywhere.
As someone who works in oceanography: it's very sad that the first and very animated comment thread about these USVs is to do with naval warfare. Like, goddamn, it's ALWAYS "ooooo how do we apply this to naval warfare!!!"
Just let me strap a multibeam and some deep water towed chemical sensors to it and leave me in peace.
Just let me strap a multibeam and some deep water towed chemical sensors to it and leave me in peace.
If it makes you feel any better, I am sure a lot of people are also considering the possibilities of using these to smuggle drugs.
I guess it's on everybodys mind due to the war in Ukraine: They sunk 1/3rd of the Russian Black Sea fleet with drones, without having a real navy of their own anymore. Is there a good overview of civilian applications so far?
Also, what chemical sensors are you talking about? I am currently building a small buoy for data logging on sweetwater lakes and would be curious what chemical sensors I could include :)
Also, what chemical sensors are you talking about? I am currently building a small buoy for data logging on sweetwater lakes and would be curious what chemical sensors I could include :)
They probably aren't talking about anything affordable by hobbyists.
Have a look at these though! https://atlas-scientific.com/
Have a look at these though! https://atlas-scientific.com/
Thanks, those look super interesting!
My guess would be that the chemical sensors generally used are those looking for pollution and runoffs, including oxygen levels. It is important to keep track of water quality in harbors, and dead zones near coasts (and the Baltic ocean).
I am not aware however if mapping ever get combined with environmental studies.
I am not aware however if mapping ever get combined with environmental studies.
Not to defend Russia, but rather to battle hyperbole: Ukraine temporarily disabled those ships, and I think it's debatable how we're counting "one third" of the black sea fleet. Obligatory Putin sucks and should jump in a lake
Posted [0] on March 6th sounds like significantly more than temporarily disabled
Ukraine’s military on Tuesday claimed another successful attack on a Russian warship, marking the latest in a string of naval defeats for Moscow’s Black Sea Fleet that Kyiv says has reduced its numbers by more than a third since the start of the war.
The Defense Intelligence of Ukraine said maritime drones operated by its Group 13 special unit struck and sank the 1,300-ton Russian patrol ship Sergei Kotov in the Black Sea, near the Kerch Strait that separates occupied Crimea from the coast of southwest Russia.
“As a result of the strike by Magura V5 maritime drones, the Russian ship Project 22160 ‘Sergei Kotov’ sustained damage to the stern, starboard and port sides,” sparking a fire aboard the vessel, a statement said. The military later confirmed the ship had sunk.
My point is that I haven't heard of any instance of a ship being irreparably damaged. They were of course taken out of commission and had to be towed back
The quote from GP comment literally says the ship sunk????
Then you clearly haven't been paying attention. For example, this video shows Feb 1 attack on corvette Ivanovets. Ukrainians drove one naval drone after another into the ship until its ammo exploded and it sank stern first, all captured on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHFlqgCyElo
Any basic search will provide you with examples of Russian ships headed to Davy Jones locker, but here's a nice satellite image of one for your reference. Fortunately, they didn't have to tow this landing ship very far as it was already in port.[0]
[0]https://news.usni.org/2022/03/25/satellite-images-confirm-ru...
[0]https://news.usni.org/2022/03/25/satellite-images-confirm-ru...
[deleted]
SEA-KIT was acquired by Fugro last year (https://www.fugro.com/news/business-news/2023/fugro-gains-fu...). So in this case: definitely more multibeam (nothing towed although there is an ROV) and less warfare.
I work for usv company. Most of the interest we receive for boats is either multibeam work or illegal fishing enforcement in marine protected areas. We nearly ended up doing some naval work but there was a large internal backlash and the contract was turned down.
When you look at the defense budgets of many countries, it becomes almost impossible to make a viable business plan without the military as a customer. Plus, if the military and luxury markets allow you to provide your product/services to the academia and research (which typically have little funding), so much the better.
Not saying I like how we spend so much on warfare, just being a realist.
Not saying I like how we spend so much on warfare, just being a realist.
This. Boats are expensive. Operating them is expensive. Keeping the corrosion off the bottom is expensive. Military/Public Sector funds help cover those costs plus the R&D to build new ones. Luxury market is pretty saturated with cat/tri designs and solar paneled everything because they want to live on it.
[deleted]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXzaBixvL8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jeCwHViFGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvwPiiyY-_c
https://www.forces.net/ukraine/watch-dramatic-moment-russian...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1ag8...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/ukraine-cla...