DEBATE: Technology vs. Soldiers

Welcome to our second debate.

The teams are:

Team TC: ThomasCrowne team capitan, K_OS, ADVISOR
Team DRragonrider team capitan, ilovepizza, CoLD aNGeR

The proposition presented to the teams... "Which is a more overall dangerous tool during warfare, advanced technology or a superior highy-trained soldier?"

Team DR has won the toss to post first and will represent the case that technology is the more dangerous wartime tool.

Team TC will represent the case for a highly trained soldier.

The format:

Each team's captain presents an opening arguement.
Each team will then cycle through members in any order they choose, but each member must post at least two times to support your team's side of the propostion.

We will experiment with a new format based on time. Today is Wednesday May 14th (EST), both teams may alternate posters as much as they feel they need to express their point until Midnight (EST) Saturday. One closing argument from one member of each team will then be posted by 4:00 PM (EST) Sunday. After that, voting will commence.

If your opposing team does not present an alternate post to one of your team's posts within 6 hours, they default the turn and give the forum to the other team who then has the right to post (the defaulting team cannot then post twice, they simply loose their turn).

Please follow the general rules also posted in this forum.

Dragonrider... the forum is yours... you have six hours to post, or Thomas Crowne then has the forum.

I just discovered this debate, right before turning off the computer and getting ready for work. I won't be back in until 0220hrs, central time.
K_os, Avisor, if dragon's team fires their shot in time and I don't get home and prepared in time, please, shoot back!!

William, DR had to scramble to come up with a first shot, I'll be out of the house for the next 13 or so hours, how about giving DR time to polish his concept and me time to GET TO THE FREAKIN' HOUSE, YOU INSANE MAN, YOU!!!

Meant with total respect and admiration, of course.

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

I have DR's opening statement (he's at work), but given the circumstances, we will wait for DR to initiate his side tonight.

Thanks. I think he also wanted to prepare it a little better as well. And he's going to need that opportunity as he certainly has the less desirable position to defend.

If any team can do it, though, that one can.

Running out the door, now. Anybody seen my darned tub of aspirin?!? Great start to a wonderful day.

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

Wartime has changed a great deal in the 20th Century. Tactics and Strategy are virtually unrecognizable from what was used 100 years ago.

In the 1700s and early 1800s, wars were fought and won and lost based on the training and coordination of the soldiers and the tactical or strategic thinking of thier commanders. In the 1700s, the vast majority of wars consisted of intricate maneuvers of forces, in an attempt to out maneuver enemy forces, placing your side in a favorable position over the enemy.

Today, things have changed sharply. Starting in WWI, technology changed the battlefield, and forced strategy and tactics to change to follow it.

In a world still ruled by cavalry charges and massed rank and file marching formations, the introduction of the machine gun, flamethrower, high explosive artillery, and chemical gas weapons drastically changed warfare.

Tactics and strategy did change, after commanders understood just how deadly this new technology proved to the old ways of fighting. The development of mechanized warfare, using motorized transport, heavy armor, lead to much more fluid and mobile warfare. In WWII and later into VietNam, the introduction of first the Airborne, and later the AirMobile infantry took the war farther afield than ever thought possible.

Today, sophisticated theatre and area weapons have changed the face of war to be characterized almost as the "Nintendo War" generation: The widespread use of precision guided ground penetrating air munitions, coupled with new zero light remote sensing technology (FLIR, thermal imaging, ect) allows fearsome strikes against enemy forces with little (and in the case of stealth aircraft, no) warning, with only the barest of chances of defense.

New artillery deployed munitions allow ultra precise targetting of enemy forces, and are capable of deploying area-denial munitions, capable of hemming in large numbers of enemy forces without exposing friendly forces to danger, and capable of precisely destroying the most able of enemy armor and defensive fortifications.

In addition to these new battlefield weapons, the nuclear age has brought about the virtual end of battlefield warfare, whereby a number of remotely targetted and operated weapons are capable of destroying entire landmasses, before any standard military forces can become a threat to friendly territory.

In addition to the threat of ICBM nuclear warheads, additional theatre/area weapons are operationally deployed, including HAARP, which has the ability to destroy entire populations instantly at very long range, as well as being capable of disabling virtually every weapon in the enemy inventory before they become a threat to any friendly force or territory.

William,

In the sense of fairness, lets allow TC to come back and rebutt on this, even though it will past his deadline.

You did kind of spring this on everyone at less than a moments notice. How about a U2U to all nominated contestants 24 hours in advance, just to let them know they were on a debate team? At least then they wouldnt be scrambling to get the first post in on time.

Thanks!

There is no doubt that technology has evolved since the days when armies faced one another in a gentleman's rank and file volley exchange. Even then, however, training was necessary to win on the battlefield, and today it is just as needed. Today the victory needn't go to the guys with the fanciest toys.

Indoctrination and training is, and will always be an important part of battlefield success, as has been proven on more than one occassion. The more fluid the situation the more necessary training and discipline is to victory.

A unit well prepared for victory trains, eats and sleeps as a team. While battlefield tactics may appear largely unchanged in the last 200 years, there have been changes, and even though the trategy is the same the preparedness of the soldier is paramont to winning. If the units aren't trained well and have been instilled with proper discipline individual fireteams, sqauds, and all the way up to companies cannot work together to achieve the goal. When working together as a well trained and disciplined organization and with the command implementing the proper strategies, a force with inferior technology but with superior training can see victory at the end of the day. A forace with better technology yet with weak training and poor discipline won't necessarily be beaten by the opposing force but be beaten be itself.

In the end, sound and continuos training coupled with a continuos enforcement of military discipline will be the most daunting force to be reckoned with. Other than nuclear strikes, of course, but that just wouldn't be fair, now, would it?

Well TC is right in the point that Well-trained troops were the key in the past to win in the battefield, specially from the time that countries started to have their own army instead of paying mercenaries.
After a while, evolution in technology made a different style of war in the battlefield, who will forget those powerful cannons used by napoleon while he was ruling the french empire? Yes, that was one of the reasons of the old empires, their advantage in the weaponry for win wars.
Now, we live in the technological era, where everything now needs a circuit and be progammed with a function,
before to have a night strike, 100 years ago for instance, there were no Infra red vision to catch soldiers hidden in the forest, there were no satellites to monitor anything, or even to use them to guide a ICBM from continent to continent.
Obviously, this technology made possible to kill masses in seconds, from a far away distance, without the need to sacrifice their own well-trained soldiers, is something than pressing a buttom would have done the same or even more damage.
But talking about danger, well obviusly overall dangerous tool during warfare you have the nuclear weapons (were not possible to build without the neccesary technology), are one of the most dangerous threat in war for any country, is not just how destructive is, is then the "afterwards" what makes it really scary, EMP, no electronical device working properly for the next days/weeks,
radioactivity all over the place for years, afecting borns,ecosystem, plants, animal.And that is all after explosion effect, is something or somebody holds or resists the first explosion, he has that later on...Really destructive
Biological weapons are the worst top of the technology and scientific advanced research, because
it breaks the natural equilibrium of any being, doesn�t matter human, animal, or a plant, to be
able to research such a weapon you need pretty advanced technology, and once again technology makes it dangerous, what is worse, the biological agent made in laboratory, or a soldier spreading up bio-agents in a battlefield?
Both are bad, but now they can launch a missile full of biological agents, to a battlefield, destroy everything, without sacrificing any of their lives (who attacks).
And finally the biggest difference is strategy, with militarty personnel you need very good strategies, know well the place you go to, know the force of your enemy, the terrein, your possibilities,with the new technology all that effort-time-resources is not needed, you can win a fight from the other continent just pressing some buttons, and you will infect entire villages, cities, of bio-agents, or change their weather thanks to the haarp, bombard them from, Sea, from other country, or guide missiles and bombs via laser thanks to the satellite without risking lives (of course who gets the attack is suffering a living hell), but shows once again that our worse enemy will be technology in the 21st century.

Soldiers were more dangerous than technology time ago, not anymore...

All the technology in the world is useless without well trained soldiers to use it. Machines and various electronics all miss the one key ingredient for winning a war...FREE WILL. Its true that you can make marvelous machines and yes they can be used to create huge amounts of destruction, but what happens if at the last minute you change your mind. Too late the rocket is about 30 feet from a school filled with children that was supposed to be a military strong hold. It can't adapt, it can't say "oh no our intelligence gathered with our great technology was wrong, I can't kill all these innocent children." What is the end result...BOOM...now the world hates you and is beginning to turn against you, for killing small, innocent children. However a well trained soldier with a grenade, would have noticed that it was a school and immediately changed objectives.

You may say, that can't happen, but, I remember a while back when we (the U.S.) were bragging about how we could put a missle through a specific window of a house...not more than a month later we bombed the Chinese Embassy. Oops, what happened to our great technology.

Another event that happened almost two years ago, shows that your technology can let you down. The U.S. is the last remaining super-power and we can all agree that as far as the military is concerned we have the best technological equipment out there. So, if it is the technology that wins wars and protects the people, then how come the twin towers were hit by planes and brought down?? Where was our technology then??

Technology may not be able to think for itself, but if you have old and useless technology it is no good, no matter how well trained the person is. Weapons have evolved over the years, playing a key role in which nation would win a war.

Guns a couple hundred of years ago had to be at a close range to their target to be acurate. Now snipers can be great lengths away from their target and still be acurate. With more acurate guns it is easier to accomplish the mission.

Human beings have flaws and no matter how much you train you will still have those flaws. Technology can be built where it has almost no flaws. Techonlogy is a lot more deadly a tool than any human is.

Originally posted by ilovepizza
Human beings have flaws and no matter how much you train you will still have those flaws.

Yes, true. Yet that is why we continue to train every day,
thus giving Soldiers the very purpose to train. Take myself for example , as a "Perfectionist" I will do something over and over until its "perfect". Its called training and that is something technology cannot do or be.

Originally posted by ilovepizza
Technology can be built where it has almost no flaws.

Key word, "almost". Almost only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. If say for example we have another terrorist attack and the outcome could be to use an Advanced Laser Guided Sattelite Brained Mega Missle capible of penetrateing 6 ft of hardened titanium without going outside a 3 ft diamter strike point but almost functions well depending on weather. Or say for instance the outcome could be more reliable if we used say a team of Soldiers who by military creed are "perfectionists" specifically "trained" in every enviornment and weather to perform/operate. What would the the people who are at risk want?

Originally posted by ilovepizza
Techonlogy is a lot more deadly a tool than any human is.

Thats because we humans are not tools, lol.
To be honest, I agree but only because certain technology was designed with just that purpose. But only as a tool an impliment that is used by us and created by us from our minds. And since our minds create such deadly almost perfect weapons I guess it goes to show what is really the deadliest. Until a machine can think on its own, and not rely on algorithims and programming(no CoLD training isnt programming "brainwashing" is lol) its lifeless. Because those rockets or unmanned vehicles can't do anything without people operateing them, or fixing them.

Sorry I used every word you said pizza, but it was just exactly the right words to do so.


[Edited on 16-5-2003 by ADVISOR]

The main advantage that technology has over personal combat, even with the best trained of individual warriors, is that technology gives a military force the ability to inflict crippling damage and destruction on the enemy while ensuring that your forces are not exposed to such damage or destruction.

Take modern heavy artillery for example: On the surface, artillery is similar to how it started out hundreds of years ago... A crew served weapon whose purpose is to project large objects to long ranges, in order to inflict maximum damage to either large groups of the enemy, or against hardened targets. This ability was greatly increased at the turn of the century with the use of explosive projectiles.

Today, artillery is vastly different and far more deadly than even 100 years ago. Yes, it is still a crew served weapon that projects weapons to long distances. However, modern technology allows extreme accuracy (with laser and GPS terminal guidance it is possible to strike individual vehicals on the battlefield), greater range (RAP, Rocket Assisted Projectiles allow 2.5X better range for a given size artillery shell), greater lethality and flexibility (ability to fire a variety of munitions, from area-denial instant mine fields to cluster munitions for use against ground troops, bunker penetrating warhead, chemical, less than lethal, and even nuclear warheads). The main point of this is that modern artillery technology allows you to devestate the enemy while your troops remain in safety.

But, you ask, what about enemy artillery, with the same capabilities? With the new development of counter battery radar, which can track shells in flight, it is possible to detect incoming artillery strikes, direct, aim, load and fire a return salvo to destroy the attacking artillery position before the first enemy shell hits the ground.

Other than nuclear strikes, of course, but that just wouldn't be fair, now, would it? Posted by Thomas Crowne

Remember, the gospel according to Clint "The one cardinal rule of combat is Always cheat, and always win"... Using superior technology on a technologically inferior foe may well come across as being unfair in some eyes. However, when it means that you and your forces come home alive, is it not a worthwhile objective?

In addition to decreasing losses of friendly forces in a conflict, it can be argued that striking an enemy with overwhelming technological superiority is a very humane thing to do: it ensures that any conflict will be relatively short, therefore resulting in less losses for the enemy as well.

It is also interesting to note that it has been a long standing strategy of US forces to not attempt to kill the enemy (as an overall goal) so much as to wound them, with the intent being that it takes twice the people and resources to care for wounded, therefore drawing down personnel and resources, and eventually degrading performance to the point that US forces can prevail. In a world of one on one combat, this goal is very difficult to achieve, and exposes friendly forces to similar (if not worse) losses.

Technological advances have made this strategy a reality with new less-than-lethal technologies. Such devices such as the Laser-Dazzler can be used to temporarily blind the enemy, new advanced chemcial agents (OC and similar) can be used to render the enemy incapable of combat without damage, new sonic and submilimeter wave microwave weapons can similarly incapacitate enemy forces without serious damage. Theatre weapons in this vein include nonnuclear EMP warheads that can easily destroy all electronic equipment in an area.

In a reverse of this strategy, technology allows the ability to completely wipe out enemy forces in a given area without damaging any structures or equipment with the use of the neutron bomb. Similar weapons of this type include persistant and non persistant chemical agents (Sarin, VX).

All of these are capable of inflicting incredible and staggering amounts of damage without exposing friendly forces to any danger, (especially when considering the weapons delivery applications capable of stealth aircraft, unmanned/remotely operated vehicles, and dedicated delivery systems such as cruise missles, all of which are capable of extreme levels of accuracy.)


You may say, that can't happen, but, I remember a while back when we (the U.S.) were bragging about how we could put a missle through a specific window of a house...not more than a month later we bombed the Chinese Embassy. Posted by K_os

I believe you are misinterpretting this action: It was 100% intentional, intended to send a message to the Chinese who at the time were helping the enemy. This was very much a technological success rather than a failure.

So, if it is the technology that wins wars and protects the people, then how come the twin towers were hit by planes and brought down?? Where was our technology then?? Posted by K_os

The ability to defend against this kind of attack existed at the time, and still does, although it has certainly been beefed up in the past 2 years. Both technology on board the aircraft to prevent such an attack (barricades, non-lethal personal defence devices, new firearms technology for airmarshalls, and (unadmitted) remote piloting abilities for flight controllers in the event of another hijacking) coupled with proven anti-aircraft weapons technology makes the success of such an attack in the future highly unlikely. On 911, the nation as a whole was taken completely unaware, and such defences were not in place, and there was no time to bring them to bear. In this case, 911 was a failure of the human element much more than the technological element.

An example of training -v- technology can be found in the examination of the Vietnam War. America had technological superiority, we had fast movers that could deliver bombs on a few minutes' notice, choppers that could ferry more troops and supplies to the battle, along with everything else that comes along with being a wealthy superpower. The enemy was not nearly well equiped and certainly did not have access to the technological toys at our disposal. They did, however, have training and strategy. An example of this was their beltbuckle training. They realized quickly that while we had fast movers and artillery capable of dropping heavy ordinance on them, if they engaged in close combat with us it would render our technology useless.

Mental and physical traing and discipline plays an important roll in survival on the technologically advanced battlefield. Gen. Patton expected his staff to be able to run 1 mile in less than 15 minutes (pretty good time for a bunch of officers) because that will get you 1 mile away from the last known position. That same logic still remains the same today. Camoflage and concealment, mental training and discipline, aides in masking your position. Decoys are used to throw off the enemy; both the technologically advanced as well as the less advanced side can use this. Properly trained and disciplined soldiers can offset technology by using proper sight and sound procedures.

Another tool available to the highly trained and disciplined force is their special force personnel. During the Cold War, the U.S. relied upon their advanced techology to defeat superior numbers. In their arsenal was special weapons. One Nike Hercules surface to air weapon would be able to take out a squandron of Bear bombers - assuming the missile was able to leave the rail. That is where Spetznas came in.

Highly trained Soviet units were to locate and neutralize ADA capability thereby making safe passageway for the bombers. The destruction of two sites would have opened up a corridor through which the Soviets could have walked in and struck strategic targets within the NATO alliance. The highly trained, disciplined and dedicated soldier would have won the day against technology. The logic of yesterday is the same of today. Technology is wonderful and can provide an advantage on the battlefield, but that advantage can be taken away by the highly trained, disciplined and dedicated soldier unders the direction of equally highly trained, disciplined and dedicated leaders who are able to understand and circumvent the technological threat offered by their opponent.

Don't rely on technology, this is war you are talking about, and in war, you're liable to be faced with true warriors.

An example of training -v- technology can be found in the examination of the Vietnam War. America had technological superiority, we had fast movers that could deliver bombs on a few minutes' notice, choppers that could ferry more troops and supplies to the battle, along with everything else that comes along with being a wealthy superpower. Posted by Thomas Crowne

The failure of the US in VietNam was not a technological failure, but a political failure. As an example, all of the American heavy bombing campaigns during the VietNam war, ArcLight I and II, Linebacker I and II, and Rolling Thunder, which completely devastated North VietNamese troop concentrations, resupply routes, and various military facilities in North VietNam, had wonderfully successful results. In all cases, just as these bombing campaigns were beginning to bring the desired results, the North VietNamese would immediately clamber to the negotiating table to talk about peace. (Well, if you were being bombed into oblivion, wouldnt you?)

The failure in this case wasnt the advanced technology of the bombing missions, or the machines that carried them out: those were carried out almost to perfection. The failure came when American politicians decided to play the game with the VietNamese, rather than carry on with the campaigns that were obviously showing positive results. They went to the peace table to talk about peace that would never come, meanwhile allowing the NV troops to repair thier facilities, resupply thier troops, care for their wounded, and reestablish new supply routes outside of bombing routes. Once the North felt they were improved enough, they would call off peace talks and resume hositilities, and the cycle would continue.

Again, the technology available during the VietNam war was considerable, and would certainly have made the war militarily winnable, had the politicians understood the kind of war they were waging, and had allowed the military to fight the war the way it should have been. Instead, the politicians decided to fight a war of attrition, in an attempt to fight a war without appearing to be attempting to fight a war.

The AirMobile infantry you mention had a great ability to reposition and inflict heavy losses on the enemy. However, the politicians were unwilling to commit the proper forces to back up the temporary victories that the technology made possible. How many stories have you heard about Vietnam where air strikes and artillery strikes were made, a vast firefight was fought, and US forces successfully took an objective... just to climb in the helicopters and leave, knowing that within a matter of hours the enemy would retake the objective?

This is in stark contrast to the latest Gulf War: for once, a war was fought by a military commander in the way that it needed to be fought. The maximum military technological force was brought to bear in such overwhelming fashion as to wipe out any and all resistance, with the support forces to keep and hold the territory won in a hard fight.

You mention the use of Special Forces in warfare: while SpecOps certainly have thier uses, such uses are usually restricted to an enemy that has far less technological ability than we do. For example, most Spec Ops are directed against terrorist units in hidden cellars and ghettos in third world countries, who do not have access to sattelite intelligence or airborne thermal surveillance. (Which by the way totally negates the best experience in cover and concealment).

Even if SpecOps are utilized against a sizeable enemy force, say the Russians, there is the knowledge that they have a technological edge over the enemy, as we have tabs on thier (much inferior) satelite surveillance, and will always be able to counter them.

If the US had a technologically equal foe, I seriously doubt that Spec Ops would be extensively used.

Originally posted by dragonrider
If the US had a technologically equal foe, I seriously doubt that Spec Ops would be extensively used.

I don't know Dragon, I think that would be all the more reason to utilize our best Soldiers. Simply do to the fact that between SEALs, Combat Control, Force Recon, and Detachment Delta I would say we have anything and everything covered. Tech isn't going to fight any wars conflicts or skurmishes by itself. Believe me I wish it could. In all truth of the matter technology and warfighting go hand in hand, personally I think this debate is a bit one sided as its obvious wars will always be fought by those willing. The difference between survival in a warzone depends on how well one is acquainted/familiarized/trained with the weapons/technology they are going to have to use. Even then perserverence and brassballs will ensure victory no matter the level of technology used. New ways of fighting is grand and all but never will a war be fought with just TECHNOLOGY.
People/humans(maybe ETs someday) are the key to winning wars and battles. Even if we arm every sattellite with nukes guided by lasers people will still need to operate and maintain the gear, and to even do so requires "training". I am not willing to let Joe Shmoe get his hands on my death ray, are you? NO, I want the people operating that tech to be as well trained in its use as possible.
Besides William has already stated the obvious;

"Which is a more overall dangerous tool during warfare, advanced technology or a superior highy-trained soldier?"

See the key word "SUPERIOR"? I thought so, why are Soldiers superior, because they are the same as the race that designed and build the tech thats going to be used, and simply put, technology will never be able to out function a person, period! no matter how many bells and whistles you slap on it the general rule is
KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid.