×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researcher Warns That Military Must Prepare For "Mutant" Future

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the laser-eyes-forward dept.

The Military 179

Researcher Patrick Lin says that with the development of a wide range of technologies including: drugs, special nutrition, gene therapy and robotic implants, the military needs to plan for a future where soldiers have "mutant powers.” From the article: "If we don’t, we could find ourselves in big trouble down the road. Among the nightmare scenarios: Botched enhancements could harm the very soldiers they’re meant to help and spawn pricey lawsuits. Tweaked troopers could run afoul of international law, potentially sparking a diplomatic crisis every time the U.S. deploys troops overseas. And poorly planned enhancements could provoke disproportionate responses by America’s enemies, resulting in a potentially devastating arms race (PDF)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

179 comments

Mutant Powers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434335)

Why is it we can't get mutants out of our own labs but our enemies are going to be able to do this just like that?

I want my mutants!

Re:Mutant Powers? (1, Troll)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#42434551)

Why is it we can't get mutants out of our own labs but our enemies are going to be able to do this just like that?

I want my mutants!

Rules and Regulations. That's why.

Re:Mutant Powers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434811)

Mutants already exist, they don't care about people , They have a collective name:
Lawmakers., They work in Washington DC
Be careful , because if you think you found an honest lawmaker, you might yourself be a mutant

Re:Mutant Powers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435461)

But seriously. How would you retire from that?

First Post Fuckers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434353)

Mutant footlong brown snake dropped on your momma's chest, bitches! CUNT CUNT CUNT!

-- Ethanol-fueled

started in the 1960s (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#42434381)

in USA, drugs ("speed" and similar) and nutrition (e.g. sexual desire suppressant in food) to alter behavior has been going on since Viet Nam war at least

Re:started in the 1960s (2)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#42434679)

Kind of not really

The speed thing is for aircraft pilots "as necessary" only. Never heard of your average grunt getting stimulants beyond coffee and retail energy drinks (monster, red bull, etc)

The suppressant is a joke that went out of style around the time of coed army units, I'm guessing 70s / post vietnam era. Other than wedding cake, no scientifically proven substance like that exists, and you don't want to know the details but rest assured there was absolutely no suppression of that type going on in the 90s, not the recruits, not the drill instructors, not in the regular units, absolutely not. Anyone claiming that obviously was at the wrong bases in the 90s.

You can get kicked out by failing PT, and I knew guys during the drawdown in the 90s who got kicked out (if they need warm bodies, there's a lot of "look the other way", but if they need to kick 2 guys out for every slot due to the drawdown, well, things get a little more strict). What I'd like to know is the obvious solution to failing PT seems to be roids plus a little exercise, so does .mil test for roids in addition to the random drug tests (and note that I was in .mil in the 90s and never got random tested, I wonder if its as rare now or more common or ?)

Re:started in the 1960s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434741)

I have heard of special forces units using stimulants in Vietnam.

I have absolutely no way to verify that though. That information came from an army ranger who was kicked out due to preexisting mental issues.

Re:started in the 1960s (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#42434829)

Passing a PT is about the easiest thing in the world. Drink lots of water... that's all you have to do. They are looking for parts per million, so you just need to dilute your urine. If they walk up to you, grab you by the arm and say "pee in this cup" that's a little harder. But if you have chance to hit a water fountain an hour or more before the test you're set. The best situation is having 1.5 to 2hrs of notice. So you can drink a gallon, flush your system, then drink another so you have something ready for the cup. You'll test cleaner than your grandmother. Worst case scenario is they wake you up at dawn, you really have to pee and the stand there and watch you fill the cup. You're doomed then... and your grandmother would likely fail as well... lol

Blood tests are another story. You're pretty much screwed if they draw blood.

Re:started in the 1960s (2)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year ago | (#42435057)

I call this bullshit. If you drink two gallons of water, chances are that your electrolytes go awry. You might even die. Second, no mtter how much water you hold, you can only pee so much. Also, hint: average urine density (should be between 1010 and 1025). Lower than 1010, you're a suspect because it means you drink too much water for some reason, so a blood test is requested.

Re:started in the 1960s (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | about a year ago | (#42435355)

yeah, on the slim chance that anyone is thinking of taking the GP's advice....it absolutely will not work. The only way I would trust to beat a urine test is to not give them your urine. Which is possible if it is a private sector test and you are clever. Is not as easy for the military ones (some poor bastard has to stand there and watch you piss from my understanding.)

Re:started in the 1960s (1, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | about a year ago | (#42435741)

(some poor bastard has to stand there and watch you piss from my understanding.)

This is why I never understood the mil's problem with the gays.. Officer Gaylord was always polite and willing to go the extra mile and shake your dick off for you after the piss test. That kind of dedication to such a crap detail really goes to show just how far gays can excel in a military environment as team members and friends with benefits for the enlisted man...

Re:started in the 1960s (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year ago | (#42435657)

I have used this method in the past, but with two additional steps that cover your comment.

Lots of water, but also eat very well and take vitamins with the water. You want the test to find what you just consumed, not what you took last night.

You are correct about two gallons being close to lethal so not quite that much water.

Re:started in the 1960s (1)

anglico (1232406) | about a year ago | (#42435553)

When I did urine drug screens for the CHP at my lab, one recruit's sample was refused. He said they called him and said to do it again, it was too diluted.

Re:started in the 1960s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435713)

Back in my time in the Navy when tasked with a piss test, I would dilute my pee with copious amounts of recently used beer and report to the Master at Arms to take the test.

Mind you, I had nothing to hide; I just enjoyed the irony of taking a drug test while the room was spinning.

Re:started in the 1960s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434889)

Brits have done random drugs testing of entire units since the late 80s/early 90s iirc. Specialised units will go around visiting units, then test an entire unit at a time no matter where said unit might be, unless said unit is on an operational tour. No advanced warning either, they quite literally used to turn up on the day at the gate and tell the gate guard "CDT team, call out the duty officer." and it would go from there. It wouldn't happen to often, but often enough. For drugs it was a matter of near zero tolerance.
If it was a very young soldier at the start of their career and reasonable potential then they'd be fined, put on R.O.P.s for the next 6 months and shouted at. Other than that, it was a case of being kicked out with no pay, no pension rights and a bad write up (discharged for drugs in their little red book).
A normal discharge you'd be talking a matter or a year or more. Drugs discharge could happen in less than a week. It still happens.

Re:started in the 1960s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434823)

The brits were doing the whole "sexual desire suppressant in food" thing for donkeys years before the '60s. In fact, I think they stopped doing it in the '60s. Bromide I think they called it. It was done from the late 1880's I think.

Re:started in the 1960s (1)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | about a year ago | (#42434863)

in USA, drugs ("speed" and similar) and nutrition (e.g. sexual desire suppressant in food) to alter behavior has been going on since Viet Nam war at least

Amphetamines yes, I've seen the cites. Sexual desire suppressant? Don't tell me you bought into the whole 'saltpeter' horse shit. That was debunked a long time ago.

Re:started in the 1960s (0)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year ago | (#42435439)

When I did basic training in the Canadian Military we heard rumours that they were putting saltpeter in our food to discourage sexual desires. I don't know if its true but it was pretty popularly accepted as such.

Re:started in the 1960s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435629)

In the US Army last year the married personnel stopped being offered specific foods about a month before training was over. No commanders ever ate those specific foods, claiming saltpeter-but only telling those whom were married.

nuff said (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434383)

"California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo
College of Liberal Arts
Philosophy Department
Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group"

http://ethics.calpoly.edu/Greenwall_report.pdf [calpoly.edu]

Re:nuff said (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | about a year ago | (#42434553)

An ethics professor at a polytechnic university discusses the ethics and consequences of supersoldier engineering. What's the problem?

Re:nuff said (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year ago | (#42435727)

That ethics professors don't understand current military ethics, and are therefore not qualified to comment on how military ethics are likely to change in ligh of new technical developments.

in this case if you simply replace the scare-words like "mutant," and "bio-weapon" with older military technologies like "machine-gun," or "metal monoplane," that changed everything pretty much every sentence he wrote still works. This means that pretty much everything he wrote is going over very old ground in military terms. Arms races, dangerous R + D, etc. are still arms races and dangerous R + D even if the actual arms being raced/researched are human arms, instead of a new airframe.

They might have a point with bio-weapons and international law, but the problem here is that Philosophy Professors are obsessed with the precise meanings of definitions in ways the rest of thew world isn't. To a Philosophy Prof determining whether a bio-enhanced human violates a treaty that was only supposed to ban chemical agents and germ warfare is a fascinating way to spend an afternoon. An international lawyer will only agree that it does so if the plain language of the text explicitly says so, and if he is actually forced to agree a specific, militarily useful, enhancement counts as a bioweapon his immediate reaction will be to call the Russians/Chinese/etc. and get the treaty changed. After all, they have militaries too.

Re:nuff said (2)

jerquiaga (859470) | about a year ago | (#42434683)

Not sure I understand. Isn't this what philosophers are supposed to do?

Re:nuff said (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435295)

they're not qualified to assess technical feasibility or estimated development timeline of the things they're hypothesizing about.

might as well be warning about the philosophical dangers of alien invasion but for the pop sci press abbreviates and sensationalizes it into something imminent and real when it's not

Re:nuff said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435407)

In the report, there's a list of DARPA projects underway related to "mutant" enhancements. Technical feasibility? It's happening right now.

Re:nuff said (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year ago | (#42435533)

You mean pretend that something completely normal, totally routine, and not-at-all-different is the end of the world? I suppose that is actually slightly more useful to the human race then arguing about Nietche.

Most of the stuff they're worried about is common to all forms of technology. The V-22 Osprey must killed 30 Marines before they got the computer flight controls working right. People started using drugs to enhance their military performance roughly 30 seconds after they discovered coffee. Arms races are equally old. None of these things are particularly good, but it's not like policy-makers need new conceptual tools to deal withan Arms race just because the Arms being raced are actual mutant, super-strong Arms and not H-Bombs.

The only one that actually requires anyone to think differently is the possibility that a soldier enhanced the right way would count as a bio-weapon, but that's almost certainly overblown. If something promising actually seems like it would violate international law it's likely everyone else will want that something too, and said something will be easy to legalize.

20 years ago (1)

OffaMyLawn (1885682) | about a year ago | (#42434387)

If the possibility of becoming a mutant existed 20 years ago, I probably would have given a military career more thought.

Or a cyborg. Either way, yeah, I'm willing to bet a lot more of us would have considered it.

Re:20 years ago (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about a year ago | (#42434629)

It would have been kewl if I'd gotten the ability to smash tanks with rays from my eyes. Or even retractable claws that could cut through steel. But, with my luck, I would have wound up with 7 fingers on each hand.

Re:20 years ago (1)

OffaMyLawn (1885682) | about a year ago | (#42434709)

Or that, yeah. That was the next thought I had right after I posted, that I would be the unlucky recipient of some worthless mutation, like webbed toes or something. And not even the good kind of webbing, like spider webbing between them.

God schmod, I want my monkeyman! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#42434781)

Stupid Chinese. [slashdot.org]
Should be building Axel Pressbutton clones that would build iPads 27 hours a day as long as you keep jazzing their pleasure center.
I'm pretty sure .sig does not apply in this case...

This is why (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434397)

This is why these things should be developed in secret at great expense to the taxpayers, by secret shadowy organizations, using only death row inmates will kill chips so they don't misbehave.

International law? (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about a year ago | (#42434403)

"Tweaked troopers could run afoul of international law..."

This happens fairly often already. Are they saying it would be much worse? Also, what is the scenario for having these mutants here in our own country?

The revolution is coming... (1)

TonTonKill (907928) | about a year ago | (#42434429)

Someone please tell me which corp is producing the Neuropozyne so I can invest while the shares are cheap.

WCPGW (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#42434461)

Obligatory:
What could possibly go wrong?

Re:WCPGW (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#42434631)

Especially since some of the research seems to be focusing [independent.co.uk] on how to reduce soldiers' critical thinking and ethical scruples. That's been going on for a while in other ways: after realizing that a lot of soldiers purposely fired above their enemies' heads due to an intrinsic distaste for shooting people, a lot of military training has been focused on overcoming the (otherwise generally desirable) "not a psycho who wants to put a bullet in another human" reflex. Could get a lot more problematic if it's actually drugs and/or genetic engineering...

Re:WCPGW (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435341)

Especially since some of the research seems to be focusing [independent.co.uk] on how to reduce soldiers' critical thinking and ethical scruples.

Man, the religion people are going to be hella pissed if this cuts into their long-standing franchise of reducing critical thinking and ethical scruples using the time-honored "GAWD SEZ SO" technique...

Maybe they meant 'Muted' Future? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434469)

No more big military budgets in the future, lol.

Sounds like the plot of a book (1)

deathguppie (768263) | about a year ago | (#42434479)

For a more in depth look into the imaginary future of mutant cyborg warfare might I suggest the Germline series [barnesandnoble.com] by T. C. McCarthy.

Re:Sounds like the plot of a book (1)

KnightElite (532586) | about a year ago | (#42434665)

Agreed, this series is excellent, and takes a very interesting look at exactly this sort of thing.

Re:Sounds like the plot of a book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434731)

Another somewhat relevant book is "Old Man's War" by John Scalzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man%27s_War

On robotic/cybernetic/mechanical enhancement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434483)

The government'd have enough SENSE to put in failsafes (as in cutoffs or remote deactivation etc./et al) to stop them from being used for "malicious purposes" (in other words, for action NOT sanctioned by them) I'd think.

* Their people are NOT completely stupid on that front... they've seen it before (albeit, with "rogue Marines" as an example).

I've heard tell from ex-Marines, that you have 2 kinds - the kind that "flies straight" (Ala Ed McMahon for example & just 'basic' family men) after serving, & you have the kind that becomes 'outlaws' typically... but, that's only hearsay, but it came from one of their own.

APK

P.S.=> As to the rest of it? IF that were going to happen, it would've by now, wouldn't you all agree??

... apk

Just came to post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434505)

All the above posts are horseshit.

Now, I'm going to evaluate why I still come to Slashdot.

This place used to be a great summary of IT security, DB, Code, and whatnot.

To quote Willow, "Bored now."

Or, instead, you could... (1)

rbrander (73222) | about a year ago | (#42434523)

...note that in industrial civilization, riches accrue to those who best stimulate human ingenuity and productivity through peaceful trade and development, not to those who can enslave the most serfs, and that the entire basis of military arms races is basically a "caveman" mentality, obsolete since before WW1, really: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/09-6 [commondreams.org]

The justification for arms races was, throughout the nuclear arms race, that we must beat the other team to the capability; except that *taking the lead* in that race is what guarantees the race to happen at all. None of the competitors in the nuclear arms race ever wanted to use one, or did; they understood that their use would make them a target, not a victor.

Bolstered by this realization, you could instead propose treaties, with open development of such technologies, and monitoring of capabilities with the spectre of a ruinously expensive and dangerous race beginning if security around secret weapons development *ever* slips.

Nah. Never happen. Too much money involved.

Re:Or, instead, you could... (1)

Fesh (112953) | about a year ago | (#42434695)

Been tried before... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty [wikipedia.org]

Only takes one player breaking the rules to overturn the whole thing.

Re:Or, instead, you could... (2)

rbrander (73222) | about a year ago | (#42434761)

Sure, except we haven't un-invented nuclear weapons, which remain kind of a trump over things like teenage mutant ninja soldiers since few mutations prevent you from being vaporized if sufficient joules are radiated into your mutant molecules.

So my treaty would be not so much ironclad (little naval joke there) as uranium-clad, involving capital cities becoming smoking holes, etc.

Already kind of here, really, The journalist I cited, Gwynne Dyer, as also passed along the joke told by military planners world-wide: "Q: What are the implications of nuclear Pakistan falling to radical jihadist revolutionaries? A: Traffic jam in the skies over Islamabad as five nuclear powers race to begin the bombing."

Re:Or, instead, you could... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435137)

Sure, except we haven't un-invented nuclear weapons, which remain kind of a trump over things like teenage mutant ninja soldiers since few mutations prevent you from being vaporized if sufficient joules are radiated into your mutant molecules.

And if the mutant mongers are nuclear powers? Didn't think so, tough guy. NATO struggled with the question of when one switches from conventional (and you're losing) to bringing out the nuclear trump card for years.

Secondly, never cite that site. Common Dreams a leftie equivalent of faux news.

Re:Or, instead, you could... (1)

rsierpe (2678773) | about a year ago | (#42435435)

Been tried before... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty [wikipedia.org]

Only takes one player breaking the rules to overturn the whole thing.

If economics theory teaches us something, is that in that specific scenario, when situation depends on parties "not breaking" a certain rule, they'll certainly do so, because everyone is expecting the others to do so. Basically, if you intend to make it be governed by some sort of laws or treaties, parties will break those at their first chance

Re:Or, instead, you could... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#42434707)

riches accrue to those who best stimulate human ingenuity and productivity through peaceful trade and development

As nations, yes-ish. As individuals, no.

For example, if I have a great idea for a new technology, and somebody takes my idea and patents it before I do, then they get the riches and I don't, even though I had the ingenuity. Similarly, if I started out broke, and didn't have the funds to go through the process of patenting my idea, then I'm going to have to:
- Sell it to somebody who does (and then they get most of the profit and rather than me)
- Go to work for somebody who does (and then it's a work for hire and they get almost all the profit)
- Take out a business loan (and then the bank gets a significant portion of the profit rather than me, and can steal my idea)
- Try to start using the idea as a trade secret (and again, a bank or venture capitalist or something similar gets some of the profits), with a significant risk that somebody else will figure out the same idea, patent it, and then sue me into the ground and thus reap all the profits of the idea.

It's very profitable to take other people's stuff: That's why some people and organizations do just that whenever they think they can get away with it.

Re:Or, instead, you could... (1)

rbrander (73222) | about a year ago | (#42434775)

Agree on all counts. I was very definitely speaking of nations. However, even here, you'll note that you are more *likely* to get rich inventing a new mousetrap these days, than by leading your neighbours to declare war on the suburb a mile over and attempting to take their houses and women. "Conan vs. SWAT" never became a successful comic.

Re:Or, instead, you could... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434783)

could instead propose treaties

Molotov-Ribbentrop

monitoring of capabilities

Iran, North Korea, Israel

Simple solutions have simple problems. "Let's all just agree not to gain any advantages." is a non-starter for any nation run by humans who lust for power and fame, which is pretty much anyone who would ever become the leader of a nation. Treaties are easy to break and monitoring is impossible to enforce even against the most limited of actors.

Re:Or, instead, you could... (1)

rbrander (73222) | about a year ago | (#42434931)

Such a shame, really. When the world ended because of chemical and biological weapons that couldn't be stopped, flattened by nuclear wars....no, wait, none of that ever happened. Agreed, if you make a treaty that says "if you prepare for war, you'll have one immediately"...and then don't actually attack Japan when it starts building ships, then, yeah, they'll just break the treaty.

If you actually attack, on the other hand, the "Pax " situations have lasted for centuries on end.

Re:Or, instead, you could... (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year ago | (#42435497)

Well your first statement is correct, that nations that are based more on trade and production are the ones that are the richest. But at the same time your caveman neighbor can conquer you if you don't spend money on an army. Sure it won't make him rich for long, but it will also destroy you. So as long as not every nation in the work is 'sane', arms races will kind of necessary for survival.

Wasn't the justification for the US/USSR arms race the desire to have the other guy bankrupt himself through overspending on the military? And it worked. The Soviet Union did spend itself into oblivion. Unfortunately the US didn't notice that and continued to spend vastly too much money on it's military, while starting a few wars to stop it's soldiers from feeling to bored.

Then we need to start developing a mutant cure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434539)

However, the leader of the mutants can control metal so we'll need to use plastic guns.

Wrong problem (1)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#42434571)

Somehow, I doubt this is the problem.

War is not won by Rambos. Even special-ops types aren't built like Arnold. War is won by people who make the right decisions under pressure and have the skills and endurance to carry them out.

Re:Wrong problem (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year ago | (#42434635)

War is not won by Rambos. Even special-ops types aren't built like Arnold. War is won by people who make the right decisions under pressure and have the skills and endurance to carry them out.

Right. So what happens if you have a man who is calm and is capable of very high-quality tactical decisions while under fire, but who doesn't have the endurance or strength of the people you want him to lead? Wouldn't it be nice if you could just give him that endurance and strength, rather than try to find a way to move that tactical ability into a bigger body?

Re:Wrong problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434813)

You promote him and move him to a command bunker behind the lines. He then issues orders to the grunts on the line to storm that machine gun emplacement on the hill.

Obligatory photos of said commander wading ashore at Leyte can be photoshopped. No need to stage them later.

Re:Wrong problem (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#42434887)

Wouldn't it be nice if you could just give him that endurance and strength

Bio is risky but we have centuries long tradition of war profiteering by manufacturing all manner of APCs, tanks, traditional aircraft, attack choppers, etc.

Its not the Spartan 300 anymore.

"hmm the C.O. isn't strong enough to fire an arrow beyond 100 yards... could use a magic potion to make him a SuperArcher... nah F it issue him a M16 and be done with it"

"hmm the C.O. is getting tired out on long pack marches.... we could bioengineer the 6 million dollar man's legs on to him... nah F it issue him a HMMVW with command radios and be done with it."

Re:Wrong problem (1)

rbrander (73222) | about a year ago | (#42434989)

I'm sure Ghengis Khan had to do a lot of wrestling and so forth as a kid, but Julius Caesar, a patrician from birth, probably never had to touch one of the lowlife brutes he commanded, much less beat one up with his fists to establish his leadership.

Re:Wrong problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435457)

That's not the problem. According to the summary, the problem seems to be too many lawyers . . . or not enough.

I think the article means to say... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | about a year ago | (#42434613)

... that foreign countries should be prepared for the US Military to have a mutant future.

Its not like the rest of the world considers their militaries so ridiculously important to invest in constant cutting edge future tech innovation all the time in all aspects of war. The US may do this, but the rest of the world will still be pretty happy with their 1990s tanks and 2000s satellite technology.

queue the slashdotter with one article pointing at one small research project in one country claiming 'not *necessarily*'.... in 3----2----1..... OH DAMN! Not absolutely 100% necessarily black and white! Holy crap! I was 0.000000001% wrong and you were 0.000000001% cool for pointing that out! (Sorry.. I'm preempting all this because I'm habituated to these 'not necessarily' slashtards).

Re:I think the article means to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434751)

I'm pretty sure that China is doing its best to catch up... in investment, technology and importance... and China is a big enough example to make your overly-histrionic 'not necessarily' adderall-fueled rant pointless. But I seem to have interrupted your anti-US soliloquy. Rant on slashtard, rant on.

Re:I think the article means to say... (3, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year ago | (#42434803)

The US military has been shaped by paranoia about a preemptive strike ever since Pearl Harbor. They don't want to be caught a decade behind and short on forces ever again, especially just to salve the conscience of some whiny hippies.

Re:I think the article means to say... (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#42434963)

The US military has been shaped by paranoia about a preemptive strike ever since Pearl Harbor. They don't want to be caught a decade behind and short on forces ever again

Aka sept 11th 2001

Enough money has been spent that we can't ack or recognize a failure without really bad things happening to the messenger. But it seems to be true, however much of a thoughtcrime it may be to consider it. You could ague the same idea WRT the recent unpleasantness with the dead ambassador.

Re:I think the article means to say... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#42435099)

The US military has been shaped by paranoia about a preemptive strike ever since Pearl Harbor. They don't want to be caught a decade behind and short on forces ever again, especially just to salve the conscience of some whiny hippies.

Oh, really? Only since and because Pearl Harbour you say? Well, how about this whiny hippy [wikipedia.org]?

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Ridiculous article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434643)

could harm the very soldiers they’re meant to help and spawn pricey lawsuits

From who? We are not allowed to sue the government.

run afoul of international law

That really stopped us in Iraq, didn't it?

Looks like someones hurting for some ad revenue.

U.S. government: Kill, kill, kill for $,$,$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434657)

For those who profit, killing people is an easy, secret way to make money. For U.S. taxpayers, it's a way to slip into poverty.

Stupid fucking name. (4, Insightful)

Haxagon (2454432) | about a year ago | (#42434673)

Calling this "mutant powers" is trivializing this entire issue. It makes light of the fact that millions of people are using stimulants and nootropics that lie in a legal gray area pertaining to employment and schoolwork. Calling this "mutant powers" is the most inappropriate thing you could do.

Re:Stupid fucking name. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435729)

Calling this "mutant powers" is the most inappropriate thing you could do.

Well yeah, if the goal was to stop the rampant drug abuse. It's not. The USA has NEVER been about decreasing drug use. The more users there are, the happier they are. You don't actually think the government isn't tied up deeply in the drug trade, do you?

So of course they'll be trying to use cool-sounding words. Gotta keep it subliminal, and keep getting people hooked and stuck.

The government hasn't been "about the people" for a very, very long time.

The Era of the Human Soldier is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434677)

Future combat zones will not have human troops. Compared with robotics, humans have a wide range of vulnerabilities. The major one being that humans cannot operate in an EM-warfare situation. The human brain is subject to RF interference and current technology is capable of access denial over wide areas.

And PTSD (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | about a year ago | (#42434715)

Seriously we cant even get over the mental issues that soldiers face, and it's horribly underfunded to accommodate the vast number of people who "shrug it off" because there's already a strain on the system. This is probably a better thing to solve with technology than possibly pertinently destroying our own gene pool.

Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434723)

This is like worrying about property tax on the Moon.

International Law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42434807)

"Tweaked troopers could run afoul of international law, potentially sparking a diplomatic crisis every time the U.S. deploys troops overseas."

Oh, he is joking, surely? Since when did the US give a toss about international law?

OK, you've had your little games, the USA was an intersting experiment, but it is now time to admit that it has been a failure.
   

For clear understanding.. (1)

3seas (184403) | about a year ago | (#42434917)

We need to create mutant solders to protect us from the mutant solders who mutiny.

arms race (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435035)

I think more than two pairs of arms would be counter-productive. Besides, John Carter managed to defeat the Tharks with only two arms. What we need to do is offer student visas to Jupitereans, then draft them!

I think that someone has been reading... (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#42435207)

Unfortunately, what they've been reading is a little too much X-Men.

Why bother? (1)

Jessified (1150003) | about a year ago | (#42435253)

We should make a legislative framework that will outline the boundaries of such a program, sort of like the Geneva Conventions. Then countries like the US would never violate those rules.

Seriously. What's the point in even talking about it? the US is just going to do whatever it feels like.

uh, let's see. mutant meat. aha!-- guns. next.. (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#42435273)

the military has what amounts to big-ass guns and bombs of all types, sufficient to take down mutant meat marching. next problem, please...

Wrong date guys (1)

aepervius (535155) | about a year ago | (#42435343)

It is soon the 1st January, not the 1st April. Except in comic book there is no such a thing as a mutant power. At all. Not even physically possible from the law of thermodynamic or newton's law.

What COULD happen is that somebody graft some biomechanic prothese giving an advantage like better muscle, drug implant or even eye sight enhanced and protected against flashbang, but that's nothing which could not be done by the "1st country" in term of military science. In fact I content a full mechanical device by the ease of removal replacement and mass fabrication make more sense. In fact I contend that it is probably the other country of the world which should worry about what the USA is brewing in their labs.

Forgot a word damn (1)

aepervius (535155) | about a year ago | (#42435383)

last sentence should read "In fact I contend that it is probably the other country of the world which should worry about what the USA is brewing in their drone labs." IOW A military of drone controlled by a few hundred maybe a few thousand guy the other world away.

Justified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42435379)

Haha, I've been preparing for a Zombie Apocolypse for years. /justified

Arms Race (1)

devnullkac (223246) | about a year ago | (#42435523)

So many jokes, so little time...

  • Can a soldier with 4 arms be more devastating on the modern battlefield? How about 6?
  • Perhaps the submitter meant to suggest that arms will replace legs as a means of racing across the battlefield?

Odds Of That Versus (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#42435725)

I think it potentially more likely that future wars include remotely-controlled (and possibly semi-autonomous) terminator style robots, driven by soldiers for whom the interface looks very much like a current Battlefield video game. But you know, mutant superpowers would be cool too. I'm working on my first one now, but it's not going so well. It doesn't even feel a little hot in here, does it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...