 [RL] USAF adds "cyberspace" to mission statement, Comming soon: Maj. Gavilan & Echo Mirage |
  |
 Dec 15 2005, 10:30 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364  |
|
 |
 
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 10:42 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
whoo hoo!
USAF here I come! |
|
|
|
|
Dec 15 2005, 11:08 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
King of the Hobos Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,117 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 127 |
Wonder why they took cyberpspace, as opposed to some other service branch? Only logical reason I can think of is their already heavy usage of hightech computers and systems in things like aircraft, missiles/rockets and the like. That or no-one else could be bothered with it. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2005, 01:29 AM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
that's what I wondered as well. I would think the Navy would jump right on that boat. (D'oh, accidental pun.) They have a whole bunch of experience in electronics and networking... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 16 2005, 01:31 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I do not look forward to the day half the internet lags because the USAF tried to fly a sortie into a backbone router.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2005, 04:26 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Well, they don't call it the chair force for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2005, 05:16 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Man In The Machine Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,264 Joined: 26-February 02 From: I-495 S Member No.: 1,105 |
Hey, its the AF. At least its not the army...
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2005, 03:06 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I was about to say. They took cyberspace because it means they're less likely to actually be put in combat situations (plus it's another excuse to buy expensive equipment). Air Force DOES seem to hire an awful lot of IT geeks though. I have guesses why. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 16 2005, 05:19 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
er.. actually the US Army DOES have a internet team. they just suck. I remember an article a month or so ago in which they asked some canadian group for assistance in taking down some dumb little website. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 16 2005, 05:33 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
In the Army, enlisted personel fight while officiers stay where it is safe and work on their computers. In the Air Force, officers fight while enlisted personel stay where it is safe and work on their computers.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2005, 05:43 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
the AF took it because the AF decided they wanted it. it's not like the Joint Chiefs got together and said "somebody needs to change their mission statement to include cyberspace, let's pick who gets it." the other four branches could decide they want in on this cyberspace action and change their mission statement, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2005, 07:38 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
that's why the navy is so great. both the enlisted AND officers sit in safety and work on thier computers... except for the SEALs. they're just a bit nutty. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 16 2005, 09:02 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
On the other hand, the USMC might be the best choice. Somewhere between Spam Number 100 and 200 the Spammer's home will be secured - Marine style!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16 2005, 09:09 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
as opposed to AF style (6-mo lease with an option to buy).
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 19 2005, 03:12 PM
Post
#15
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Maybe it's just me, but being on a rocking ship that can easily be sunk either out in the middle of the ocean or in enemy territory doesn't seem especially 'safe'. Granted, in a limited war like something against Iraq, a carrier force out in the ocean is as safe as can be, but if you look at naval casualty rates in WWII (or even Vietnam), those navy boys take a beating. If we have another war against a major power, expect the same again. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 19 2005, 03:57 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
I'd like to hear opinions on that one, actually. who exactly you think we'd be fighting? and yeah, even in a modern setting the navy would take a beating. read Red Storm Rising. the USN gets slaughtered. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 19 2005, 05:05 PM
Post
#17
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
The Americans? We germans always end up fighting a some of good soldiers and a lot of Americans :D |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 19 2005, 09:25 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Being the offspring of a Navy family, I feel obliged to say that the Navy would not get slaughtered, even against a 'super sub'.
What major power might we fight in the future? In the next fifty years, China seems like the only real major power that's at all threatening. Navy would definitely come into play there. Iran is probably our favorite semi-major nation, and I do believe they have enough of a navy to cause us some headaches. Bush is running out of time though. Two more years or he can't make the record of three wars caused by one president. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 19 2005, 10:27 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 203 Joined: 18-November 05 Member No.: 7,978 |
The navy is extremely vulnerable to long range aircraft that strike at high speeds due to the ease of detecting the big ships that are the keys to the battleline.
This is already being addressed by the low signal ships that are being made which are very very difficult to spot, and are not detectable by radar until you are already within their range. Scary stuff. I assume that technology will adapt and it will still be dangerous however. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 19 2005, 11:41 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
er.. what? wrong book, methinks. Red Storm Rising is a full scale conventional war in europe against the russians. they take iceland and begin conducting long range cruise missle strikes against the convoys moving men & material to europe. they also have to deal with russian submarines (not a small number back in the 1980s.).
better yet. they have F-14s the last time I checked, admittedly without Phoenix missles, but it will be interesting to see how they stack up against the plastic bug. unless we magically manage to get the JSF deployed beforehand. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 21 2005, 03:43 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
That's right, I'm thinking of Hunt for Red October. I saw the movie of that and played the game of Red Storm Rising. Too many reds, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 21 2005, 06:08 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Of course, since they;ll be fighting in cyberspace now does this mean that the Air Force is devolping full-imersion VR that will turn simple computer tasks into pointless and clunky 3D metaphores while opening the user up to direct attacks on his central nervous system?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 21 2005, 06:11 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Creating a god with his own hands Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 |
my god, I hope so. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 21 2005, 06:17 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Why yes, I would like a nice game of global thermonuclear war. Thank you for asking!
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 21 2005, 09:15 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 288 Joined: 3-December 03 From: Boston, Mass Member No.: 5,874 |
WOW just like the movie "Hackers".....Damn I've got to go get my 28.8kbps modem....So I can be L33t H@Xor.......
The only way VR might be good is if you had a wider desktop view to have and display many different screens. Although it's just cheaper to buy alot of flatscreen monitors. Although what if you could turn typing it a simplified movement. You move your hand one way to open a particular window, another to log into a router or firewall. Basically moving from typing to a gesture based hand signal might be faster for faster response. I guess though if your superuser account gets hacked all the hand gestures for the number # 1 won't do you any good. So far the mouse and the flat screen has been with us for quite some some. Zerox Parc I believe. I wonder what the next evolution in interface design will be? The processors and microchips are faster and more compact than engineers they could have ever imagined during the 70's. Now we're still using basically the same interface and tools as were designed so long ago. Maybe the Mouse has a 100 years left? Who knows? |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th April 2024 - 03:50 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.