Read on Twitter
[THREAD]
Are we getting the concept of #EnhancedSoldier right?
After reading 2 articles on the @wavellroom on the subject, I'm increasingly concerned with the focus on cyber & chemical enhancements.
It ignores history and the other fields of enhancements. https://wavellroom.com/2020/03/10/faster-stronger-quicker-decisive-better-soldiers-the-case-for-performance-enhancement/
Are we getting the concept of #EnhancedSoldier right?
After reading 2 articles on the @wavellroom on the subject, I'm increasingly concerned with the focus on cyber & chemical enhancements.
It ignores history and the other fields of enhancements. https://wavellroom.com/2020/03/10/faster-stronger-quicker-decisive-better-soldiers-the-case-for-performance-enhancement/
Let's break things down.
First, the enhanced soldier is nothing new.
Second, robotics and drugs are not even half of the possible ways to enhance soldiers.
Third, have we defined our needs in the matter?
First, the enhanced soldier is nothing new.
Second, robotics and drugs are not even half of the possible ways to enhance soldiers.
Third, have we defined our needs in the matter?
If I say 'enhanced soldier', you think 'exoskeletons' & 'cyber implants', right?
Think again.
The enhanced soldier has been a thing since the dawn of civilisation.
A soldier was a bearer of arms who fought for his polity in an organised and collective manner.
Enhanced? No but...
Think again.
The enhanced soldier has been a thing since the dawn of civilisation.
A soldier was a bearer of arms who fought for his polity in an organised and collective manner.
Enhanced? No but...
as soon as you trained him, he was.
His body was enhanced through physical trg to cope with the rigours of his trade. His reflexes were conditioned in a pavlovian way & he was drilled to operate in conjunction with his peers to maximise defence & offence.
His body was enhanced through physical trg to cope with the rigours of his trade. His reflexes were conditioned in a pavlovian way & he was drilled to operate in conjunction with his peers to maximise defence & offence.
So yes, all modern soldiers are 'enhanced'. They haven't been given a rifle and a uniform and told 'welcome to the army'.
However it's an area where armies aren't using the the most up to date scientific findings to maximise the psycho-physical potential of recruits.
However it's an area where armies aren't using the the most up to date scientific findings to maximise the psycho-physical potential of recruits.
Taking a cue from science fiction. Dune.
The training of the Bene Gesserit offers an insight into a holistic approach to training the mind as well as the body to negate the adverse effects of stress and other external factors on judgement. https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Bene_Gesserit_Training
The training of the Bene Gesserit offers an insight into a holistic approach to training the mind as well as the body to negate the adverse effects of stress and other external factors on judgement. https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Bene_Gesserit_Training
It's fiction and greatly exaggerated for dramatic effects yet, from Lt Col Channon fact finding msn within hippie communes in the 70s to the British Army recommending yoga and meditation for mental health.
We lack an actual scientific approach however.
We lack an actual scientific approach however.
We have changed our fitness tests and training but it's a piecemeal approach to a probably necessary overhaul of the way we view trg.
Are we making use of up-to-date cognitive science findings to train our soldiers how to be better learners ? The jobs are increasingly technical.
Are we making use of up-to-date cognitive science findings to train our soldiers how to be better learners ? The jobs are increasingly technical.
Are we training the body and the mind together? Are we training soldiers to cope with increasing influxes of information during battle (more sensors, connected battlefield and all informed networks)? Are they trained to cope with the stress it induces? Etc.
Flight crews are typically trained for a work environment and responsibilities that are just theirs but as ground vehicles become increasingly complex, should we be training AFV crews like we've always done?
And this is just the basic stuff.
The first time some guy had the idea to wear some hide for protection against his enemy's weapons, we've entered another field of enhancement: protection.
Armour is the 1st material add-on to the body with the intent of increasing survivability.
The first time some guy had the idea to wear some hide for protection against his enemy's weapons, we've entered another field of enhancement: protection.
Armour is the 1st material add-on to the body with the intent of increasing survivability.
The interesting thing about armour is that it's a template for everything that the soldier has to wear. Study the history of personal armour and you know all the problems you're going to encounter with exoskeletons and all the other stuff.
Let's take a look:
Let's take a look:
1) Affordability aka who's paying for it? The fighter? His polity? The latter being the exception, note that armour was, more often than not, exclusive to the social elite, the ruling caste.
2) Weight+encumbrance. Self explanatory, does it rub? Causes sores or long term MSKIs?
2) Weight+encumbrance. Self explanatory, does it rub? Causes sores or long term MSKIs?
3) Practicality. Can you move freely and perform your job properly with it? Better than your enemy? How to overcome the drawbacks?
4) Relevancy. Breastplate defeats sword. Firearm defeats breastplates. Kevlar defeats fireames etc. Armour was ditched for 3 centuries, have a think.
4) Relevancy. Breastplate defeats sword. Firearm defeats breastplates. Kevlar defeats fireames etc. Armour was ditched for 3 centuries, have a think.
In summary, our solutions to old problems will create new problems. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek solutions. But we should weigh the drawbacks vs the FOE, our budget, the baseline physical and cognitive abilities of our soldiers (which we can improve, remember?).
I've taken these two examples because I want to remind people that the soldier is both the quintessential weapon system and the end user of whatever technology is added on to him to enhance his/her fighting abilities.
Whatever you do or give to a soldier have you considered 1 Q?
Whatever you do or give to a soldier have you considered 1 Q?
Have you asked him what he needs to win?
Before starting to inject him with drugs, changing his DNA, getting a brain/network interface in his head, have you asked around what she/he, as a fighter thinks she/he needs to get the edge over the enemy?
It's really important to explore all the possibilities and
It's really important to explore all the possibilities and
draw inspiration from sci-fi but before we start loading all sorts of gizmos on our youth's back, literally, have we set some goals and avenues that take into account the experience and needs of the main practitioners? And are we going to keep them in the loop during R&D.
It's great that many people are working on the possibilities of mitigating current constraints. These being often created by a previous enhancement. The cumulated weight of body armour and ECM being an example. What we lack is the holistic approach.
We need to match the enhancement of the end user/basic weapon system ie the dude/ette via updated training, and whatever you'll wack in his brains and veins and on his/her body. And it might be something that isn't solely the army's job but the state's.
Remember that the Boer War highlighted the poor physical shape of British recruits thanks to the living conditions of the working class in Victorian era Britain. Something that was solved via a scheme to properly feed the school children before WW1.
(Yeah, we're screwed).
(Yeah, we're screwed).
My point being, building a physically fit, mentally resilient and agile population is a matter of national security and should be trained and educated based on the most up-to-date science.
