Rather scientific question

[NoirWolf]

I wasn't trying to suggest the plasma would use pressure to breach the target, in my above speculation the plasma round actually would be using temperature to melt through the armour. Comparing it to a HEAT round has turned out to be wildly distracting it seems, I see similarities because of my particular worldview I guess, heh. Not the first time I've run into difficultly because I'm natively seeing something counter-intuitive to most. I saw the primary mechanic of both being the focusing of an omnidirectional force for the purposes of a tight effect on target. The particulars of each are of course wildly dissimilar.

Don't you wish that mechanic was in the game? : D

Again though, I'm talking about potential applications of the technology we can't even theorise about due to being too many steps removed from whatever innovation would make something amazing suddenly obvious. I keep thinking about how smartphones these days don't even have external aerials. In the early days of radio who could have imagined that was possible? Give it a couple of decades of metamaterial research and I can't even pretend to know what might be possible due to being able to hack the laws of nature. Though none of that is likely to allow for EM field manipulation of the type we're talking about, I know. This is where the fiction element of sci-fi comes in. The one or two (as few as possible) steps beyond 'real' that allows for the story, and making those steps as plausible as possible. Suggesting that they could be a hitherto unknown manifestation or manipulation of the universe, and plenty of those have actually happened. It's just the ones in real life are typically even more outlandish than what authors speculate, heh. So I take up the position of the only thing I can be certain about is that I can't predict some things we'll be capable of in the future, even if I completely understood everything we currently know today.

As someone more informed than I, what's your take on ball lighting?

The problem is you're drawing comparisons between a jet of molten metal and a jet of incandescent plasma which is a state of matter, disputed somewhat, where the whole is quasi-neutral (ions and/or nuclei are in close proximity to their electrons but the electrons are free to move within the plasma as they see fit, quasi-neutrality means the plasma is as a whole neutral due to the equality of negative and positive charges but if you take any portion of it separately to study it as a part of the whole it is not neutral) and which unlike the jet o molten metal will lose coherency much faster because it surrenders to the medium it is passing through both heat and particles (electrons, ions, nuclei, in some cases even neutrals which slam into the crystal matrix of the surface so hard they embed themselves within it) so the penetration power of a plasma bolt is less than that of a traditional shaped charge but the thermal damage wrought is more significant and the EM component is there unlike with the shaped charge. Also to my knowledge smartphones sometimes still have aerials (some cheap chinese ones do) and the ones that do not merely disguise the aerial as a strip of metal either directly on the outside of the phone or underneath the first layer of plastic ( main reason why most phones have a non-conductive casing along the sides, most of the ones that have a conductive side casing actually have the aerial uncovered).

As for ball lightning similar phenomena can be obtained by superheating gas (atmospheric or specific) using a laser, I have not studied the particular phenomena myself but by what I understand it's likely the result of a non-grounded lightning strike under specific conditions ( low humidity being one of the bigger ones but also the prevalence of certain atmospheric gases ). The trick would be getting the conditions because afterwards you just get a ball of excited gas with some stability and a affinity for EM field (thus the weird behaviour seen in some films of alleged ball lightning events).

[Elydo]

Hmmm. I'm going to take a break as I'm getting the feeling we're missing the subtle particulars of each other's statements and I need to recharge my ability to phrase things in a non-autistic way. I do intend to return to this interesting conversation.

I did specify external antennas. As another example I'll offer the difference between early RADAR and current generation Active Electronically Scanned Arrays.

[NoirWolf]

Hmmm. I'm going to take a break as I'm getting the feeling we're missing the subtle particulars of each other's statements and I need to recharge my ability to phrase things in a non-autistic way. I do intend to return to this interesting conversation.

I did specify external antennas. As another example I'll offer the difference between early RADAR and current generation Active Electronically Scanned Arrays.

And I merely specified that antennas are still there, refinements have just allowed them to be internalized without loss of signal (thank plasma deposition technologies for this ) but they're functionally the same just take a different form.

Your second example is rather insulting considering the first because RADAR and AESA are quite different beasts (theory's the same but it's applied differently, kind of like comparing a musket to a bolt action rifle, both use the same theory but applied in vastly different ways).

[Elydo]

Both are my actual points, maturation of technology allowing for unforeseeable manifestations and applications. A bolt-action rifle is a maturation of a musket, the same theory and approach but vastly different in function and effect. An AESA is still a system operating with the principles of radar, but is vastly different than RADAR. That they are so different despite being the same technology in essence is my point. To get back to the earlier discussion, in the OG laser weapons are at the RADAR stage of their technological development whereas the alien plasma weapons could well be closer to an AESA stage of maturation.

[NoirWolf]

Both are my actual points, maturation of technology allowing for unforeseeable manifestations and applications. A bolt-action rifle is a maturation of a musket, the same theory and approach but vastly different in function and effect. An AESA is still a system operating with the principles of radar, but is vastly different than RADAR. That they are so different despite being the same technology in essence is my point. To get back to the earlier discussion, in the OG laser weapons are at the RADAR stage of their technological development whereas the alien plasma weapons could well be closer to an AESA stage of maturation.

Except that they're completely different things based on wholly different theories. To have that maturation you consider you'd need refinement tiers for lasers and plasmas (starting off with crude slapped together lasers and cobbled together, even crudely adapted alien, plasma guns, humanity isn't starting off at the mature end with either of these technologies and to assume it would be possible for plasma weapons is to massively overestimate the human capacity to reverse engineer things without any clue of the theories behind it).

[Elydo]

Ah, could this be the crux of our disagreement? I'm not thinking it's quite so impractical from an engineering standpoint. Knowing it can be done is the vast majority of the battle as far as engineers are concerned. That's why there's usually an explosion of people managing to accomplish engineering feats very quickly after the first breakthrough shows it's possible.

Plus, knowing how it works can be irrelevant to be honest, if it does. Staying in the game, with lasers we'd need to know what bits to make and how to put them together. With the alien plasmas both those steps are already done for us and we can play with them like Lego. Although in the OG game we don't actually make human variants of the alien weapons, rather we just reproduce copies of the alien guns. Producing fully human examples would take longer I'd agree, and would require the operational theories to be better understood.

[NoirWolf]

Ah, could this be the crux of our disagreement? I'm not thinking it's quite so impractical from an engineering standpoint. Knowing it can be done is the vast majority of the battle as far as engineers are concerned. That's why there's usually an explosion of people managing to accomplish engineering feats very quickly after the first breakthrough shows it's possible.

Plus, knowing how it works can be irrelevant to be honest, if it does. Staying in the game, with lasers we'd need to know what bits to make and how to put them together. With the alien plasmas both those steps are already done for us and we can play with them like Lego. Although in the OG game we don't actually make human variants of the alien weapons, rather we just reproduce copies of the alien guns. Producing fully human examples would take longer I'd agree, and would require the operational theories to be better understood.

And how do you propose to find out how to maintain a plasma gun beyond field repairs (what most aliens would know and you'd get through interrogation) without the weaponry equivalent of russian roulette played with your valuable personnel ? Making a captured example work isn't hard I agree but producing compatible ammunition isn't easy for something you don't understand how it functions (remember that back in 1980 plasma technology development was only just starting to kick off in terms of applications), sure you might get an idea from the helpful grey you just waterboarded to death but he could only tell you how to field strip the damn thing to clean it and how the ammo is supposed to work, from that (and likely several cases of "We gotta mop Jim up off the floor and ask Jim Nr 2 to try the other new ammo clip on the other plasma gun") you might get an idea how to maintain and supply the gun but it would take years, probably decades, to go from "Yeah, it works" to "Yeah, it works, this is how, lets build some of these fuckers.".

Also if you think knowing it can be done is the majority of the battle please design me a chemical rocket that can go 99.9% of the speed of light without using anything else for acceleration (woefully impractical to the point of impossibility but still theoretically possible).

[Elydo]

I think you're underestimating properly motivated engineers, not to mention properly motivated humans in general, with extinction at stake. Even without such motivations during my degree course we were shown examples of rapid design and manufacture that really redefined how fast processes can go when necessary. Drawing board to successful battlefield adoption within weeks. A different proposition to reverse engineering unknown technology yes, but just look at examples of Cold War industrial espionage, or even the various attempts around the world to copy US fifth-gen fighter technology. That's without actual examples of what they're trying to replicate.

Also if you think knowing it can be done is the majority of the battle please design me a chemical rocket that can go 99.9% of the speed of light without using anything else for acceleration (woefully impractical to the point of impossibility but still theoretically possible).

Yeah, it's massively impractical. But we could do it, it just comes down to engineering. It'd probably be a project requiring the efforts of a significant aspect of our worlds population, but it could be done. A lot would depend on the particulars; are you allowing ramscoops, are you allowing gravity slingshots, are you allowing a massive organisation of c-fractional refueling logistics just to prove it can be done even though there's no point to the whole exercise?

[NoirWolf]

I think you're underestimating properly motivated engineers, not to mention properly motivated humans in general, with extinction at stake. Even without such motivations during my degree course we were shown examples of rapid design and manufacture that really redefined how fast processes can go when necessary. Drawing board to successful battlefield adoption within weeks. A different proposition to reverse engineering unknown technology yes, but just look at examples of Cold War industrial espionage, or even the various attempts around the world to copy US fifth-gen fighter technology. That's without actual examples of what they're trying to replicate.

Yeah, it's massively impractical. But we could do it, it just comes down to engineering. It'd probably be a project requiring the efforts of a significant aspect of our worlds population, but it could be done. A lot would depend on the particulars; are you allowing ramscoops, are you allowing gravity slingshots, are you allowing a massive organisation of c-fractional refueling logistics just to prove it can be done even though there's no point to the whole exercise?

Dear god... do you even realize how optimistic you are? Industrial espionage, copying tech you already know the fundamentals (the physics, the theories behind them) are not even remotely comparable to the depth and difficulty of reverse engineering utterly alien technology (the physics theories it uses, the alloys it is made out of, it's operational parameters, language decryption, the possibility or impossibility of reproduction using current knowledge both technical and theoretical), you'd be giving a AK-47 to a Bronze age human and expect them to know how to use it without training, how to maintain it without knowing anything about it, its construction or its constituent elements and how to reproduce it. Threat of extinction or not humans aren't good at reverse engineering things, they are however good at adapting things using new knowledge, again laser technology could be significantly improved within a few weeks using alien artefacts, within months you could get lasers powerful enough to punch through the hide of a alien space craft without requiring a multi-ton medium or a nuclear reactor power source. Plasma weapons would be too much to use as anything else than secondary weapons when captured or primary ones when expecting a heavy fight but not mainstay weapons as they're extremely limited, you only get what you captured, nothing else.

Also just as a fun fact regardless of what tricks you use there's not enough chemical fuel in the universe to power a space craft (regardless how small) that close to the speed of light in the conventional sense. It was a trick question to prove a point.

[Elydo]

With no objective statement on how advanced the technology in question is there's no way of knowing if reverse engineering it would be possible or not. Give an AK-47 to a Bronze Age human and they'd likely use it as a club. Give it to someone from the 18th Century and I'd expect them to recognise the principles involved, though they might not be able to replicate the technology. Give it to someone from the 19th Century and I'd absolutely expect them to be able to replicate it. Though in the case of an AK-47 it's a particularly simple design, thus why it's so reliable and widespread. The differences between each case being the technology gap and basic familiarity with the principles involved which would allow for any reverse engineering to be successful. Your argument would have alien technology effectively be 'magic', so advanced we couldn't even speculate as to it's operation, or simply so incomprehensible we can't even suggest 'why' it works, not the case with a plasma gun.

Not sure what paradigm you're using for your chemical rocket here but with relaxed enough parameters of course it's possible, though the logistics would be insane. How are you defining "chemical fuel" and what restrictions are you placing on the rocket? I'm assuming most of the mass of the universe would be required to be turned into whatever "chemical" fuel you're using, refueling occurring regularly at c-fractional speeds, gravity slingshots (if they're allowed) and probably even energy-to-matter transformation to get even more fuel but it would be possible. Regardless of how massive the objects becomes as it approaches higher fractions of c it'll remain at that velocity until you can create more fuel, top it up and then start accelerating it again. There really is no point to it, but if we really wanted to and spent enough time (a long long loooooong time) dedicating ourselves to it, we could do it. None of the problems are insurmountable. With loose enough parameters that impracticality becomes irrelevant. Theoretically.

Y'know, it occurs that the effects of this experiment on the universe, and any other races within it, could well serve as an appropriate justification for invading us to make sure we don't do it...

[NoirWolf]

With no objective statement on how advanced the technology in question is there's no way of knowing if reverse engineering it would be possible or not. Give an AK-47 to a Bronze Age human and they'd likely use it as a club. Give it to someone from the 18th Century and I'd expect them to recognise the principles involved, though they might not be able to replicate the technology. Give it to someone from the 19th Century and I'd absolutely expect them to be able to replicate it. Though in the case of an AK-47 it's a particularly simple design, thus why it's so reliable and widespread. The differences between each case being the technology gap and basic familiarity with the principles involved which would allow for any reverse engineering to be successful. Your argument would have alien technology effectively be 'magic', so advanced we couldn't even speculate as to it's operation, or simply so incomprehensible we can't even suggest 'why' it works, not the case with a plasma gun.

Not sure what paradigm you're using for your chemical rocket here but with relaxed enough parameters of course it's possible, though the logistics would be insane. How are you defining "chemical fuel" and what restrictions are you placing on the rocket? I'm assuming most of the mass of the universe would be required to be turned into whatever "chemical" fuel you're using, refueling occurring regularly at c-fractional speeds, gravity slingshots (if they're allowed) and probably even energy-to-matter transformation to get even more fuel but it would be possible. Regardless of how massive the objects becomes as it approaches higher fractions of c it'll remain at that velocity until you can create more fuel, top it up and then start accelerating it again. There really is no point to it, but if we really wanted to and spent enough time (a long long loooooong time) dedicating ourselves to it, we could do it. None of the problems are insurmountable. With loose enough parameters that impracticality becomes irrelevant. Theoretically.

Y'know, it occurs that the effects of this experiment on the universe, and any other races within it, could well serve as an appropriate justification for invading us to make sure we don't do it...

But it would be magic for us in terms of explaining how it works today, 33+ years ago it would've been even more magical as back then they were barely wrapping their heads around how to contain fusion grade plasma. We'd know it's a gun, how to use it (basic principals of aim, shoot, pray) and could guess or coerce some knowledge about maintenance but explaining how it works is gonna be tricky for years especially considering we today don't have a clue how to obtain a self-containing plasma bolt with long distance capabilities, we can fire a really pissed off chunk of lead at something but that's about it. We could reverse engineer it in a few years maybe with allot of waterboarding and a few geniuses onboard but 33 years ago plasma physics was still a immature science so you'd be looking at people who don't even yet fully understand less dense plasmas let alone the denser ones you'd need for a bolt. Suspension of disbelief works for the lasers not for the hail mary level of genius required to take alien technology and understand it in months or a year ( you'd need an entire team of Sheldon Coopers all working in sync and not being extraordinarily wrong, which is very possible considering how current knowledge of plasma physics is, 33 years ago it would've been quite a bit worse, to get it that fast through the unknown -> theory -> prototype -> weapon cycle, for reference lasers start at being prototypes).

[Elydo]

Heh, yeah, the timescales involved in the research are... optimistic. Not least due to the idea that more scientists = faster results.

[NoirWolf]

Heh, yeah, the timescales involved in the research are... optimistic. Not least due to the idea that more scientists = faster results.

Well if there's a Rodney Mckay, a Sheldon Cooper and that little asian kid from Big Bang theory the research speed might be faster, or you might see a homicidal rampage by one of the geniuses involved.

[tiger12348]

Realism does not exist in a game about taking on an Alian force capable of intergalactic travel in the 60s.

[NoirWolf]

Realism does not exist in a game about taking on an Alian force capable of intergalactic travel in the 60s.

The universe is roughly 13 billion years old and the fact that the gold in your computer even exists to begin with proves that the area where the Sol system currently exists was inhabited in the past by now defunct stars (probably quite massive ones due to the fact that anything heavier than iron is a endothermic fusion reaction thus making it impossible for a stable star to produce, gold, silver, platinum and a host of other heavier elements are thus the products of supernovae). The existence of stars prior to our own suggests the possibility of planets existing prior to our own, now granted you're not gonna be seeing civilizations 11-12 billion years old but half that is probable considering the fact that the first generation stars were massive and burned through their fusion fuels in a matter of a few million years.

Knowing that tell us again how is this game unrealistic in its portrayal of a possible alien invasion in the 1970s-1980s?

Edited September 23, 2013 by NoirWolf

[tiger12348]

Picture a civilization that is 1000 years ahead of us in terms of technology(might be well over couple million, who knows),and now tell me again how this is a realistic game, in terms of holding the line and turning the tide.

[Gorlom]

At least they (the aliens) aren't riding inside of a horny space walnut capable of mindcontrol.

[NoirWolf]

Picture a civilization that is 1000 years ahead of us in terms of technology(might be well over couple million, who knows),and now tell me again how this is a realistic game, in terms of holding the line and turning the tide.

The fact they haven't progressed farther than plasma technology in terms of handheld weaponry or that they do not have completely automated combat drones and require scouting of potential target planets tells me that the alien civilization itself might be in a state of decay brought on by stagnation, possibly even technological regression (think about it: why wouldn't they just glass major threats from orbit and then send in mop up crews? it's either extreme hubris, considering they've already lost one of their main ships scouting the planet decades before, or something else, either the inability to or even desperation).

[Gorlom]

or that they do not have completely automated combat drones

They have massproduced clones and androns... doesn't that count?

[crusherven]

Actually, I'd say completely replacing infantry with drones would be the unrealistic idea. People have been prophesying the end of infantry for years--it's not going to happen.

[StellarRat]

Actually, I'd say completely replacing infantry with drones would be the unrealistic idea. People have been prophesying the end of infantry for years--it's not going to happen.

I'm fairly certain nearly all weapons will be automated in the not too distant future even infantry. My brother just bought a little drone that could lift and fire a small pistol with the correct additions. It was only $1000 and about 24" in diameter. It could easily fly around inside a building and is far more mobile that anyone on foot. I'm sure the Army has far better technology in the works. The traditional attributes of infantry can now be replaced by remotely operated machines. Eventually they will probably be nearly autonomous. There is no point in risking the lives of people if a machine can do the job. Eventually only poor nations will still rely on human soldiers.

[NoirWolf]

They have massproduced clones and androns... doesn't that count?

Androns are only part of the force and clones are the stupidest thing you could use to replace standard soldiers (mostly because unlike drones clones cannot be easily replaced and lose the experiences they had up until that point, memory imprinting would give knowledge but not experience) to say nothing of genetic template degradation in time or gradual genetic manipulations which inevitably leads to unusable stock ( borking something with genetics is fairly easy to do, you could end up with troops who aren't interested in fighting as much as in the other f word ).

In comparison drones could be all controlled by individual pilots or multiple drones controlled by one commander as it were, that way the drones can be kept non-sentient but also be as dangerous as the real thing without the risk of losing knowledge and experience by loses incurred in the field.

The civilization depicted in-game isn't at its prime, it's stagnating possibly even decaying thus the notion of it getting bested by a technologically inferior enemy isn't as absurd as it sounds, unlikely yes but not absurd ( for example the romans got their asses handed to them at the end of the Roman Empire by peoples with inferior technology but completely alien ways of waging war and another example is the british getting their asses handed to them by the zulus in quite a few fights even though the brits had superior technology by comparison).

[Elydo]

I'm sure we'll see greater autonomy of mobile weapons and robotic platforms, yes, but they're not going to fully replace infantry. Public opinion would be against that, just look at the discomfort with drone strikes, a tactic developed to reduce the risk to human pilots or soldiers that would otherwise have to do the strike (and cost of deployment of significantly more assets and higher operational visibility, true). A feeling that in part really boils down to 'unfairness' and 'cowardice'. Plus films like Terminator really have put a fear of autonomous weapons deeply set in the greater consciousness of humankind. Irrational or not.

Plus I'll refer you to the Mobile Infantry. Humans are simply better at the unpredictable nature of life than any AI we've developed. Look at the space program, where we do send robots to explore and investigate, and they do good work. But no-one suggests an onsite human wouldn't be able to be much more efficient and adaptable. It's just getting humans onsite is far more... well, let's say difficult.

Robots work best as force multipliers, not replacements. Not to say we won't see efforts made to use them as such, I just don't think they'll be successful.

Another series that explores this topic (IMO) is Keith Laumers Bolos. I wonder what it says about me that I can relate to a Bolo far more than any human I've ever met?

Edit: Because any excuse to link to TvTropes and ruin all your lives. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RockBeatsLaser

Edited September 23, 2013 by Elydo

[StellarRat]

I'm sure we'll see greater autonomy of mobile weapons and robotic platforms, yes, but they're not going to fully replace infantry. Public opinion would be against that, just look at the discomfort with drone strikes, a tactic developed to reduce the risk to human pilots or soldiers that would otherwise have to do the strike (and cost of deployment of significantly more assets and higher operational visibility, true). A feeling that in part really boils down to 'unfairness' and 'cowardice'. Plus films like Terminator really have put a fear of autonomous weapons deeply set in the greater consciousness of humankind. Irrational or not.

I don't know about your "public", but considering the US didn't have a problem with nuking the Japanese, I highly doubt they're going to care much about using ROV's to save lives and kill the enemy in a war, "unfair" or not. War is inherently unfair to whatever side is losing. The whole point is to make it "unfair" to the enemy. Completely autonomous weapons weapons will probably be a different matter. I guess we'll find out if we ever are able to develop AI to that level. I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime.

[Elydo]

Heh, the nuclear bombing of Japan is a very long discussion that is invariably more complicated than most people think. It was a significant part of my Masters in War Studies. And I'm not certain having it such a discussion would be useful, but I'll see if there's any cry for it.

I would say that humans desensitise to horror pretty quickly, or else they break and become unable to function. Humans are also vengeful, and Pearl Harbour was seen as a betrayal of the highest order, on multiple levels. The further stories of atrocities from the Pacific theater and the unrestrained propaganda of the age all led to an american public that saw the Japanese as as subhuman as the Japanese saw everyone else. Dehumanising those you fight on a grand scale is often an unavoidable consequence of war, as diminishing the 'other' is an inherent part of most humans psychology. It frees us from being crippled by empathy.

If we ever do develop free thinking AGIs, I'm of the opinion that they should be treated as individuals with the same legal standing as humans. So press-ganging them into any role, let along that of combat tools, would be slavery of the highest order and morally unconscionable.

I wouldn't expect most people to even think about it. At least science fiction tries to ask these questions before we need the answers. And the people in the field are aware of the issue at least.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Elydo