You are on page 1of 68

Military technology comes from club to attack/defense robots by Research and Development (R&D

)
Dr. György Seres DSc. 2003

What’s different between animal and human being?

What’s different between animal and human being?
Only human being uses military technology.

Military technology comes from club to attack/defense robots by Research and Development (R&D)

I show selections from history of Military R&D for illustration

Selections from history of Military R&D
Attack tools

Versions of clubs
Version 1.0 Beta version Version 2.0

Version 3.0

Version 4.0

Swords and sabres

Individual distance shooting

Artillery

Bombs

Selections from history of Military R&D
Defensive tools and vehicles

Defensive tools

Vehicles

Unmanned land, undersea and air combat vehicles

Selections from history of Military R&D
Systems

Air Defense System

Strategic Defense Initiative ( SDI or Star Wars)

Selections from history of Military R&D
Future

By US Army
“”The nature of modern warfare demands that we fight as a joint team. … Joint Vision 2010 provides an operationally based template for the evolution of the Armed Forces for a challenging and uncertain future. ….”
John M. Shalikashvili Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Digital

battlefield

By US Air Force

„Air For ce The Air Force University conducted 20 25 a study to identify the concepts,”
capabilities, and technologies the United States will require remaining the dominant air and space force in the first quarter of the 21st century.

The study was called Air Force 2025.

Worldwide C4I system

Virtual theatre of war

By NMD Team
The primary mission of National Missile Defense is defense of the United States (all 50 states) against a threat of a limited strategic ballistic missile attack from a rogue nation. Although intended to protect the United States only, the proposed NMD system will not work without the use of radars in Europe or in territories controlled by European countries.

National Missiles Defense system ( NMD )

Only two type of weapons were developed, against which wasn’t effective defense!

First conclusion

Only two type of weapons were developed, against which wasn’t effective defense!
Club Nuclear weapon

&

Defensive tool against club was frightful mask only

The SDI was planned as defensive tool against nuclear weapon
It hasn’t been realized, but as a result the USSR collapsed

Universal model of military systems

I developed a model for study of Military R&D, like an old model creator

Universal model of military systems
Environment
Attack, defense

Military system
Alliance, national armed forces, branches, etc.

Purpose

Enemy
Command, neighbours, logistics, etc.

Technology Survival Human

Friendly
Geographical, meteorological, daytime, etc.

Result
Organization

Neutral

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

Purpose of military systems must be determined by friendly environment
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy

Technology Survival

Friendly

Human

… or threat, Victory, destroying, deterrent, extortion, occupation, defense, etc.

Result
Neutral Organization

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

But purpose can be determinated also by neutral environment
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy

Technology Survival

Friendly

Human

Result
Neutral Organization
Surviving a desert or sea storm, etc.

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

And purpose can be determinate also by enemy environment
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy

Technology Survival

Friendly

Human

Retreat, etc.

Result
Neutral Organization

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

R&D mission: to reach all the purposes of military systems

Second conclusion

R&D mission: to reach all the purposes of military systems
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy

Technology Survival

Friendly

Human

… or threat, Victory, destroying, deterrent, extortion, occupation, defense, etc.

Retreat, etc.

Result
Neutral Organization
Surviving a desert or sea storm, etc.

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

One of main goals of R&D: to decrease danger for human in combat

Third conclusion

One of main goals of R&D: to decrease danger for human in combat
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy

Technology Survival

Friendly

Human

Result
Neutral Organization

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

One of main goals of R&D: to decrease danger for human in combat by increasing radius of attack tools
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy

Technology
Technology Survival

Friendly

Human

Result
Neutral Organization

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

One of main goals of R&D: to decrease danger for human in combat by increasing effectiveness of defense tools
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy

Technology
Survival

Friendly

Human

Result
Neutral Organization

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

One of main goals of R&D: to decrease danger for human in combat by automation
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy

Technology
Computer
Survival

Friendly

Human

Result
Neutral Organization

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

The ultimate goal of R&D: to make military systems capable to reach its purpose without human participation

Fourth conclusion

The ultimate goal of R&D: to make military systems capable to reach its purpose without human participation
Environment Military system Military robot Purpose

Enemy Human Friendly

Technology
Survival Computer Human

Result
Neutral Organization

Requirements, conditions

Capabilities

Role of technology in armed combat: contact two adverse systems

Fifth conclusion

Role of technology in armed combat: contact two adverse systems
Organization Survival Human Enemy Technology

Result Reconnaissance

Friendly Technology

Neutral

Survival Human

Strikes
Organization

Result

If somebody remembers
On the first ROBOTWARFARE conference in 2001 I presented a model like this

ARMED COMBAT SYSTEM
Rt ATTACKER C R
v

Vt Ik Io

B

Z

I Iv

Vv

DEFENDER

Zv Zo OBJECT

On the first ROBOTWARFARE conference in 2001 I presented a model like this
Vo

ARMED COMBAT SYSTEM
Rt ATTACKER C R
v

Vt Ik Io

B

Z

I Iv

Vv

DEFENDER

Zv Zo OBJECT

Vo

ARMED COMBAT AS A SYSTEM

The basic ideas of my Armed Combat model are the followings:
• The Attacker against the Object and it’s Defender are related in combat as close as two subsystems of a big-system. • Resources of the combat-activity (Rt or Rv) are the inputs, and the losses (Vt or Vv and Vo) are the outputs. • The relationship between the components are: – reconnaissance (I or C) – and strikes (Z or B). • Consequently, the two subsystems form an independent big-system, which is the Armed Combat System itself as such. This model includes all specifics of a cybernetic system, and that’s why we are able to analyze Combat with adequate and rich cybernetic tools.

Reviewing the past: I put some questions for myself in 2003
• When two armed forces did really engage using comparable military technology?
– 1975, in Vietnam War!

• Which two antagonistic superpowers had comparable military technology, and when?
– USA and USSR in 1991!

Fifth conclusion
That’s why I try: how does my new model work if technology level of two systems isn’t comparable?

Armed combat, if technology level isn’t comparable
Organization Survival Human Enemy Technology

Result Reconnaissance

Friendly Technology

Neutral

Survival Human

Strikes
Organization

Result

Armed combat, if technology level isn’t comparable
Kamikaze type
Enemy Organization Survival Human

Technology

Result Reconnaissance

Friendly
Technology

Neutral

Survival Human

Strikes
Organization

Result

Armed combat, if technology level isn’t comparable
Yugoslavia type
Enemy Organization Survival Human

Technology

Result Reconnaissance

Friendly
Technology

Neutral

Survival Human

Strikes
Organization

Result

Armed combat, if technology level isn’t comparable
Guerilla type
Enemy Organization Survival Human

Technology

Result Reconnaissance

Friendly
Technology

Neutral

Survival Human

Strikes
Organization

Result

How can we compare different input and output parameters of the Armed Combat System?

If somebody remembers
On the second ROBOTWARFARE conference in 2002 I formulated a question:

My answer was:

… and the proposed value-model of the Armed Combat System was
ARMED COMBAT SYSTEM
K(Rt) K(Vt)

ATTACKER
K(C+B) K(Rv) K(I+Z) K(Vv)

DEFENDER

Where: •K(Rt), K(Rv) – material and moral value of resources •K(Vt), K(Vv) – material and moral value of losses •K(I+Z), K(C+B) – material and moral value used for getting information or for strikes resources

Reviewing the past: I put a question for myself in 2003
What does the phrase „MATERIAL AND MORAL VALUE” mean for terrorist organizations?

Reviewing the past: I put a questions for myself in 2003
What does the phrase „MATERIAL AND MORAL VALUE” mean for terrorist organizations?

Sixth conclusion
That’s why I try: how does my new model work, if military system is a terrorist organization?

Role of technology in terrorist systems
Organization Survival Human Enemy Technology

Result Reconnaissance

Friendly

Neutral Human

Survival

Strikes

A special case of state terrorism is the coup, when military system has its own goal
Organization Survival Human Enemy Technology

Result Reconnaissance

Friendly

Neutral Human

Survival

Strikes

This model of military systems is universal, because it is suitable for study :

Ultimate conclusion

This model of military systems is universal, because it is suitable for study :
• any level of military systems • coherence among human, technology and organization subsystems • influence of different purposes for military systems • armed combat, if technology level of sides isn’t comparable • role of technology in terrorist military system

Dr. György Seres
drseres@jata.org http://www.jata.org/drseres/