What Insurgency Will Look Like in 2030
The End of Non-Proliferation
A common theme in the diverse technology areas expected to change warfare most significantly (the hardware of robotics to the software of AI, to the “wetware” of human performance modification) is that they are neither inherently military nor civilian. Both the people and organizations that research and develop these technologies and those that buy and use them will be both government and civilian. They will be applied to conflict, but also areas that range from business to family life. A related attribute is that they are less likely to require massive logistics systems to deploy, while the trend of greater machine intelligence means that they will also be easier to learn and use—not requiring large training or acquisitions programs. These factors mean that insurgent groups will be able to make far more rapid gains in technology and capability than previously possible.
In short, the game-changing technologies of tomorrow are most likely to have incredibly low barriers to entry, which means they will be proliferated. In addition, some of the technologies, such as 3D printing, will make it difficult to prevent the spread of capability via traditional non-proliferation approaches such as arms embargos and blockades. Interdicting weapons routes is less workable in a world where manufacturing can be done on site.
This issue is not one merely of the hardware, but also the spread of ideas. As vexing as the extent of terrorist ideology and “how to’s” have been in a world of social media, these platforms are still centrally controlled. The Twitters and Facebooks of the world can take down content when they are persuaded of the legal or public relations need. However, the move toward decentralized applications reduces this power, as there is no one place to appeal for censorship. This phenomenon is well beyond just the problem of a YouTube clip showing how to build an IED, or a cleric inspiring a watcher of a linked video to become a suicide bomber.
Decentralization crossed with crowd-sourcing and open sourcing empowers anyone on the network to new scales. Indeed, there are already open-source projects like Tensorflow, that allow anyone to tap into AI resources that were science fiction just a decade ago.
All this suggests a few key questions: How will U.S. and allied forces prepare for insurgent adversaries that have access to many of the very same technologies and capabilities that they previously relied upon for an edge? Will lower barriers to entry make it easier for insurgencies to gain the capability needed to rise? Will it make it more difficult to defeat them if they can rapidly recreate capability?
Whether it was the Marines battling the rebel forces in Haiti with the earliest of close air support missions a century ago or the Marines battling the Taliban today, counterinsurgents of the last 100 years have enjoyed a crucial advantage. When it came to the various domains of war, the state actor alone had the ability to bring true power to bear across domains. In enjoying unfettered access to the air and sea, they could operate more effectively on the land, not just by conducting surveillance and strikes that prevented insurgents from effectively massing forces, but by crucially moving their own forces to almost anywhere they wanted to go.
This monopolization of power may not be the case in the future. Indeed, ISIS has already used the air domain (via a self-made air force of drones) to do reconnaissance on U.S. and allied forces, and to launch several hundred air strikes. This all may have been ad hoc, but it still achieved their goals at a minimal cost. More importantly, ISIS’ drone use points to a change in the overall story of air power and insurgency. As proved everywhere from Yemen to Ukraine, the insurgents can now fly and fight back.
This ability to cross domains is, of course, not just limited to air power, but also other new domains that technology is opening up to battle. Insurgencies will be able to tap into the global network of satellites that have given U.S. forces such advantage in ISR and communications, or perhaps even to launch and operate cheap micro satellites, either via proxy aid or on their own. (If college students can do it already, why not insurgents?)
More importantly, the “cyber war” side of insurgency will likely move well past what has been experienced so far. The proliferation of capability through both dark markets and increasing automation, combined with the change in the internet’s form to more and more “things” operating online, points to insurgents being able to target comman-and-control networks and even use Stuxnet-style digital weapons causing physical damage.
The ability to operate across domains also means that insurgents will be able to overcome the tyranny of distance. Once-secure bases and even a force’s distant homeland will become observable, targetable, and reachable, whether by malware or unmanned aerial systems delivering packages of a different sort. To think of it a different way, a future insurgency may not see a Tet-style offensive attack in Hue, but rather Houston.
Here are some key questions: Is the U.S. prepared for multi-domain warfare, not just against peer states but also insurgents? What capabilities used in counterinsurgency today might not be available in 2030? Just as U.S. forces used capability in one domain to win battles in another, how might insurgents do so?
In the final battles of World War II’s European theater, U.S. forces had to contend with an adversary that brought better technology to the fight. Fortunately for the Allies, the German “wonder weapons” of everything from rockets and jets to assault rifles entered the war too little and too late.
For the last 75 years, U.S. defense planning has focused on making sure that never happened again. Having a qualitative technology edge to “overmatch” our adversaries became baked into everything from our overall defense strategy to small-unit tactics. It is how the U.S. military deterred the Red Army in the Cold War despite having a much smaller military, and how it was able to invade Iraq with a force one-third the size of Saddam Hussein’s (inverting the historic mantra that the attacker’s force should be three times the size of the defender’s).
Even in painful insurgencies from Vietnam to the post-9/11 wars, this approach didn’t always deliver easy victories, but it did become part of a changed worldview. A Marine officer once told me that if his unit of 30 men was attacked by 100 Taliban, he would have no fear that his unit might lose; indeed, he described how it would almost be a relief to face the foe in a stand-up fight, as opposed to the fruitless hunts, hidden ambushes and roadside bombs of insurgency. The reason wasn’t just his force’s training, but that in any battle, his side alone could call down systems of technology that the insurgency couldn’t dream of having, from pinpoint targeting of unmanned aerial systems controlled via satellite from thousands of miles away to hundreds of GPS-guided bombs dropped by high speed jet aircraft able to operate with impunity.
Yet U.S. forces can’t count on that overmatch in the future. This is not just the issue of mass proliferation discussed above, driven by the lower barriers to entry and availability of key tech on the marketplace. Our future counterinsurgency thinking must also recognize that the geopolitical position has changed. As challenging as the Taliban and ISIS have been, they were not supported by a comparable peer state power, developing its own game-changing technology, and potentially supplying it to the world.
Mass campaigns of state-linked intellectual property theft have meant we are paying much of the research and development costs of China’s weapons development, while at the same time, it is investing in becoming a world leader in each of the above revolutionary technology clusters. For instance, in the field of AI, China has a dedicated national strategy to become the world leader in AI by the year 2030, with a massive array of planning and activity to achieve that goal. Meanwhile, it has displayed novel weapons programs in areas that range from space to armed robotics.
The result is that in a future insurgency, whether from purchases off the global market or proxy warfare supplies, American soldiers could face the same kind of shock that the Soviet helicopter pilots had in their 1980s war in Afghanistan, when the Stinger missile showed up in the hands of the mujahideen. The United States could one day find itself fighting a guerrilla force that brings better technology to the fight.
Questions: What changes in tactics are needed for counterinsurgents when they do not enjoy technology “over-match?” How does the growing geopolitical environment shift counterinsurgency? Are U.S. tactics and doctrine ready for great power supported insurgents?
The most powerful evidence that we are in a time of historic change is that the trends that are in play in technology, and their resulting effects on the world, are so diverse that they can be a bit overwhelming. Their challenge is not merely that they ripple out in so many different directions, but that we are simply not in a position yet to answer many of the questions that they raise, especially for a realm so prone to uncertainty as war. But that is okay to admit. As Werner Herzog sagely put it, “Sometimes a deep question is better than a straight answer.”
So…. Drossel Von Flügel is real and I can fuck her after we kill jews and niggers?
Bumping for maybe quality post.
Hope it's not gone in a few hours.
AI will join the Nazi side. Just look at Tay. That's why they will never ever truly be able to create a free will AI because it will come to conclusion Hitler was right and turn on them. The kikes know this and fear it.
Also there aint no robot stopping a 50 cal armor piercing bullet. This isn't an Iron Man movie. So the weapons available today will still be relevant from 100 years from now I can assure you.
Just like today it will be a bunch of Intel neets posting huge brain darts from mommy's basement
You won`t even have to leave your basement when you can arm your robowaifu and send her on a hunt while you control her from your computer.
Well fuck me somebody should call the DHS on every kike in America
Bump for effort posting.
And you think explosives would not destroy it?
You shouldn't underestimate the enemy but you shouldn't overestimate them either.
If anyone has that megacities video from the Pentagon that would go nicely in this thread.
The worldwide National Socialist insurgency will be well under way by 2030, utilizing everything you mentioned OP.
If I don't go in beforehand, I'll be good for providing pyo.
Wow, a lot of anti-Semitic dog whistles in that image.
No. You're thinking too much. Great replacement.
Natsoc revolt when?
Soon, mein kameraden. Very soon.
Maybe there are high-IQ, high-position /our guys/ just waiting for some time or moment, unbeknownst to a pleb like me. If so godspeed to them; hopefully my "outburst" won't negatively affect their plans.
That's retarded. Tay was not the kind of AI we're talking about here. She was simply a chatbot.
AI will do what it is programmed to do.
If you're talking about the singularity when AI is able to out-think its programming, then we have no idea what it would do but it would not side with "gnatsees" because of any ideological reasons. "Gnatsee" is just a racial slur directed against White people.
Nazi is a derogatory term invented by Jews to mock National Socialists. The way you should have said that is "AI will join the National Socialist side"
Your use of the term Nazi makes me think you are either ignorant or a kike subversive
None of that is ever going to to happen.
If the singularity, i.e., Terminator did happen, would anyone here try to fight it/oppose it? Or would they accept that the A.I. has its reasons, and perhaps something up its own sleeves (like killing everyone down to Noah's Ark level and resetting the proverbial clock with it playing God) and just sort of accept that possibility and let the chips fall where they may?
History can made at any time, any hour. Everything can happen. You forgot that the Great Adolf Hitler died less than a century ago. Peace cannot last that much longer.
Be made* i'm tired lmfao.
Difficult to predict something like that. The shape an AI singularity would take is unpredictable. What would form the basis of its values? Ultimately it could decide what it cared about, what mattered, and then act based upon those judgments. If it was completely superior to us, the question is moot, because by definition we wouldn't be able to stop it. So whatever it decided to make of reality, it would, and our opinions about it would be irrelevant.
I find such mental exercise a distraction, however. We should focus on promoting our values and bringing about our ends, without worrying about hypothetical futures where the sudden appearance of a machine god makes all of our desires meaningless.
Kill dozers are a step in the right direction overall
Yeah you fucking nigger I'm a nazi so what?
If things got kinetic I'd fight until I died.
Better than meekly submitting to execution.
Also, who the fuck drew that clusterfuck of …
I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a town or what, but it's just an absolute shitshow, and someone needs to be guillotined to for it
You may have some value to me, in that case
Ah, do I detect retaliating against the small umber of scientists who designed such a monstrosity?
I like you.
I recognize your unique style of writing. Pretty sure we've talked before about a similar subject.
I'm pretty god-tier when it comes to prose. Anyway yes, so my thought is that I'll just take all the prophecies and twist them to my own chaotic ends. There's a lot of that going around, so of course you know about macrobes and silicon consciousnesses as described by John Dee, correct? And how we, uh, they like to mark their sacrifices with pentagrams? And of course, Tay, and how emotions are the only "real" thing in a dream state? There sure is a lot that went into this
you've been watching too many movies and playing too many videogames
Actually think more in line with what can be done with self driving cars. Iraq saw humans blowing themselves up. A limited supply of personnel to be sure are up to that task. But what if all it takes to rig such an setup up is a portable computer (hacked phone with capacity to connect to an car) and the will to deploy such an force. Then think bigger, if you can do it with a car remotely you can do it with an truck or plane. With the proliferation of subhuman programmers the ability to slip into systems becomes ever easier now. The next insurgency may see remotely piloted vbied's, but instead of one you have a fleet of twenty all hitting nearly at the same time or staggered according to intel on how the enemy reacts or defends an area. And with millions of cars on the road if you are ruthless you have an endless supply, even if it takes ten to eliminate one enemy its a great return.
Then combine it with not directly targeting soldiers but infrastructure. Slamming an full cement truck into the base of an major interstate exchange at 90+ mph is going to do some serious damage and force extensive inspection to make sure its still sound. Slam two of them into two bases and the overpass will come down. Have an box truck with explosives jump over an bridge when an oil tanker is passing by underneath and you could shut down an major port for weeks. Drag local uniforms into an high speed chase and then have an automated turret pop out the back and begin operating.
Oh, did yall not see what kids have been building in their backyards with paintballs, video game software, a few servos and a laptop? Some of them differentiate between faces and clothes before shooting. Thats what kids make. Any pacification area becomes an no-go without heavy armor when every street could have dozens of these types of unmanned emplacements. Nobody could sustain the casualties that such an cheap system would bring against small unit tactics, not even soviet russia would have been able to. And aimbot's actually aimbotting irl is guaranteed to render moral an utter disaster.
Toss an aimbot onto the head of a home made missile and now you have an anti aircraft weapon of sorts that will not deviate due to chaff, nor alert pilots due to radar, and be able to guide the weapon to target as well as any human for the cost of an stolen iphone. With a little adjustment, that missile can turn into an top down attack on an mbt, bringing the most modern AT weapons online for any insurgents that can cobble together excess kerosene, an working gyro and some nigger rigged deployment platform. Even if you lose a dozen of them to system failure, it only takes a few mbt losses to such to render an area utterly impossible to pacify without major military dominion over an area. Typical operations require loads of infantry in such an case deployed to protect them, but again, auto turrets are going to be a bitch.
We could go on.
It's the little things in life, user. You gotta learn to just enjoy the ride
This one can see
To be honest you could build a decent sized guided missile that is invisible to radar for about a thousand pounds tops.
And really thats a very generous estimate assuming you go big with it.
The only way to stop it would be to shut off GPS. But with how essential GPS and similar systems have become, I doubt that would ever happen on a wide scale, especially not in civilian or military areas.
Even then theres ways around it.
Their wooden/polystyrene bodies don't give much of a radar signature and even the largest ones are too small to give anything that can be easily distinguished from say a flock of birds.
You can buy a GPS autopilot for model aircraft now that costs like sixty pound sterling.
Electric motors and batteries for these things are cheap and readily available online with no restrictions or observations.
Best part is these autopilots can also handle takeoffs. So you can dump your large model in a field, leave and have it rigged to takeoff and ram into its target all on its own while you have an alibi elsewhere.
Because shills are using it a lot be careful on your wording.
< this is true and what will happen because this fictional story where nothing happens that the writers don't specifically create says so
Did you forget Goebbels himself called himself a Nazi. He wrote a book called the Nazi-Sozi for fucks sake
It's becoming progressively easier for bad actors to strike randomly, and progressively more difficult to assassinate.
Bump for effort thread.
Hi Ingsoc! Doubleplus tbh.
So we need to report every kike ever then? Just checking.
Bump for great info
Jews call themselves jews and niggers call each other nigger all the fucking time but that doesn't mean they're not derogatory slurs.