3 ms·

as a former enlisted US Army soldier i dont see the issue. - we have electronics that insist upon murder constantly. the IFF computer is a blood-thirsty piece

as a former enlisted US Army soldier i dont see the issue. - we have electronics that insist upon murder constantly. the IFF computer is a blood-thirsty piece of garbage that wants every tank on the battlefield scorched and ruined. no no, no firing solutions today my saucy chiquita, today we let the allied APC through. - robots that talk about sex? LT's and bird colonels have been droning on about our habits and practices whilst on leave since time immemorial. Yes i get it, shes a hungarian prostitute. Double-bag everything and save the receipts for the medics when theyre naming your new STD.

frogpelt 8y ago
Did your IFF default to foe?
saulrh 8y ago
...Do you mind if I save your comment and quote you in future debates I get into on this topic? I've cited TLAMs in "killer drone" shitstorms but I could never refine my argument to achieve of pithiness and humor you have. :P
mirimir 8y ago
> no no, no firing solutions today my saucy chiquita, today we let the allied APC through. But "foe" is obviously the safest default, right? At least, from the IFF computer's perspective.
- saulrh 8y ago
  Probably from the perspective of the people on either end, too, over time - I cannot imagine that the RoE and confidence bounds were designed without considering the expected costs of blue-on-blue incidents compared to the alternatives.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  I mean, it kind of has to fail-deadly to be of any use at all - since what's a tank with no IFF?
  - mirimir 8y ago
    "Firing solution ready. Execute?" seems like an unambiguous query. But I know nothing about this stuff. And I wonder what happens if the operator doesn't respond. I'm guessing that nothing happens. Because who wants a tank with an unconscious or dead operator shooting at everything?
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      The enemy doesn't - It could still be useful for the own party. Are they remote-controllable? It'd be great to get some insight into this.
starbeast 8y ago
A friend of mine's grandad used to comment that in the second world war, as British infantry, the one place you didn't want to be was anywhere near the Americans. They were just as likely to drop bombs on you as the Germans were. And they had more bombs and could hit the wrong target with much greater reliability than the German's could hit the right one. I am greatly warmed to see that this friendly tradition between us is still in effect and that you have thoughtfully extended the favour onto everything else that moves or looks like it might do. I do wonder however if there might be a slight commercial conflict of interest going on. Tell me, do the people who make the computers that tell you when to fire the guns and missiles and stuff, also sell you the rather expensive ammunition and missiles that then get fired? As perhaps the computer might be more reliable if they were two separate companies and couldn't hold shares in each other. Not trying to imply that a weapon's manufacturer would be as immoral with their consumables as an inkjet printer manufacturer, but it never hurts to be careful and could even save some of those all important tax dollars in the long run. Or the brass could have even more Hungarian prostitutes and novel infections for the medics to coo at, either way.

frogpelt 8y ago

Did your IFF default to foe?

saulrh 8y ago

...Do you mind if I save your comment and quote you in future debates I get into on this topic? I've cited TLAMs in "killer drone" shitstorms but I could never refine my argument to achieve of pithiness and humor you have. :P

mirimir 8y ago

> no no, no firing solutions today my saucy chiquita, today we let the allied APC through. But "foe" is obviously the safest default, right? At least, from the IFF computer's perspective.

saulrh 8y ago
Probably from the perspective of the people on either end, too, over time - I cannot imagine that the RoE and confidence bounds were designed without considering the expected costs of blue-on-blue incidents compared to the alternatives.
DuskStar 8y ago
I mean, it kind of has to fail-deadly to be of any use at all - since what's a tank with no IFF?
- mirimir 8y ago
  "Firing solution ready. Execute?" seems like an unambiguous query. But I know nothing about this stuff. And I wonder what happens if the operator doesn't respond. I'm guessing that nothing happens. Because who wants a tank with an unconscious or dead operator shooting at everything?
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    The enemy doesn't - It could still be useful for the own party. Are they remote-controllable? It'd be great to get some insight into this.

starbeast 8y ago

A friend of mine's grandad used to comment that in the second world war, as British infantry, the one place you didn't want to be was anywhere near the Americans. They were just as likely to drop bombs on you as the Germans were. And they had more bombs and could hit the wrong target with much greater reliability than the German's could hit the right one. I am greatly warmed to see that this friendly tradition between us is still in effect and that you have thoughtfully extended the favour onto everything else that moves or looks like it might do. I do wonder however if there might be a slight commercial conflict of interest going on. Tell me, do the people who make the computers that tell you when to fire the guns and missiles and stuff, also sell you the rather expensive ammunition and missiles that then get fired? As perhaps the computer might be more reliable if they were two separate companies and couldn't hold shares in each other. Not trying to imply that a weapon's manufacturer would be as immoral with their consumables as an inkjet printer manufacturer, but it never hurts to be careful and could even save some of those all important tax dollars in the long run. Or the brass could have even more Hungarian prostitutes and novel infections for the medics to coo at, either way.