5 ms·

Three thoughts immediately came to mind: Doesn't the US spend enough on the military already?! I wonder how much information an enemy could obtain if they got

Three thoughts immediately came to mind: Doesn't the US spend enough on the military already?! I wonder how much information an enemy could obtain if they got a hold of one of these? And then the realization that the answer is probably "not much" and that by an enemy holding on to one, they are almost certainly giving away their position. So I wonder if a lot of the utility in the long run will come from tracking phones that get lost and stolen on a battlefield.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
First, No, we really don't spend enough on the Military. If you want to spend less money on the Military try voting for Presidents who don't start wars (though since you seem like a liberal you probably thought you were doing that last time so joke's on you). Right now you have U.S. troops deployed in three active military conflicts AND patrolling the entire world's oceans while their budget is being cut. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have proper body armor to this day! (And for those who think we've handed Libya over to NATO I'd point out that over 80% of NATO's military resources are U.S. Resources and the Supreme European Commander of NATO is an American Admiral) Second any communication device used by the military is both encrypted like crazy and has remote wipe capabilities. Their walkie talkies use rotating, encrypted digital channels these days. So I don't think a cell. phone is going to be a gold mine of information. In fact, on the theory that smartphones could give soldiers access to documents they'd normally have to carry physical copies of the cell. phone actually increases security on the ground Edit: To elaborate on the NATO point count the Aircraft Carriers. The U.S. has 12 in service. Every other country in NATO combined has 6.
- muhfuhkuh 16y ago
  "though since you seem like a liberal you probably thought you were doing that last time so joke's on you" Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan as that was the actual war where the Taliban were suspected of hiding bin Laden. "while their budget is being cut" I seem to recall that all the "cuts" of late are being led almost exclusively by the new "anti-establishment" conservatives and tea party republicans, of which you seem to be, so joke's on you.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    I said "start wars" so saying Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan doesn't really discredit that. As far as the cuts I wasn't taking a side either way. I'm not a conservative or a tea party activist (in fact I think it's foolish to think we can cut taxes given the amount of debt we've run up over the last decade) Now a question for you: Has it occurred to you that your "Us vs. Them" attitude has perverted your view of the world? I said nothing Conservative or Tea Party-esque in my original post. In fact I attacked the idea of Presidents starting wars which Bush did at least twice as much as Obama did. So assuming I was either was simply not rational.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  Are you saying that we don't spend enough on the military given the tasks that our leaders have given the military? Or are you saying that as a general principle the level of funding for the military is too small? Personally I think the military budget should be drastically cut. This includes cutting back on military commitments. I don't see how it is efficacious for the U.S. to spend around 5% GDP on defense matters while European countries spend much leas as a percent of GDP. It does not appear to me that the average American benefits enough to justify this expense.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    I'm saying we don't spend enough given the tasks they have been assigned. If the President (whoever he might be) wants to be the World's Police Man than we need to spend accordingly and that's not what's happening now. What's happening now is we're sending soldiers into harm's way with insufficient protection because we can't afford enough body armor. Think about this for a second. From Bush's first day in office to now the National Debt increased from $5.73 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion dollars yet with all that money our Soldiers are having to ask their families to buy them body armor with personal funds because the Government won't. That's obscene.
markkat 16y ago
I think a large part of the motivation is to limit friendly fire. My father served in Vietnam. He said he was shot at by the US much more often than by the VC. Once he and a pal were sent to guard the perimeter. Just after they got into position, their base opened up on them.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  A cell. phone is not going to prevent friendly fire. The military already has extensive technology for this (Google "Identification Friend or Foe"). More to the point if you've ever been in a live fire situation you realize fairly quickly it isn't a situation where you could hear a cell. phone (or the guy next to you unless he's screaming)
  - markkat 16y ago
    I don't mean a phone call to stop ff, just tracking the positions of the phones to prevent it.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      With all due respect to Military GPS (which is more accurate than Consumer GPS) it can't identify friendly combatants from unfriendly ones on the ground (and again they have IFF for that). As far as air strikes they're only called in if you have eyes on the target. The whole process is fairly complicated in that a commander on the ground has to order the air strike from an Analyst (usually in Florida). The analyst then reviews satellite and low altitude surveillance air craft footage to confirm the target and only then is it passed on to the drone pilot (usually in Nevada). To the best of my knowledge only 2 U.S. soldiers have ever been killed by air-based friendly fire in the modern (aka Predator Drone) era (and I remember because it was only a couple weeks ago and the articles cited it as the first time that had ever happened)
  - gte910h 16y ago
    IFF is a plane/vehicles thing really.

TomOfTTB 16y ago

First, No, we really don't spend enough on the Military. If you want to spend less money on the Military try voting for Presidents who don't start wars (though since you seem like a liberal you probably thought you were doing that last time so joke's on you). Right now you have U.S. troops deployed in three active military conflicts AND patrolling the entire world's oceans while their budget is being cut. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have proper body armor to this day! (And for those who think we've handed Libya over to NATO I'd point out that over 80% of NATO's military resources are U.S. Resources and the Supreme European Commander of NATO is an American Admiral) Second any communication device used by the military is both encrypted like crazy and has remote wipe capabilities. Their walkie talkies use rotating, encrypted digital channels these days. So I don't think a cell. phone is going to be a gold mine of information. In fact, on the theory that smartphones could give soldiers access to documents they'd normally have to carry physical copies of the cell. phone actually increases security on the ground Edit: To elaborate on the NATO point count the Aircraft Carriers. The U.S. has 12 in service. Every other country in NATO combined has 6.

muhfuhkuh 16y ago
"though since you seem like a liberal you probably thought you were doing that last time so joke's on you" Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan as that was the actual war where the Taliban were suspected of hiding bin Laden. "while their budget is being cut" I seem to recall that all the "cuts" of late are being led almost exclusively by the new "anti-establishment" conservatives and tea party republicans, of which you seem to be, so joke's on you.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I said "start wars" so saying Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan doesn't really discredit that. As far as the cuts I wasn't taking a side either way. I'm not a conservative or a tea party activist (in fact I think it's foolish to think we can cut taxes given the amount of debt we've run up over the last decade) Now a question for you: Has it occurred to you that your "Us vs. Them" attitude has perverted your view of the world? I said nothing Conservative or Tea Party-esque in my original post. In fact I attacked the idea of Presidents starting wars which Bush did at least twice as much as Obama did. So assuming I was either was simply not rational.
yequalsx 16y ago
Are you saying that we don't spend enough on the military given the tasks that our leaders have given the military? Or are you saying that as a general principle the level of funding for the military is too small? Personally I think the military budget should be drastically cut. This includes cutting back on military commitments. I don't see how it is efficacious for the U.S. to spend around 5% GDP on defense matters while European countries spend much leas as a percent of GDP. It does not appear to me that the average American benefits enough to justify this expense.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I'm saying we don't spend enough given the tasks they have been assigned. If the President (whoever he might be) wants to be the World's Police Man than we need to spend accordingly and that's not what's happening now. What's happening now is we're sending soldiers into harm's way with insufficient protection because we can't afford enough body armor. Think about this for a second. From Bush's first day in office to now the National Debt increased from $5.73 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion dollars yet with all that money our Soldiers are having to ask their families to buy them body armor with personal funds because the Government won't. That's obscene.

markkat 16y ago

I think a large part of the motivation is to limit friendly fire. My father served in Vietnam. He said he was shot at by the US much more often than by the VC. Once he and a pal were sent to guard the perimeter. Just after they got into position, their base opened up on them.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
A cell. phone is not going to prevent friendly fire. The military already has extensive technology for this (Google "Identification Friend or Foe"). More to the point if you've ever been in a live fire situation you realize fairly quickly it isn't a situation where you could hear a cell. phone (or the guy next to you unless he's screaming)
- markkat 16y ago
  I don't mean a phone call to stop ff, just tracking the positions of the phones to prevent it.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    With all due respect to Military GPS (which is more accurate than Consumer GPS) it can't identify friendly combatants from unfriendly ones on the ground (and again they have IFF for that). As far as air strikes they're only called in if you have eyes on the target. The whole process is fairly complicated in that a commander on the ground has to order the air strike from an Analyst (usually in Florida). The analyst then reviews satellite and low altitude surveillance air craft footage to confirm the target and only then is it passed on to the drone pilot (usually in Nevada). To the best of my knowledge only 2 U.S. soldiers have ever been killed by air-based friendly fire in the modern (aka Predator Drone) era (and I remember because it was only a couple weeks ago and the articles cited it as the first time that had ever happened)
- gte910h 16y ago
  IFF is a plane/vehicles thing really.