4 ms·

The gap between Military and Civilian tech is shrinking. It used to be a safe assumption that "the military is always 30 years ahead". But with consumer grade h

The gap between Military and Civilian tech is shrinking. It used to be a safe assumption that "the military is always 30 years ahead". But with consumer grade hardware becoming cheaper and cheaper, it's raising a pretty obvious risk to military operators. - Off the shelf Drones are dirt cheap. Plus you could build much more capable drones from consumer parts. See some of the long range drone people on youtube. - Communication. It used to be a billion dollar operation to put up a satellite. now closer to $20-30k.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> The gap between Military and Civilian tech is shrinking. Maybe it's vacillating. From the it's easier to destroy than to create perspective, this feels like the natural trend of warfare. We already had inexpensive explosives. The difference here is a worthwhile delivery system is getting cheap. It can be argued that drones themselves have been making big changes across all kinds of industries and this is part of that wave. Drones may turn to be as pivotal as locomotion, air-conditioning and the internet.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Cannons made forts very massive for awhile, and then they overcame them, and things changed. Even guns had done the same to armor.
  - mjh2539 3y ago
    Cannons made forts rely primarily on angled, earthwork curtains.
- uticus 3y ago
  Sometimes it vacillates between times of war and peace. The gap is usually wider when extended times of peace allow the "war tech" to be developed with the increased funding and secrecy allowed by peacetime. Sometimes it vacillates with general tech advancements. Tech driven by large bureaucratic structures will still occasionally fall behind what's available on an open market driven by competition and the public's bias toward cheaper goods. In other words, as a country's general economy goes, so goes its war chest... unless it manages a quite large war chest, in which case it can attempt to conquer another country and pillage the economic spoils of that country.
spacephysics 3y ago
I think it’s hard to say really. We can say that effective civilian tech is getting cheaper, but without knowing really what tech the military has, it’s hard to comment on the gap between the two. Given we had the SR71 blackbird in ‘64, a mere 20 years post WW2 which could honestly look to be something from the last couple decades, I’m convinced the global military powers have some eye watering tech that we can’t even comprehend. For example, it’s in the US’ best interest for people to think (re: Govs) “US has no defense against hypersonic missiles”. I would bet an arm and a leg that given the amount of money the US pours into military tech, that we have a counter measure available.
- themanmaran 3y ago
  I think the military advantage will me more and more concentrated in technology that is commercially impractical. Things like the Blackbird. Or a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Although I wouldn't be surprised if cargo ships start getting approved to use nuclear propulsion in the near future.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    How long would a nuclear powered ship that can't defend itself last on the oceans? I mean, I think nuclear fuel is highly valuable, no?
    - themanmaran 3y ago
      Apparently 30+ years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >Although I wouldn't be surprised if cargo ships start getting approved to use nuclear propulsion in the near future. I would be. The cost, the controls over nuclear technology, and probably other reasons all make it a complete non-starter.
- hylaride 3y ago
mjhay 3y ago
The military-industrial complex just being a sclerotic mass of grift certainly has helped narrow this gap.
hnbad 3y ago
> It used to be a safe assumption that "the military is always 30 years ahead". IDK if that isn't still true about the US military. The most high-tech equipment sent to Ukraine is still decades old. Israel receives more up-to-date equipment but we haven't seen them deal with $400 drones yet -- it's likely they'd fare much better. We actually don't know how far US military tech is ahead because we haven't seen that tech being actively used in the battlefield. I think the greater issue is that if the US were to enter a conflict where that tech would be necessary, it would likely face an opponent that also has access to nuclear weapons and then that tech is unlikely to remain relevant for long unless it can prevent every single nuclear weapon from launching and arming.
scott_w 3y ago
Yes and no. While some of the off-the-shelf drones can do damage to military equipment right now, militaries will always adapt to the threat, just as they have for thousands of years. The thing to always bear in mind is scale: slightly less-advanced tech, but 100x as much of it, is probably still better. Part of me wonders if the (relatively) small scale of current military engagements is skewing the discussion. Bret Deveraux[1] mentions that WW2 saw millions of tons of explosives being dropped on London and Berlin. Even last winter, Russia didn't come close to matching the destruction of the Blitz. [1] https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> The gap between Military and Civilian tech is shrinking. Maybe it's vacillating. From the it's easier to destroy than to create perspective, this feels like the natural trend of warfare. We already had inexpensive explosives. The difference here is a worthwhile delivery system is getting cheap. It can be argued that drones themselves have been making big changes across all kinds of industries and this is part of that wave. Drones may turn to be as pivotal as locomotion, air-conditioning and the internet.

bombcar 3y ago
Cannons made forts very massive for awhile, and then they overcame them, and things changed. Even guns had done the same to armor.
- mjh2539 3y ago
  Cannons made forts rely primarily on angled, earthwork curtains.
uticus 3y ago
Sometimes it vacillates between times of war and peace. The gap is usually wider when extended times of peace allow the "war tech" to be developed with the increased funding and secrecy allowed by peacetime. Sometimes it vacillates with general tech advancements. Tech driven by large bureaucratic structures will still occasionally fall behind what's available on an open market driven by competition and the public's bias toward cheaper goods. In other words, as a country's general economy goes, so goes its war chest... unless it manages a quite large war chest, in which case it can attempt to conquer another country and pillage the economic spoils of that country.

spacephysics 3y ago

I think it’s hard to say really. We can say that effective civilian tech is getting cheaper, but without knowing really what tech the military has, it’s hard to comment on the gap between the two. Given we had the SR71 blackbird in ‘64, a mere 20 years post WW2 which could honestly look to be something from the last couple decades, I’m convinced the global military powers have some eye watering tech that we can’t even comprehend. For example, it’s in the US’ best interest for people to think (re: Govs) “US has no defense against hypersonic missiles”. I would bet an arm and a leg that given the amount of money the US pours into military tech, that we have a counter measure available.

themanmaran 3y ago
I think the military advantage will me more and more concentrated in technology that is commercially impractical. Things like the Blackbird. Or a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Although I wouldn't be surprised if cargo ships start getting approved to use nuclear propulsion in the near future.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  How long would a nuclear powered ship that can't defend itself last on the oceans? I mean, I think nuclear fuel is highly valuable, no?
  - themanmaran 3y ago
    Apparently 30+ years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
- ghaff 3y ago
  >Although I wouldn't be surprised if cargo ships start getting approved to use nuclear propulsion in the near future. I would be. The cost, the controls over nuclear technology, and probably other reasons all make it a complete non-starter.
hylaride 3y ago

mjhay 3y ago

The military-industrial complex just being a sclerotic mass of grift certainly has helped narrow this gap.

hnbad 3y ago

> It used to be a safe assumption that "the military is always 30 years ahead". IDK if that isn't still true about the US military. The most high-tech equipment sent to Ukraine is still decades old. Israel receives more up-to-date equipment but we haven't seen them deal with $400 drones yet -- it's likely they'd fare much better. We actually don't know how far US military tech is ahead because we haven't seen that tech being actively used in the battlefield. I think the greater issue is that if the US were to enter a conflict where that tech would be necessary, it would likely face an opponent that also has access to nuclear weapons and then that tech is unlikely to remain relevant for long unless it can prevent every single nuclear weapon from launching and arming.

scott_w 3y ago

Yes and no. While some of the off-the-shelf drones can do damage to military equipment right now, militaries will always adapt to the threat, just as they have for thousands of years. The thing to always bear in mind is scale: slightly less-advanced tech, but 100x as much of it, is probably still better. Part of me wonders if the (relatively) small scale of current military engagements is skewing the discussion. Bret Deveraux[1] mentions that WW2 saw millions of tons of explosives being dropped on London and Berlin. Even last winter, Russia didn't come close to matching the destruction of the Blitz. [1] https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...