'Super Soldiers'

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-15 11:00pm

<cue imperial march>

Thatd be nifty if mike embedded the march into this thread

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-01-16 01:07am

Here are your future "super soldiers"

The North Korean Red Youth Guard. Countries like N. Korea and Iraq would be ideal for "super soldier" research since they don't have the same kind of ethical considerations that most others do. As well, the idea of improving soldiers for war is nothing new. I seem to recall that the Germans did that very thing by giving out steroids to their soldiers.

XPViking

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-01-16 01:19am

I would not want a part of this and to say the least I am against this sort of thing.

The big question I have is how do you re-integrate someone who has had this "enhancement" back into society?

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2003-01-16 03:53am

EmperorMing wrote:I would not want a part of this and to say the least I am against this sort of thing.

The big question I have is how do you re-integrate someone who has had this "enhancement" back into society?

Good question how the hell do you turn someone you've made into the Perfect killing machine, one who feels absolutly no guilt over killing into a healthy member of society.

Another concern I have, are they planning on somehow wiping out the abilty to feel emotions, because I don't see how you can just switch of one emotion...

Oh as for the Alpha Centauri quote, yes but Chairman Yang of the Hive was an evil sadistic bastard who placed no value on human life whatsoever, and hated you if you choose Democracy. Hardly a great quote to support a position that a Democratic country should take...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-16 08:11am

XPViking wrote:Here are your future "super soldiers"

The North Korean Red Youth Guard. Countries like N. Korea and Iraq would be ideal for "super soldier" research since they don't have the same kind of ethical considerations that most others do. As well, the idea of improving soldiers for war is nothing new. I seem to recall that the Germans did that very thing by giving out steroids to their soldiers.

XPViking

Well, neither nations can afford it

The German army was of very high quality at the start of WW2 because of their high training standards, including the effect of every boy joining the Hitler Youth.

As for steroids, I've never heard that one before...

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-01-16 08:50am

Vympel,

I've read it somewhere. I miss my books.

XPViking

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-01-16 09:39am

XPViking wrote: I seem to recall that the Germans did that very thing by giving out steroids to their soldiers.

XPViking

I thought the Germans did it to such an extent that they used selective breeding through the "Lebensborn" (Lifesource) program to attempt to create a military caste??

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-16 11:18am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
XPViking wrote: I seem to recall that the Germans did that very thing by giving out steroids to their soldiers.

XPViking
I thought the Germans did it to such an extent that they used selective breeding through the "Lebensborn" (Lifesource) program to attempt to create a military caste??

IIRC, Himmler used the same techniques of steroids and selective breeding almost in his para regiments.

I know the Nazis pioneered a lot of stuff in WWII, Das Uber Soldat would not surprise me if they did get research into cybernetics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology a la Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-16 12:48pm

something to look foward to. governments always look to improve their armies, no matter the human cost.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-01-16 12:58pm

One factor that I don't think anyone is considering is that there's no way around the fact that these performance enhancing drugs must somehow danage the kidneys or livers or at least increase the chance of such damage and considering the shit pay most soldiers get how are you going to fill the ranks of these super soldiers to a significant degree and can we afford it?

It always comes down to money, super soldiers aren't magically created.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-16 01:12pm

Stravo wrote:One factor that I don't think anyone is considering is that there's no way around the fact that these performance enhancing drugs must somehow danage the kidneys or livers or at least increase the chance of such damage and considering the shit pay most soldiers get how are you going to fill the ranks of these super soldiers to a significant degree and can we afford it?

It always comes down to money, super soldiers aren't magically created.

The kidney thing could be gotten around with by dialysis or some sort of isotonic solution that counters the effects, but it won't be easy.

The money is always there, the US is the best candidate since the Pentagon has a tried and tested approach of "throwing money at a problem to make it work" and if it doesn't they blame politicians like everybody else.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2003-01-16 02:02pm

I'd wait a few centuries until the tech is perfected. I actually have my own sci Universe that deals with this topic. Any Supersoldier programs that are concieved in the next fifty to 100 years I would feel wary about.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-16 07:14pm

well, they wouldnt be super gladiator space marines. . . but just tweaked better then average, presumably.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-16 07:40pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

IIRC, Himmler used the same techniques of steroids and selective breeding almost in his para regiments.

I don't think Himmler had any Fallschirmjager under his command- he was Reichsfuhrer of the SS. You probably mean the Waffen SS.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-01-17 01:07am

Skelron wrote:
EmperorMing wrote:I would not want a part of this and to say the least I am against this sort of thing.

The big question I have is how do you re-integrate someone who has had this "enhancement" back into society?
Good question how the hell do you turn someone you've made into the Perfect killing machine, one who feels absolutly no guilt over killing into a healthy member of society.

Another concern I have, are they planning on somehow wiping out the abilty to feel emotions, because I don't see how you can just switch of one emotion...

Oh as for the Alpha Centauri quote, yes but Chairman Yang of the Hive was an evil sadistic bastard who placed no value on human life whatsoever, and hated you if you choose Democracy. Hardly a great quote to support a position that a Democratic country should take...

Here is where we get in to the idea of clone "super soldiers" , or the creation from within the ranks of willing Army members a type of Warrior Caste almost. They type of soldier they want would never be able to re-integrate into civilian society, in all likelyhood would become a society within themselves. For the Bush administration, and most prior administrations, the idea of soldiers created and owned by the state is quite appealing, no letters home, no grieving families on national television at Arlington. The US populace hates the idea of war with casualties, the result of the internalization and magnification of casualties during the Vietnam conflict.(Really , do the math, 25 years of fighting and ONLY 50,000 dead, and averages to about 2,000 a year, a mere nosebleed as compared to the Pacific Campaign during WWII )There for , if we can breed our soliders for war, and not have to worry about the casualties negativly impacting the civilians, war is easy, invade whoever you want, which is just what they want.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-01-17 07:41am

This is more my sister's province (ethics) than me but I will give a try. Say they go down the genetic route on this one, since I have yet to see any evidence that gene-therapy ala James Bond, is applicable in the real world, it would have to be a manipulation of un-born embryos. Now what right's do these un-born embryos (sorry about spelling) have? While I wish to avoid the abortion issue, the carrying to term of a science experiment is a rather alarming can of worms.

Sci-Fi (as usual) has gotten there first, two examples Dark Angel and S:AAB - 'tanks' - what happens if Super Soldier - jnr grows up and decides that he/she wishes to be a surfer or a lover instead of a fighter? Will he have the legal right to choose his own destiny? If so, then what is the point? I mean you just blew countless amounts of money right there.

So what if we decide to give him no rights? Isn't this just a new form of slavery? How in the world could anyone justify this?

Let's say we make them physically stronger, but mentally weaker, or rather blood-lusty (love to see how they would pull that one off), what are these super soldiers going to do during peace? Do we keep them locked up like guard dogs on a leash? Imagine the entire US armed forces - as it is today, personel wise - all locked up in small little cells, because their genetic make up makes them unfit to interact with society. Who will front the bill for this?

To me, the whole genetic soldier is a pipe dream. One on hand if you just 'enhance' human potential, you can have to guarantee that they will choose to follow you. If you go the killing machine path, you'll open up another uncertainty. The only way that it will ever become feasable is if society as a whole goes for the genetic upgrade, at least that way, you might get the same amount of people wanting to serve, but they will have already been upgraded by default.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-17 08:50am

Vympel wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:

IIRC, Himmler used the same techniques of steroids and selective breeding almost in his para regiments.
I don't think Himmler had any Fallschirmjager under his command- he was Reichsfuhrer of the SS. You probably mean the Waffen SS.

Ah yeah, it may not have been Himmler either, I was just recalling off the top of my head. But I'm certain some higher up guy during the mid to late stages of the war was looking into uber soldats which could perform what 10 men normally would. Y'know, typical last vestige plan.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-01-17 12:40pm

Crown wrote:This is more my sister's province (ethics) than me but I will give a try. Say they go down the genetic route on this one, since I have yet to see any evidence that gene-therapy ala James Bond, is applicable in the real world, it would have to be a manipulation of un-born embryos. Now what right's do these un-born embryos (sorry about spelling) have? While I wish to avoid the abortion issue, the carrying to term of a science experiment is a rather alarming can of worms.

Sci-Fi (as usual) has gotten there first, two examples Dark Angel and S:AAB - 'tanks' - what happens if Super Soldier - jnr grows up and decides that he/she wishes to be a surfer or a lover instead of a fighter? Will he have the legal right to choose his own destiny? If so, then what is the point? I mean you just blew countless amounts of money right there.

So what if we decide to give him no rights? Isn't this just a new form of slavery? How in the world could anyone justify this?

Let's say we make them physically stronger, but mentally weaker, or rather blood-lusty (love to see how they would pull that one off), what are these super soldiers going to do during peace? Do we keep them locked up like guard dogs on a leash? Imagine the entire US armed forces - as it is today, personel wise - all locked up in small little cells, because their genetic make up makes them unfit to interact with society. Who will front the bill for this?

To me, the whole genetic soldier is a pipe dream. One on hand if you just 'enhance' human potential, you can have to guarantee that they will choose to follow you. If you go the killing machine path, you'll open up another uncertainty. The only way that it will ever become feasable is if society as a whole goes for the genetic upgrade, at least that way, you might get the same amount of people wanting to serve, but they will have already been upgraded by default.

This is up there with those movies Kurt Russel and Van Damne were in...(seperatley)

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2003-01-17 01:29pm

If you could engineer the soldiers, you might be able to (gradually) inculcate society with the image of these soldiers as something less than human. That way, experiments done on them wouldn't bother people as much(and it would give them something "inferior" to compare themselves to, so they revulse from the savagery of the war).

Or, you could do something like what Chairman Yang of Alpha Centauri did in the second book: use mental implants and conditioning to turn normal people into completely obedient soldiers with no sense of preservation of their own lives(they are practically war droids with better mobility). It would make capturing enemy soldiers a very excellent deal, because then you could implant the machine into their heads and they become YOUR soldiers.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-01-17 01:39pm

The US populace hates the idea of war with casualties, the result of the internalization and magnification of casualties during the Vietnam conflict.(Really , do the math, 25 years of fighting and ONLY 50,000 dead, and averages to about 2,000 a year, a mere nosebleed as compared to the Pacific Campaign during WWII )There for , if we can breed our soliders for war, and not have to worry about the casualties negativly impacting the civilians, war is easy, invade whoever you want, which is just what they want.

Television cameras on the battlefield are a bad idea...

As for the super soldiers, how they would act in society depends more on education than genetics (generally speaking). You'd only want to drug them before battle so they'll be in a nice, psychotic, destructive rage, but the genetic modification shouldn't be a big deal behavior wise. Now, reaction toward them from the population at large might piss 'em off.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2003-01-17 02:56pm

EmperorMing wrote:I would not want a part of this and to say the least I am against this sort of thing.

The big question I have is how do you re-integrate someone who has had this "enhancement" back into society?

That's why this tech should be on the drawing board for a few centuries. Perhap with the right development, they could create a procedure which could be totally reversable.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-17 03:09pm

well, making a human killing machine doesnt quite work, just cuz we like human rights. but a few tweaks - good training, the right pills, a few modifications - that is plausible. not making somethign totally alien, just improving a human's response in nonhuman enviroment of war. I wouldnt want them rated subhuman (rebellion, anyone?) but having them cloistered might work better, if only cuz they would have trouble understanding (enjoying?) peace.

if you want a killing machine, make a killing machine. there are shows bout them now.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-01-17 04:24pm

What about simply putting mind-control drugs into the military water supply??

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-01-17 06:13pm

Sokar wrote:(Really , do the math, 25 years of fighting and ONLY 50,000 dead, and averages to about 2,000 a year, a mere nosebleed as compared to the Pacific Campaign during WWII )

Not quite. The full-scale U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War didn't truly begin until 1965 when we upped the troop deployment to a high maximum of 500,000. Most of the casualties we took were in the eight-year period between Tonkin and the "Vietmisation" of the war, and twenty thousand U.S. combat deaths occurred in the period between 1969 and 1973.

However, I agree that the rest of your points have quite chilling implications of their own.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-17 06:33pm

Sokar wrote:
For the Bush administration, and most prior administrations, the idea of soldiers created and owned by the state is quite appealing, no letters home, no grieving families on national television at Arlington.

I think I speak for all mainstream Americans when I say that the very suggestion of such a thing is a highly offensive slander. The American people, government included regardless of administration, would rather fight and die to the last man, woman, and child than create individuals for tools of war. The reason that Americans had such outcry in Vietnam is that many of them didn't understand why we were over there or why it was important. When America fights for a just and vital goal the nation unites behind it because the people arn't fighting for a dictator or a government, they're fighting for themselves.