Jurassic World - That final scene (spoiler warning)

[dragoongfa]

Ok...

This is blatantly and downright wrong on so many levels.

You might want to consider a few realities.

-Modern militaries are not trained and armed to fight dinosaurs. I feel silly pointing that out, but apparantly it needs to be said.

Soldiers, Tankmen and Airmen are trained to kill anything they are pointed. It doesn't matter who or what they are.

-Military force and its components are finely wrought tools.

Most types of military equipment is called 'soldier proof' for a reason. Military equipment is designed to tolerate abusive behavior.

-Just because you have an amazing screwdriver, doesn't mean that it would make an amazing hammer or saw.

Guns kill flesh and blood things, it's as simple as that.

-Animals are strong, tough, fast, and often stealthy.

Yes, no, no and lol no.

No animal and no dinosaur can chew through composite armor, outrun military vehicles and hide from advanced military optics and sensors.

-Dinosaurs are often very large, very strong animals.

Bigger targets for anti tank weapons, heavy machine guns, bombs and even small arms.

-Animals do not do all of the things soldiers and commanders train to cope with. There are no supply lines, no morale, nothing to spy on or subvert, and worst of all no clear aim beyond survival.

Animals fear fire, loud noices and have predictable behavior. Unless people somehow believe that dinosaurs are able to overcome the primal fear of fire all animals have and are born with the natural ability to not fear the sound of gunfire, exploding artillery shells and stuff that smells of oil and fire.

-Soldiers who haven't trained to fight dinosaurs would be ill suited to do so. Where do you shoot a T-Rex to kill it quickly before it turns your whole squad to paste? Do you know how fucking hard it is to kill a Cape Buffallo with a GIANT gun? I think huge dinos would tend to be even more difficult to kill.

Ehmm...

You don't need to aim at a particular spot to kill a rampaging elephant or hippo with one of this:

-Explosives (since we've given up on man-portable projectile weapons) are expensive, messy, dangerous, and useless at close range. Explosive weapons have been designed to wound and kill HUMANS, who are basically bags of watery meat, not dinosaurs which are somewhat tougher. They are designed to destroy things like vehicles, with heat signatures and on roads. You really need to think when you're going to blow something up, unless you don't care about what you're destroying or who is there with you.

Unless dinosaurs can magically teleport in close range they will have to wade through kilometer long killing fields of explosives, artillery, heavy machine gun fire, napalm fire and etc. only to be met by a dozens of tanks, IFVs and helicopters.

Also tanks and IFVs can withstand close explosions

-Fear. Most humans have a healthy and atavistic fear of being torn to shreds by giant, roaring predators. We train SEALs and the like to do certain things, and it's that training above all that makes them so effective. They have NOT been trained to deal with monsters from their nightmares, and you'd be a little naive to imagine that they wouldn't lose their shit too.

Extra incentive to stay at long range which modern militaries are masters of doing anyway.

-C&C Just how the fuck are you managing this war? Who is in charged? Superior forces without strong command have a rich and full history of being slaughtered by people with a lot less fearful weapons than T-Rex.

This phrase is just wrong on so many levels. The chain of command is there for a reason.

 

[dragoongfa]

Interestingly enough, simply repeating, "You're wrong" many many times isn't a convincing argument. Repeating your original assumptions, which are now very clearly based on 0 understanding of or experience with modern military realities, are also not really useful.

An American telling that to a Greek is a joke in and on itself.

Bottom line, just because "It makes sense" to you, doesn't mean it's real. Here's a helpful sub-article on RationalWiki that highlights the particular nature of your 'Fractal Wrongness'. On a total tangent, I was just talking to someone on another thread about this concept the other day, but I didn't expect to have a solid example of it already.

Whatever works for you man, have a nice day.

 

[dragoongfa]

Interestingly enough, simply repeating, "You're wrong" many many times isn't a convincing argument. Repeating your original assumptions, which are now very clearly based on 0 understanding of or experience with modern military realities, are also not really useful.

An American telling that to a Greek is joke in and on itself.

I'm not an American.

Your publicly available Escapist profile disagrees with you.

Bottom line, just because "It makes sense" to you, doesn't mean it's real. Here's a helpful sub-article on RationalWiki that highlights the particular nature of your 'Fractal Wrongness'. On a total tangent, I was just talking to someone on another thread about this concept the other day, but I didn't expect to have a solid example of it already.

Whatever works for you man, have a nice day.

Yeah, that's your problem exactly.

You are making no sense at all here.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Sorry, but as a sci-fi AND anime fan, I liked PR. I dig giant robots and giant monster battles. Don't give a damn about the physics of that at all.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Sorry, but as a sci-fi AND anime fan, I liked PR. I dig giant robots and giant monster battles. Don't give a damn about the physics of that at all.

And I am a Sci-Fi fan too. Though I did grow up on a different breed of fiction. And I realize that. For better or worse.

But do know, that giant robots will never be military machines.

The old argument that they're supposedly too heavy? I disagree. After all - And hey, this is still technically on-topic! - dinosaurs were huge and able to walk the Earth. If something living can do it, something artificial can too. If you're talking about the complexity by which to make the machine do it leaves too much work, I would say that's just a case of working out the kinks and details, a matter of time and not physics. I would say that we're about ready to begin work on the multiped tank (Ghost in the Shell) right about now. From there, we could work on bigger, better, and more ambitious projects. Robotics on the whole has alot of ups and downs, since it's like teaching a baby without instincts to walk, but that's a HARD task, not impossible.

 

[Jack Action]

I'm sure that McNamara would have agreed with you. Dismissing your enemy because of your total lack of experience with their capabilities on their home turf is suicide. It's the shit that Admirals think about because they're not the ones dying.

Funny you should bring up Captain Firebomb-them-into-submission in this.

 

[ForumSafari]

The old argument that they're supposedly too heavy? I disagree. After all - And hey, this is still technically on-topic! - dinosaurs were huge and able to walk the Earth. If something living can do it, something artificial can too. If you're talking about the complexity by which to make the machine do it leaves too much work, I would say that's just a case of working out the kinks and details, a matter of time and not physics. I would say that we're about ready to begin work on the multiped tank (Ghost in the Shell) right about now. From there, we could work on bigger, better, and more ambitious projects. Robotics on the whole has alot of ups and downs, since it's like teaching a baby without instincts to walk, but that's a HARD task, not impossible.

The big reason not to use legged vehicles, particularly dumb-ass Gundam style ones, is that they're unnecessarily complex. Why bother designing complex and delicate legs for a machine when a set of tracks are better? I mean, aside from being harder to hide, being a bigger target, putting more pressure on the ground and providing a nice single point of failure what do legs on a tank even do? They're not faster, they're not better over uneven terrain and they're not more stable. The main reason we like machines with legs; they're pleasing to us from an anthropomorphic and affectionate perspective, don't apply to military vehicles. What's a suitable sacrifice in a robo-pet or a robo-butler to gain the affection from the owner is out of the question for a vehicle designed to outlast other vehicles.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

I don't know any of those things, in fact. And while you could learn the weight of a tank, you can't do the same for a T-Rex, say, or its structure. For instance, the interesting development by which they're saying now that dinosaur bones may have been hollow, and yet perfect as load-bearing limbs. At any rate, putting aside what we do or don't know about dinosaurs or giant robots, I don't want to argue Square-Cube Law. I want it TESTED. I want it PROVEN. I want to see someone try this shit and put that law on the chopping block until it's hammered out one way or the other. The debate will go on forever until someone gives it a go. In short, I'm waiting for the Scientific Method to progress to the next step here. I want an experiment.

Poit

However, I CAN see why people would be turned off for reasons of practicallity and need. I'm more interested in seeing if it can be done more than seeing where it has a use in society, per se. It's all about the science.

 

[ForumSafari]

However, I CAN see why people would be turned off for reasons of practicallity and need. I'm more interested in seeing if it can be done more than seeing where it has a use in society, per se. It's all about the science.

Well it's more engineering than science but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. I can't see Gundam stuff working because the ground doesn't react properly to its' weight, the leaping around just wouldn't work in real life, but something like the squatter mechs in MechWarrior would totally work. I mean, look at what Boston Dynamics are building, strap a tiny turret with a rifle or a grenade launcher to the top and up-armour it and I can see it being usable as a ground roaming drone. You could probably upscale one of those as a one or two person vehicle.

Unfortunately we had a good thread on /tg/ a while ago about this and what came up was the jarring motion of the mech on the pilot. You'd probably end up quite severely injured by taking one up to a run with the stirring motion and the jolts as it lands each step. In practice I don't think you'd ever be able to use a legged vehicle with a pilot but as a robot or a drone I can see them being usable.

In fact the UK Government and other parties can see it being so usable so soon that there has been a fair amount of talking about whether using robots in combat is ethical.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

No need to get snippy, fella. That isn't good enough for me. Bust the myth with some real tests. Recreate the conditions and show your work. You point at buildings and say no, I point at building-sized animals and say yes. Show me some building-sized robots and say no. Till then, it's unproven.

Snip

I hadn't considered the jarring movements a pilot would experience. Any chance you could compensate with internal suspension for the cockpit?