Military technology comes from

club to attack/defense robots by

Research and Development (R&D)
Dr. György Seres DSc.
2003
What’s different between animal
and human being?
 What’s different between animal
and human being?
Only human being uses military technology.
 Military technology comes from
club to attack/defense robots by
Research and Development (R&D)
I show selections from history
of Military R&D for illustration
Selections from history
of Military R&D

Attack tools
 Versions of clubs
Version 1.0 Version 2.0

Beta version

Version 3.0 Version 4.0

Swords and sabres
Individual distance shooting
Artillery
Bombs
Selections from history
of Military R&D
Defensive tools and
vehicles
Defensive tools
Vehicles
Unmanned land, undersea and
air combat vehicles
Selections from history
of Military R&D

Systems
Air Defense System
Strategic Defense Initiative
( SDI or Star Wars)
Selections from history
of Military R&D

Future
By US Army
“”The nature of modern warfare
demands that we fight as a joint
team. … Joint Vision 2010
provides an operationally based
template for the evolution of the
Armed Forces for a challenging
and uncertain future. ….”
John M. Shalikashvili
Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Digital

battlefield
By US Air Force „Air
For ce
The Air Force University conducted
20
a study to identify the 25 ”
concepts,
capabilities, and technologies the
United States will require
remaining the dominant air and
space force in the first quarter of
the 21st century.
The study was called Air Force 2025.
Worldwide C4I system
Virtual theatre of war
 By NMD Team

The primary mission of National Missile Defense is

defense of the United States (all 50 states) against a
threat of a limited strategic ballistic missile attack
from a rogue nation.
Although intended to protect the United States only,
the proposed NMD system will not work without the
use of radars in Europe or in territories controlled by
European countries.
National Missiles Defense
system ( NMD )
Only two type of weapons were
developed, against which
wasn’t effective defense!

First conclusion
Only two type of weapons were
developed, against which
wasn’t effective defense!
Club Nuclear weapon

&
Defensive tool against club was
frightful mask only
 The SDI was planned as
defensive tool against nuclear
weapon
It hasn’t been realized, but as a result
the USSR collapsed
 Universal model
of military systems

I developed a model
for study of Military R&D,
like an old model creator
 Universal model
of military systems
Environment Military system Purpose

Alliance, national
Attack, defense
armed forces,
branches, etc.

Enemy Technology
Command,
neighbours,
Survival
logistics, etc.

Friendly Human

Geographical,
meteorological,
daytime, etc. Result
Organization
Neutral

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

Purpose of military systems must be
determined by friendly environment
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy Technology
Survival

… ordestroying,
Victory, threat,
deterrent, extortion,
Friendly Human occupation,
defense, etc.

Result
Organization
Neutral

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

But purpose can be determinated
also by neutral environment
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy Technology
Survival

Friendly Human

Result
Organization
Neutral Surviving a desert
or sea storm, etc.

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

And purpose can be determinate
also by enemy environment
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy Technology
Survival

Friendly Human Retreat, etc.

Result
Organization
Neutral

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

R&D mission: to reach all the purposes
of military systems

Second conclusion
R&D mission: to reach all the purposes
of military systems
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy Technology
Survival

… ordestroying,
Victory, threat,
deterrent, extortion,
Friendly Human occupation,
defense, etc.
Retreat, etc.

Result
Organization
Neutral Surviving a desert
or sea storm, etc.

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

 One of main goals of R&D:
to decrease danger for human in combat

Third conclusion
 One of main goals of R&D:
to decrease danger for human in combat

Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy Technology
Survival

Friendly Human

Result
Organization
Neutral

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

 One of main goals of R&D:
to decrease danger for human in combat
by increasing radius of attack tools
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy Technology
Technology
Survival

Friendly Human

Result
Organization
Neutral

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

 One of main goals of R&D:
to decrease danger for human in combat
by increasing effectiveness of defense tools
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy Technology

Survival

Friendly Human

Result
Organization
Neutral

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

 One of main goals of R&D:
to decrease danger for human in combat
by automation
Environment Military system Purpose

Enemy Technology

Computer Survival

Friendly Human

Result
Organization
Neutral

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

 The ultimate goal of R&D: to make military systems
capable to reach its purpose without human participation

Fourth conclusion
 The ultimate goal of R&D: to make military systems
capable to reach its purpose without human participation

Environment Military
Militarysystem
robot Purpose

Enemy Technology

Human Survival

Friendly Computer
Human

Result
Organization
Neutral

Requirements, conditions Capabilities

Role of technology in armed combat:
contact two adverse systems

Fifth conclusion
Role of technology in armed combat:
contact two adverse systems
Organization
Survival

Human

Enemy Result
Technology

Friendly Reconnaissance

Technology
Neutral
Survival

Human
Strikes
Result
Organization
 If somebody remembers
On the first ROBOTWARFARE conference in
2001 I presented a model like this
 ARMED COMBAT SYSTEM
Rt Vt
ATTACKER

Ik
I
C B Z

Iv Io
Rv Vv
DEFENDER Zv

Zo

OBJECT

On the first ROBOTWARFARE conference in

Vo

2001 I presented a model like this

 ARMED COMBAT SYSTEM
Rt Vt
ATTACKER

Ik
I
C B Z

Iv Io
Rv Vv
DEFENDER Zv

Zo

OBJECT
Vo

ARMED COMBAT AS A SYSTEM

 The basic ideas of my Armed Combat
model are the followings:
• The Attacker against the Object and it’s Defender
are related in combat as close as two subsystems
of a big-system.
• Resources of the combat-activity (Rt or Rv) are the
inputs, and the losses (Vt or Vv and Vo) are the
outputs.
• The relationship between the components are:
– reconnaissance (I or C)
– and strikes (Z or B).
• Consequently, the two subsystems form an
independent big-system, which is the Armed
Combat System itself as such.
This model includes all specifics of a cybernetic
system, and that’s why we are able to analyze
Combat with adequate and rich cybernetic tools.
 Reviewing the past: I put some
questions for myself in 2003
• When two armed forces did really
engage using comparable military
technology?
– 1975, in Vietnam War!
• Which two antagonistic
superpowers had comparable
military technology, and when?
– USA and USSR in 1991!
 Fifth conclusion
That’s why I try: how does my new model
work if technology level of two systems
isn’t comparable?
 Armed combat,
if technology level isn’t comparable
Organization
Survival

Human

Enemy Result
Technology

Friendly Reconnaissance

Technology
Neutral
Survival

Human
Strikes
Result
Organization
 Armed combat,
if technology level isn’t comparable
Kamikaze Organization
Survival
type Human

Enemy Result
Technology

Friendly Reconnaissance

Technology
Neutral
Survival

Human
Strikes
Result
Organization
 Armed combat,
if technology level isn’t comparable
Yugoslavia Organization
Survival
type Human

Enemy Result
Technology

Friendly Reconnaissance

Technology
Neutral
Survival

Human
Strikes
Result
Organization
 Armed combat,
if technology level isn’t comparable
Guerilla Organization
Survival
type Human

Enemy Result
Technology

Friendly Reconnaissance

Technology
Neutral
Survival

Human
Strikes
Result
Organization
 How can we compare different
input and output parameters of the
Armed Combat System?

If somebody remembers
On the second ROBOTWARFARE
conference in 2002 I formulated a
question:
My answer was:
 … and the proposed value-model of the
Armed Combat System was
ARMED COMBAT SYSTEM
K(Rt) K(Vt)
ATTACKER

K(C+B) K(I+Z)
K(Rv) K(Vv)
DEFENDER

Where:
•K(Rt), K(Rv) – material and moral value of resources
•K(Vt), K(Vv) – material and moral value of losses
•K(I+Z), K(C+B) – material and moral value used for
getting information or for strikes resources
 Reviewing the past: I put a
question for myself in 2003
What does the phrase „MATERIAL AND MORAL
VALUE” mean for terrorist organizations?
 Reviewing the past: I put a
questions for myself in 2003
What does the phrase „MATERIAL AND MORAL
VALUE” mean for terrorist organizations?
 Sixth conclusion
That’s why I try: how does my new model
work, if military system is a terrorist
organization?
 Role of technology
in terrorist systems
Organization
Survival

Human

Enemy Result
Technology

Friendly Reconnaissance

Neutral
Survival

Human
Strikes
A special case of state terrorism is the coup,
when military system has its own goal
Organization
Survival

Human

Enemy Result
Technology

Friendly Reconnaissance

Neutral
Survival

Human
Strikes
 This model of military systems is
universal, because it is suitable for study :

Ultimate conclusion
 This model of military systems is
universal, because it is suitable for study :
• any level of military systems
• coherence among human, technology and
organization subsystems
• influence of different purposes for military systems
• armed combat, if technology level of sides isn’t
comparable
• role of technology in terrorist military system
 Dr. György Seres
drseres@jata.org
http://www.jata.org/drseres/