 Senior Member ◆◆◆◆ Posts: 2,710 Joined: Oct 1999 From: Maryland, US |
#9▸ Posted: 18 Nov 2000, 08:29 EST
That is why the question should be framed as capability, not species. Did they create a new human? Almost certainly no.
Did they create classified methods for extending useful performance past humane limits, then hide the injuries inside personnel records and nondisclosure language? That is the lane where history already points. MKULTRA gives the ethical warning, Stargate gives the appetite for long shots, and the performance labs give the practical machinery.
documents first, visions second |
 Member ◆◆◆ Posts: 1,490 Joined: Nov 2000 From: Maryland, US |
#10▸ Posted: 19 Dec 2000, 09:14 EST
The cleanest thesis is not that a program made a new species of soldier. It is that several programs tried to narrow the gap between body, sensor, command channel, and weapon system.
Conditioning, drugs, prosthetics, interface gear, and doctrine all point at the same target: make the human less of a delay in the loop.
the monster is not the soldier, it is the interface |
 Senior Member ◆◆◆◆ Posts: 6,402 Joined: Mar 1999 From: undisclosed, US |
#11▸ Posted: 19 Jan 2001, 10:02 EST
Selection matters more than the comic-book version admits. You do not build from volunteers who test badly, break discipline, or leave noisy records.
You start with personnel who already tolerate stress, isolation, repetition, and authority. Then the logs get boring on purpose. Transfers, medical waivers, training billets, detached duty. If there is a paper trail, it will look administrative.
measure the load |
 Member ◆◆◆ Posts: 1,980 Joined: Sep 2000 From: Oregon, US |
#12▸ Posted: 20 Feb 2001, 11:36 EST
Everyone keeps talking about capability and almost nobody talks about consent or aftercare. If you alter sleep, pain response, endocrine function, or memory under orders, the subject still has to live inside that body afterward.
Follow-up care is where the truth leaks out. Chronic pain, panic, infertility, seizures, dependency, sudden discharge. That is not a side note.
be kind, keep notes |
 Senior Member ◆◆◆◆ Posts: 4,980 Joined: Jul 1999 From: Norwich, UK |
#13▸ Posted: 23 Mar 2001, 13:08 EST
Heritability is being overstated here. Height, reaction time, aggression, endurance, and spatial reasoning are not single switches. They are distributed traits with context all over them.
You can screen families for useful baselines, but you cannot breed a finished operator like a registered horse. Training environment and attrition would swamp the fantasy pretty quickly.
phenotype beats brochure |
 Veteran Member ◆◆◆◆◆ Posts: 10,110 Joined: Dec 1998 From: Arizona, US |
#14▸ Posted: 23 Apr 2001, 15:22 EST
The exoskeleton and HUD angle fits the interface thesis better than the serum stories. Powered assist reduces load and fatigue. A helmet display reduces search time.
Comms tied to position, vitals, and target cues make the operator easier to manage from outside the body. That is a super soldier only if your definition includes being turned into a better terminal.
73s and keep your carrier clean. |
 Senior Member ◆◆◆◆ Posts: 2,710 Joined: Oct 1999 From: Maryland, US |
#15▸ Posted: 25 May 2001, 18:47 EST
The MKULTRA lesson is not that every rumour is true. It is that institutions will test boundaries when secrecy, authority, and ideology line up.
Once consent becomes paperwork instead of reality, the subject stops being a person and becomes material. Any current program should be judged first by whether the participants can refuse and still have a life afterward.
documents first, visions second |
 Resident Skeptic ◆◆◆◆◆ Posts: 16,720 Joined: Apr 1998 From: Chicago, US |
#16▸ Posted: 25 Jun 2001, 07:19 EST
Good thread, but we need documents before this hardens into lore. Declassification indexes, procurement records, medical-board language, budget-line nicknames, training-accident summaries, inspector-general complaints.
Names are less useful than repeated forms and dates. Show me the paperwork pattern and I will take the thesis seriously.
bring your denominator |