>>6696782

There's a big difference between a thing being developed and the Pentegon actually getting their hands on it. What DARPA is developing is a way to improve/utilize existing technology in a way that could benefit soldiers at some level, which is pretty cool - but in all honesty it has to go through pretty significant hoops before the military (Army, Navy, etc) ever actually get it.

At least for the Army, getting any new products through the Acquisitions bureaucracy can take many years, and as is the case with a lot of communications equipment things can be dangerously obsolete by the time we get them.

That's why Futures Command is being stood up. Yay futures!

>>6696876

No issues, I had misunderstood your question. Didn't realize it was rhetorical. Thought I'd give some info on how slow the process is for us to ever get anything new.

I can't say with any authority or knowledge what it is that three letter agencies get, but if they had to wait on the Pentagon they'd be behind as well.

>>6696926

Yeah, sometimes it's hard to really guess what's being said and why, but the general rule of thumb is that if the US military is boasting about a new toy it's because we've assessed that there would be no negative consequences of our adversaries knowing about it, or that the benefits of revealing it out weight the negatives.

There's something to be said for using information release as a strategy against adversaries as well. There are plenty of instances where we've boasted our way to victory. But I wouldn't look into this too hard. Mind "reading" tech is fairly old and has been used in therapies for many decades. From what I gather DARPA is making a more intuitive interface that will probably allow special operators to keep their hands free in certain environments.

Though, it is fun to consider the possibilities of a perfected technology. Really, what would be the limitations of being able to control machines with your mind??

I immediately think of UAV's and guided munitions.

>>6697000

A great example, and I entirely agree.

>>6697004

Eeeeh I'd have to see the Q post on that one. Not that I'm trying to poopoo your statement, I just haven't ever seen anything that could come close to doing that other than some really crummy proof-of-concept experiments that weren't anywhere near controlling the user or even close to doing so un-invasively (though, I do recall remote control rats being a thing… It's possible they've improved that?). That being said, I think my fear would be the observation of my own brainwaves. We aren't exactly at the place where we can actually read what the mind is thinking (scanners can only track brain activity on the surface accurately, last I looked into it), but if we can't yet we will be able to one day, and I don't want Google having a profile of how mine or any other "radical's" minds work.

>>6697061

Current MI myself.

So you understand just what it takes that goes into planning an operation. All the IPB, MDMP, COA development, maps, graphics, study of equipment, capabilities, soldier mindset, enemy commander belief and past practices, etc etc. And then, at the end of the day, all said and done, all those long days and weeks studying and practicing and planning may result in a few hours of execution - if at all. So speaking with kin, I can absolutely agree with you that what's going on now is just absolutely beyond any human ability. Or, if it is purely human, it's some next level shit that is being hashed up from a cage of geniuses and advanced algorithms working in tandem.

Don't get me wrong, we are good at what we do, we are REALLY good, but what's going on now is beyond what I believe humans are able to do.

To me and my belief system, there is no way God isn't in this. He scoffs at our plans, after all.

>>6697167

Thank you for your appreciation, but also for your hard work. You, too, have given much, and have been effected and have affected lives in so many ways.