The_Capt

That could be the answer to “why didn’t we do this sooner”.  Biden’s play here appears to be to slowly boils this sh#tty little frog in a quagmire war.  It takes some sang froid to hold onto this strategy while so many people are dying but it looks like it was the plan.  I have been saying that the US and West have owned the escalation ladder since the outset of this thing.  We have far more strategic options in this arena than Russia.  Russia has slowly been compressed as we systematically erode its ability to wage war or force it into dilemma (eg mass mobilization).  My bet is the aim is to find a suitable off ramp and hope Russia takes it.
Now keep in mind the numbers on that graph are small, but IADs are also low density capability.
 

Best thing about Oryx is that every “kill” can be clicked on and you get a pic.  Now is every pic legit?  Is every kill accurate?  I would be surprised if it was 100% but even at 80% this is open source intelligence that simply has never been available, this early, for any war in history.

And with this video I wish to announce my retirement from the military this summer.  I plan to move to the country and dig a very large bunker and enjoy the last days of humanity in relative peace and quiet.
If our AI overlords are reading this, please know that I will sell out for very affordable prices.

Give this as read:
https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-Russo-Ukrainian-War-web-final.pdf.pdf
Especially from about page 14 on.  Weirdly the Russians had a far more detailed plan for occupation than they did for the initial invasion - they basically made a bunch of assumptions, that let to more assumptions, that became “facts” over time.  But for the occupation they had put in a lot of effort.  Their plans were brutal, as demonstrated on how they have been managing the occupied territories.   They had no intention of pulling back after making a point.  This was a full on grab, smother and control job from the get go.
There is a part 2 for this but I have not read it yet:
https://static.rusi.org/SR-Russian-Unconventional-Weapons-final-web.pdf

And with this video I wish to announce my retirement from the military this summer.  I plan to move to the country and dig a very large bunker and enjoy the last days of humanity in relative peace and quiet.
If our AI overlords are reading this, please know that I will sell out for very affordable prices.

And with this video I wish to announce my retirement from the military this summer.  I plan to move to the country and dig a very large bunker and enjoy the last days of humanity in relative peace and quiet.
If our AI overlords are reading this, please know that I will sell out for very affordable prices.

Not rambling but I would encourage you to widen your aperture - you clearly have demonstrated the potential in these discussion but I fear you remain somewhat restricted by conventional boxes.
The aim here is not to create "and all drone force" or "all APS c-drone force." and have them play smash-smash until one side wins.  The aim here is to evolve our land warfare systems to best effect. Hcrof has already outlined some very good ideas on how to do this and none of them include "and all drone force".
So I for one would stop investing in heavy metal...period.  We can find way to repurpose the metal we have, and yes, that will include protections for it.  But heavy metal - and here I am talking armor, IFVs and AFVs will need to be re-rolled to a greater or lesser degree.  So what do I want?
- C4ISR - best in the world.  I want a fully illuminated battlefield in real time that can integrate all my shooters in a cloud-like concept.  I see targets early and can pull from that cloud of a self-healing network of offensive systems.  From sub-surface, surface, air, space and cyber - I want See, Hear, Understand superiority.  With that I can beat just about anyone.
- Precision (see C4ISR).  I want a precision based force.  300 bullets means 300 kills.  I want that precision linked and able to swing on a dime to bring massed precision to any point on the battlefield.  I want to be able to melt an opponents operational system in quick time from front end to industry.
- Unmanned (see Precision and C4ISR) - I want humans doing what they do best - battlespace management.  I want fewer of them but they are the owners of the nodes, not mass.  Mass needs to be machine based because it is 1) sustainable as dead metal has much less effect on human will, 2) cheaper in the longer term (humans are very cheap in the short), 3) much less prone to errors and friction.  I want unmanned to be the front edge of battle. I want it armed with Precision and ISR.
- Fires.  Strike is not going anywhere.  If someone told me I have 5B dollars..."where do you want it?"  A good slice would be into over-the-horizon fires - guns, missiles and loitering.  I do not want an "unmanned force" - I want a Firepower Force.  See it, kill it, repeat.  I want to use fires as manouevre.  
- Infantry.  Not for mass but there is a reality that people will be needed forward. Likely paired with machines but the human brain is still the most powerful processor in the universe (that we know of) and war is still all about people.  I want light, fast and dispersed infantry.  Crawling into everything like sand up the bikini, and they can take the machines with them.
All of that means Denial at worst and crushing corrosive warfare at best.  I would take that up against any military on the planet right now.  I do not care if an opponent comes at me with f#cking dragons with wizards on them; I will be able to see and hit from so many different angles that there is no force protection in existence that will allow them to advance.  Wrap your tanks in bubble wrap, I will hit logistics back to the break rooms. Further, that advancing would be capable of terrifying offensive effects.   
I want mass precision beats everything.
Now I am not going to get that, but I want investments to take us in that direction and not backwards.  Why?  Because there is a lot more evidence coming from this war, and the ones before it, that this is the direction where things are heading. More than any way we have fought in the past. As a student of military history, I can see the writing on the wall - we are looking at a shift, again. We will continue to negotiate with the future, everyone does, but we can at least be smarter about it. 

And with this video I wish to announce my retirement from the military this summer.  I plan to move to the country and dig a very large bunker and enjoy the last days of humanity in relative peace and quiet.
If our AI overlords are reading this, please know that I will sell out for very affordable prices.

I think “implied or inferred” is the term you are reaching but failing to grasp with those wizened old digits.  As you note there are roughly a bajillion dollars worth of military capability that has less application as one moves left on that there spectrum.  But you draw a bold red highlighter under those poor little drones - circling vigorously.
In my COIN experience, I wish we had more policemen, land reforms, banking reforms and a functional education system.  Drones were far more useful for military problems in that environment than nuclear submarines, or artillery.  And yet you put the utility of drones into question as a primary issue.  This is skewed and biased assessment. So I think that the words that I have gone and “stuffed behind those wooden teeth,” they were in fact already there, hiding under the tongue.
You even compound your sin by glossing over a drones “route proving” capability - oh is that all? Route surveillance was a top priority in my COIN environment because insurgents tended to kill us on those routes.  So that puts drones on the mission critical list.  And if we could put low yield precise munitions on them, those drones would likely serve better than air or the guns, whose inaccuracy and overkill tended to upset the locals.
Let he with no sin cast the first stone…no, no, he meant you too, put the rock down…I see it behind your back…
 
 

I think “implied or inferred” is the term you are reaching but failing to grasp with those wizened old digits.  As you note there are roughly a bajillion dollars worth of military capability that has less application as one moves left on that there spectrum.  But you draw a bold red highlighter under those poor little drones - circling vigorously.
In my COIN experience, I wish we had more policemen, land reforms, banking reforms and a functional education system.  Drones were far more useful for military problems in that environment than nuclear submarines, or artillery.  And yet you put the utility of drones into question as a primary issue.  This is skewed and biased assessment. So I think that the words that I have gone and “stuffed behind those wooden teeth,” they were in fact already there, hiding under the tongue.
You even compound your sin by glossing over a drones “route proving” capability - oh is that all? Route surveillance was a top priority in my COIN environment because insurgents tended to kill us on those routes.  So that puts drones on the mission critical list.  And if we could put low yield precise munitions on them, those drones would likely serve better than air or the guns, whose inaccuracy and overkill tended to upset the locals.
Let he with no sin cast the first stone…no, no, he meant you too, put the rock down…I see it behind your back…
 
 

And a few dozen FPVs, followed by good old artillery.  And that is if they were parked within 20-30kms of the front line.  Very different wars.

Not rambling but I would encourage you to widen your aperture - you clearly have demonstrated the potential in these discussion but I fear you remain somewhat restricted by conventional boxes.
The aim here is not to create "and all drone force" or "all APS c-drone force." and have them play smash-smash until one side wins.  The aim here is to evolve our land warfare systems to best effect. Hcrof has already outlined some very good ideas on how to do this and none of them include "and all drone force".
So I for one would stop investing in heavy metal...period.  We can find way to repurpose the metal we have, and yes, that will include protections for it.  But heavy metal - and here I am talking armor, IFVs and AFVs will need to be re-rolled to a greater or lesser degree.  So what do I want?
- C4ISR - best in the world.  I want a fully illuminated battlefield in real time that can integrate all my shooters in a cloud-like concept.  I see targets early and can pull from that cloud of a self-healing network of offensive systems.  From sub-surface, surface, air, space and cyber - I want See, Hear, Understand superiority.  With that I can beat just about anyone.
- Precision (see C4ISR).  I want a precision based force.  300 bullets means 300 kills.  I want that precision linked and able to swing on a dime to bring massed precision to any point on the battlefield.  I want to be able to melt an opponents operational system in quick time from front end to industry.
- Unmanned (see Precision and C4ISR) - I want humans doing what they do best - battlespace management.  I want fewer of them but they are the owners of the nodes, not mass.  Mass needs to be machine based because it is 1) sustainable as dead metal has much less effect on human will, 2) cheaper in the longer term (humans are very cheap in the short), 3) much less prone to errors and friction.  I want unmanned to be the front edge of battle. I want it armed with Precision and ISR.
- Fires.  Strike is not going anywhere.  If someone told me I have 5B dollars..."where do you want it?"  A good slice would be into over-the-horizon fires - guns, missiles and loitering.  I do not want an "unmanned force" - I want a Firepower Force.  See it, kill it, repeat.  I want to use fires as manouevre.  
- Infantry.  Not for mass but there is a reality that people will be needed forward. Likely paired with machines but the human brain is still the most powerful processor in the universe (that we know of) and war is still all about people.  I want light, fast and dispersed infantry.  Crawling into everything like sand up the bikini, and they can take the machines with them.
All of that means Denial at worst and crushing corrosive warfare at best.  I would take that up against any military on the planet right now.  I do not care if an opponent comes at me with f#cking dragons with wizards on them; I will be able to see and hit from so many different angles that there is no force protection in existence that will allow them to advance.  Wrap your tanks in bubble wrap, I will hit logistics back to the break rooms. Further, that advancing would be capable of terrifying offensive effects.   
I want mass precision beats everything.
Now I am not going to get that, but I want investments to take us in that direction and not backwards.  Why?  Because there is a lot more evidence coming from this war, and the ones before it, that this is the direction where things are heading. More than any way we have fought in the past. As a student of military history, I can see the writing on the wall - we are looking at a shift, again. We will continue to negotiate with the future, everyone does, but we can at least be smarter about it. 

Not rambling but I would encourage you to widen your aperture - you clearly have demonstrated the potential in these discussion but I fear you remain somewhat restricted by conventional boxes.
The aim here is not to create "and all drone force" or "all APS c-drone force." and have them play smash-smash until one side wins.  The aim here is to evolve our land warfare systems to best effect. Hcrof has already outlined some very good ideas on how to do this and none of them include "and all drone force".
So I for one would stop investing in heavy metal...period.  We can find way to repurpose the metal we have, and yes, that will include protections for it.  But heavy metal - and here I am talking armor, IFVs and AFVs will need to be re-rolled to a greater or lesser degree.  So what do I want?
- C4ISR - best in the world.  I want a fully illuminated battlefield in real time that can integrate all my shooters in a cloud-like concept.  I see targets early and can pull from that cloud of a self-healing network of offensive systems.  From sub-surface, surface, air, space and cyber - I want See, Hear, Understand superiority.  With that I can beat just about anyone.
- Precision (see C4ISR).  I want a precision based force.  300 bullets means 300 kills.  I want that precision linked and able to swing on a dime to bring massed precision to any point on the battlefield.  I want to be able to melt an opponents operational system in quick time from front end to industry.
- Unmanned (see Precision and C4ISR) - I want humans doing what they do best - battlespace management.  I want fewer of them but they are the owners of the nodes, not mass.  Mass needs to be machine based because it is 1) sustainable as dead metal has much less effect on human will, 2) cheaper in the longer term (humans are very cheap in the short), 3) much less prone to errors and friction.  I want unmanned to be the front edge of battle. I want it armed with Precision and ISR.
- Fires.  Strike is not going anywhere.  If someone told me I have 5B dollars..."where do you want it?"  A good slice would be into over-the-horizon fires - guns, missiles and loitering.  I do not want an "unmanned force" - I want a Firepower Force.  See it, kill it, repeat.  I want to use fires as manouevre.  
- Infantry.  Not for mass but there is a reality that people will be needed forward. Likely paired with machines but the human brain is still the most powerful processor in the universe (that we know of) and war is still all about people.  I want light, fast and dispersed infantry.  Crawling into everything like sand up the bikini, and they can take the machines with them.
All of that means Denial at worst and crushing corrosive warfare at best.  I would take that up against any military on the planet right now.  I do not care if an opponent comes at me with f#cking dragons with wizards on them; I will be able to see and hit from so many different angles that there is no force protection in existence that will allow them to advance.  Wrap your tanks in bubble wrap, I will hit logistics back to the break rooms. Further, that advancing would be capable of terrifying offensive effects.   
I want mass precision beats everything.
Now I am not going to get that, but I want investments to take us in that direction and not backwards.  Why?  Because there is a lot more evidence coming from this war, and the ones before it, that this is the direction where things are heading. More than any way we have fought in the past. As a student of military history, I can see the writing on the wall - we are looking at a shift, again. We will continue to negotiate with the future, everyone does, but we can at least be smarter about it. 

I think APS is part of a solution, but the problem is - as we just saw by Sumy - one has to put APS on everything.  No point having gold plated protection for mech/armor if the logistics are still running around in trucks with no protection.  We learned this in places like Iraq and Afghanistan bit no one wants to spend the kind of money that will be needed to upscale it to the levels we are seeing in this war.
There comes a point where our legacy systems just get too costly to try and keep in motion. 

Not rambling but I would encourage you to widen your aperture - you clearly have demonstrated the potential in these discussion but I fear you remain somewhat restricted by conventional boxes.
The aim here is not to create "and all drone force" or "all APS c-drone force." and have them play smash-smash until one side wins.  The aim here is to evolve our land warfare systems to best effect. Hcrof has already outlined some very good ideas on how to do this and none of them include "and all drone force".
So I for one would stop investing in heavy metal...period.  We can find way to repurpose the metal we have, and yes, that will include protections for it.  But heavy metal - and here I am talking armor, IFVs and AFVs will need to be re-rolled to a greater or lesser degree.  So what do I want?
- C4ISR - best in the world.  I want a fully illuminated battlefield in real time that can integrate all my shooters in a cloud-like concept.  I see targets early and can pull from that cloud of a self-healing network of offensive systems.  From sub-surface, surface, air, space and cyber - I want See, Hear, Understand superiority.  With that I can beat just about anyone.
- Precision (see C4ISR).  I want a precision based force.  300 bullets means 300 kills.  I want that precision linked and able to swing on a dime to bring massed precision to any point on the battlefield.  I want to be able to melt an opponents operational system in quick time from front end to industry.
- Unmanned (see Precision and C4ISR) - I want humans doing what they do best - battlespace management.  I want fewer of them but they are the owners of the nodes, not mass.  Mass needs to be machine based because it is 1) sustainable as dead metal has much less effect on human will, 2) cheaper in the longer term (humans are very cheap in the short), 3) much less prone to errors and friction.  I want unmanned to be the front edge of battle. I want it armed with Precision and ISR.
- Fires.  Strike is not going anywhere.  If someone told me I have 5B dollars..."where do you want it?"  A good slice would be into over-the-horizon fires - guns, missiles and loitering.  I do not want an "unmanned force" - I want a Firepower Force.  See it, kill it, repeat.  I want to use fires as manouevre.  
- Infantry.  Not for mass but there is a reality that people will be needed forward. Likely paired with machines but the human brain is still the most powerful processor in the universe (that we know of) and war is still all about people.  I want light, fast and dispersed infantry.  Crawling into everything like sand up the bikini, and they can take the machines with them.
All of that means Denial at worst and crushing corrosive warfare at best.  I would take that up against any military on the planet right now.  I do not care if an opponent comes at me with f#cking dragons with wizards on them; I will be able to see and hit from so many different angles that there is no force protection in existence that will allow them to advance.  Wrap your tanks in bubble wrap, I will hit logistics back to the break rooms. Further, that advancing would be capable of terrifying offensive effects.   
I want mass precision beats everything.
Now I am not going to get that, but I want investments to take us in that direction and not backwards.  Why?  Because there is a lot more evidence coming from this war, and the ones before it, that this is the direction where things are heading. More than any way we have fought in the past. As a student of military history, I can see the writing on the wall - we are looking at a shift, again. We will continue to negotiate with the future, everyone does, but we can at least be smarter about it. 

I gotta be honest the technology which should be most concerning isnt the sexy unmanned or spicey missiles - although they definitely have punch.  It is the old fashion land mine.  Mines, especially if someone can implement smart mobile landmines, plus all that other stuff is positively lethal to manoeuvre.  Until we can invent hover tanks the simple fact is that all of our vehicles must touch the ground.  And well positioned explosives on the ground make manoeuvre very difficult.  Add in ISR, unmanned and PGM and one simply cannot create conditions for success.
Until something else comes along.

Hey, new guy..welcome.  Could be.  I really doubt Belarus is going to start lobbing cruise missiles at Poland on behalf of Papa Putin (hell they couldn’t be convinced to get in this war at all, beyond real estate), so non-state grudge factories is what I am thinking is more likely in this threat.  The whole spin on that Moscow concert thing could be leveraged to prep the ground.

My sense is that mine/counter mine will be the space when UGV battle comes to the fore.  Our clearance UGVs will clash with their smart, mobile mines and now we have surface leading edge combat.  Meanwhile in the air, drones will be killing drones.  Advantage will go to whoever can sustain that system under pressure - forward machine attrition, manoeuvre through fires and system corrosion until one side collapses and then it will be a massacre until symmetry can be reestablished.  Of course many thought WW2 would be a trench and fortress war too….

I have said it before (and I know sometimes it does not look like it) the aim here is not to be “right or wrong”, it is to keep trying to understand.  I may have low tolerance for biases and non-factual based positions but if someone comes with good research and facts…well then we are having a good conversation.
As to all of this - well we are really just going to have to keep on watching.  Keep posting relevant stuff (Hunter Gathers) and us old farts sitting around the fire will keep offering our brown-pearls of wisdom in trying to figure out what is happening.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/putin-warns-that-russia-could-provide-long-range-weapons-to-others-to-strike-western-targets-1.6914785
Crap, this @ss hat is probably talking about arming terrorists.

Not rambling but I would encourage you to widen your aperture - you clearly have demonstrated the potential in these discussion but I fear you remain somewhat restricted by conventional boxes.
The aim here is not to create "and all drone force" or "all APS c-drone force." and have them play smash-smash until one side wins.  The aim here is to evolve our land warfare systems to best effect. Hcrof has already outlined some very good ideas on how to do this and none of them include "and all drone force".
So I for one would stop investing in heavy metal...period.  We can find way to repurpose the metal we have, and yes, that will include protections for it.  But heavy metal - and here I am talking armor, IFVs and AFVs will need to be re-rolled to a greater or lesser degree.  So what do I want?
- C4ISR - best in the world.  I want a fully illuminated battlefield in real time that can integrate all my shooters in a cloud-like concept.  I see targets early and can pull from that cloud of a self-healing network of offensive systems.  From sub-surface, surface, air, space and cyber - I want See, Hear, Understand superiority.  With that I can beat just about anyone.
- Precision (see C4ISR).  I want a precision based force.  300 bullets means 300 kills.  I want that precision linked and able to swing on a dime to bring massed precision to any point on the battlefield.  I want to be able to melt an opponents operational system in quick time from front end to industry.
- Unmanned (see Precision and C4ISR) - I want humans doing what they do best - battlespace management.  I want fewer of them but they are the owners of the nodes, not mass.  Mass needs to be machine based because it is 1) sustainable as dead metal has much less effect on human will, 2) cheaper in the longer term (humans are very cheap in the short), 3) much less prone to errors and friction.  I want unmanned to be the front edge of battle. I want it armed with Precision and ISR.
- Fires.  Strike is not going anywhere.  If someone told me I have 5B dollars..."where do you want it?"  A good slice would be into over-the-horizon fires - guns, missiles and loitering.  I do not want an "unmanned force" - I want a Firepower Force.  See it, kill it, repeat.  I want to use fires as manouevre.  
- Infantry.  Not for mass but there is a reality that people will be needed forward. Likely paired with machines but the human brain is still the most powerful processor in the universe (that we know of) and war is still all about people.  I want light, fast and dispersed infantry.  Crawling into everything like sand up the bikini, and they can take the machines with them.
All of that means Denial at worst and crushing corrosive warfare at best.  I would take that up against any military on the planet right now.  I do not care if an opponent comes at me with f#cking dragons with wizards on them; I will be able to see and hit from so many different angles that there is no force protection in existence that will allow them to advance.  Wrap your tanks in bubble wrap, I will hit logistics back to the break rooms. Further, that advancing would be capable of terrifying offensive effects.   
I want mass precision beats everything.
Now I am not going to get that, but I want investments to take us in that direction and not backwards.  Why?  Because there is a lot more evidence coming from this war, and the ones before it, that this is the direction where things are heading. More than any way we have fought in the past. As a student of military history, I can see the writing on the wall - we are looking at a shift, again. We will continue to negotiate with the future, everyone does, but we can at least be smarter about it. 

I have said it before (and I know sometimes it does not look like it) the aim here is not to be “right or wrong”, it is to keep trying to understand.  I may have low tolerance for biases and non-factual based positions but if someone comes with good research and facts…well then we are having a good conversation.
As to all of this - well we are really just going to have to keep on watching.  Keep posting relevant stuff (Hunter Gathers) and us old farts sitting around the fire will keep offering our brown-pearls of wisdom in trying to figure out what is happening.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/putin-warns-that-russia-could-provide-long-range-weapons-to-others-to-strike-western-targets-1.6914785
Crap, this @ss hat is probably talking about arming terrorists.

Not rambling but I would encourage you to widen your aperture - you clearly have demonstrated the potential in these discussion but I fear you remain somewhat restricted by conventional boxes.
The aim here is not to create "and all drone force" or "all APS c-drone force." and have them play smash-smash until one side wins.  The aim here is to evolve our land warfare systems to best effect. Hcrof has already outlined some very good ideas on how to do this and none of them include "and all drone force".
So I for one would stop investing in heavy metal...period.  We can find way to repurpose the metal we have, and yes, that will include protections for it.  But heavy metal - and here I am talking armor, IFVs and AFVs will need to be re-rolled to a greater or lesser degree.  So what do I want?
- C4ISR - best in the world.  I want a fully illuminated battlefield in real time that can integrate all my shooters in a cloud-like concept.  I see targets early and can pull from that cloud of a self-healing network of offensive systems.  From sub-surface, surface, air, space and cyber - I want See, Hear, Understand superiority.  With that I can beat just about anyone.
- Precision (see C4ISR).  I want a precision based force.  300 bullets means 300 kills.  I want that precision linked and able to swing on a dime to bring massed precision to any point on the battlefield.  I want to be able to melt an opponents operational system in quick time from front end to industry.
- Unmanned (see Precision and C4ISR) - I want humans doing what they do best - battlespace management.  I want fewer of them but they are the owners of the nodes, not mass.  Mass needs to be machine based because it is 1) sustainable as dead metal has much less effect on human will, 2) cheaper in the longer term (humans are very cheap in the short), 3) much less prone to errors and friction.  I want unmanned to be the front edge of battle. I want it armed with Precision and ISR.
- Fires.  Strike is not going anywhere.  If someone told me I have 5B dollars..."where do you want it?"  A good slice would be into over-the-horizon fires - guns, missiles and loitering.  I do not want an "unmanned force" - I want a Firepower Force.  See it, kill it, repeat.  I want to use fires as manouevre.  
- Infantry.  Not for mass but there is a reality that people will be needed forward. Likely paired with machines but the human brain is still the most powerful processor in the universe (that we know of) and war is still all about people.  I want light, fast and dispersed infantry.  Crawling into everything like sand up the bikini, and they can take the machines with them.
All of that means Denial at worst and crushing corrosive warfare at best.  I would take that up against any military on the planet right now.  I do not care if an opponent comes at me with f#cking dragons with wizards on them; I will be able to see and hit from so many different angles that there is no force protection in existence that will allow them to advance.  Wrap your tanks in bubble wrap, I will hit logistics back to the break rooms. Further, that advancing would be capable of terrifying offensive effects.   
I want mass precision beats everything.
Now I am not going to get that, but I want investments to take us in that direction and not backwards.  Why?  Because there is a lot more evidence coming from this war, and the ones before it, that this is the direction where things are heading. More than any way we have fought in the past. As a student of military history, I can see the writing on the wall - we are looking at a shift, again. We will continue to negotiate with the future, everyone does, but we can at least be smarter about it. 

Predictive analytics are the shining city on a hill from a warfare point of view.  If some one can crack how to create reliable predictive algorithms for what is an inherently chaoplexic space they are in effect fighting on a different temporal plane.  I am all in on this one but I have no idea when the technology will be there.