Breeding supersoldiers. Not genetic engineering with test tube

>>33534510
I bumped your shitty thread because you are what is known as cringe.

Too bad projectile weapons exist that can be used by monkeys, eh OP?

>>33534510
American genetics are shit senpai

unless is Space marine tier with titanium bones and muscles hard as steel or Spartan one with super armor and shit.

I believe that we are fine with our common human soldiers

I'm guessing none of you has read "Methuselah's children".

The theory is sound. I'm kind of surprised no one has really tried this in an organized way.

>>33534510
>Breeding supersoldiers
>Picture of furry shit

YEA OP INNA DUTURE ILL BE A GENETIC ENGINEERED WOLFBOY WHO WILL SERVE IN THE WOLF OFFENSIVE ORDINANCE FORCES(WOOF) AND THERE WILL BE A PUMA GIRL THAT JOINS MY PLATOON AND NONE OF THE OTHER DOGGOS SCCEPTS HER BUT ME ANS WE END UP FALLING IN LOVE AND MAKING PLANS TO MARYY AND START A FARM AFTER THE WAR ENDS

File: deb.png (444KB, 526x666px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 526x666px

Make a super-soldier straight out of mythical creature will change the course of war FOREVER.

>>33534510
There's almost nothing that you can do in terms of natural selective breeding (or even with realistic genetic engineering) that would meaningfully improve the performance of a soldier.

A bullet or piece of shrapnel is still going to be fatal if it pierces a vital organ. Blood loss and the concussive effects of high explosives will still be fatal. Recoil is still going to have the same effect on accuracy.

>>33534510
This idea is stupid and non-viable due to costs, humar rights violations, and this technically being child soldiers. Let's do it anyway. I dunno how many generations it would take but I think we can look to purebred dogs for inspiration regarding behavioral and health concerns. Due to the extensive inbreeding necessitated by extreme selective breeding for particular traits, the exaggeration of these traits, as well as genetic stagnation due to limiting the gene pool, purebred dogs are often much more prone to certain health and behavioral failures which vary by breed. For example, rotties have terrible hips, and pugs can't breathe for shit, while dachshunds are prone to back problems. We may see similar effects when introducing a similar lack of genetic diversity in a human population. In fact, it's historically recorded- due to ancient political bullshit, royalty and nobility marrying only those of a similar social class frequently led to the emergence of conditions like hemophilia and various forms of insanity. In a population of humans with a closed gene pool selectively bred for- likely- a combination of strength, intelligence, aggression and endurance may begin to experience heart issued tied to the increased exertion inherent in maintaining their bodies, and may require an abnormally large amount of food. Depending on how they are raised and wether they are given drugs, they may be more prone to snapping tendons and ligaments, depression, and various mood disorders as well as sudden fits of violence and a complete inability to fucking relax. They would likely develop a strong esprit de corps and good morale, if they were raised together and treated well, but may form unwanted attachments as a result of the same. Lastly, they would find it difficult if not impossible to interact with people outside their group, assuming that, like victims of the UNSC Spartan program, they were sequestered away from ordinary, polite society. (Contd)

File: 85c462d1-1935-4383-82ce-bc01272e483c.png (2MB, 1578x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1578x1600px

>>33534510
Fallout 4. Vault 75. It's not a good idea.

>Selective breeding of humans
>Human generational time is around 15 years minimum, and at that point you couldn't even tell which humans have the best characteristics
> dozens if not hundreds of generations needed for relatively minor changes, even if problems from inbreeding OK
>Any government or cultural system lasting more than a few hundred years

And that's why it hasn't been done.

>>33536614
(Contd)
In other words, probably fine for small-scale raids, kidnappings, and assassination, but useless in extended campaigns involving other units, and likely with very short lifespans and very high costs of "manufacturing" and maintenance. This, along with a stack of ethical concerns higher than Ozzy on stage, makes this concept non-viable.

>>33536658
Also this.

>>33536614
Not once did you look at examples of eugenics done with the intention of improving physical performance. Just shit like poodle breeding and unconstrained inbreeding of humans.

If you choose to look at race horse breeding, you'll see the benefits. A thoroughbred race horse can run much faster and further than a wild horse, performing at maximum exertion without heed to how tired they feel. The Thoroughbred as it is known today was developed in 17th- and 18th-century England, when native mares were crossbred with imported Oriental stallions of Arabian, Barb, and Turkoman breeding. All modern Thoroughbreds can trace their pedigrees to three stallions originally imported into England in the 17th century and 18th century and to a larger number of foundation mares of mostly English breeding. Beneficial traits from multiple breeds were combined by decades of careful selection of foals that inherited said traits and culling of offspring that did not inherit the desired traits.

The refinement process continues to this day, and new speed records are set every year.

>>33534510
>Breeding

You know you need a woman right?

>>33536952
No, I only need you.

Now bend over.

>>33536866
Except a horse can foal at 2 years (though this is like a 14 year old human having a child - possible but not safe or ideal. 4 years is best), and is physically developed at 4.

And we've been domesticating horses for 5000 years.

The time scales to do it naturally are enormous, especially given the limitations a small breeding population your secret project would have. You might be able to speed it up if you could get the entire countries population to do it, but that would 1) basically impossible 2) would still take far longer than any single human civilization has lasted

>>33536569
You could breed from physical size, strength, speed , endurance, and intelligence.

Nothing a soldier would find useful though.

>>33537070
I never said it doesn't take a while, but you are blowing it out of proportion completely by saying 5000 years as if it's relevant.

>The Thoroughbred as it is known today was developed in 17th- and 18th-century England

That's within 100 years. Not 5000, and not more than a handful of generations for humans, which is perfectly reasonable to expect. It can also theoretically be sped up by combining it with genetic engineering.

>>33537293
You're wrong, 1st because a Thoroughbred is a breed of horse. Its like saying the American Pitbull is only a few hundred years old, and therefore it only took that long to breed Wolves to Dogs. When you breed horses, you use a small number of Stallions, as was used in the creation of the Thoroughbred, and a large number of foundation mares. Both those Stallions and the foundation mares had the benefits of all the previous years of breeding.

In absolute terms, there is not a significant difference between a thoroughbred and the founding stock.

2nd, in Horses, the difference of a few seconds lap time makes all the difference in the world. Its the difference between million dollar prizes and retired. You can only have a limited number of horses in the race. War is not like that - 1 person with a 3 minute mile is not going to beat 2 people with 4 minute miles. And the 2 unaltered people will be easier to replace and cheaper overall than the results of your project. Also, Horse breeding makes money. Breeding soldiers does not.

But even putting that aside lets say it *was* 100 years. With a species that can put out the next generation ever 4 years. Even if you did use 14 year olds, you'll still take 350 years. And for what? An advantage relative to 10 seconds over a mile and NO advantage over endurance races for horses, scaled down to humans. A waste of time.

File: 7mKcJGJ.jpg (79KB, 640x709px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x709px

The assumptions itt are dumb. Eugenics should be applied to the entire nation. Anyone interested in this topic should bookmark this site. http://www.eugenics.net

Just pick out your super soldiers the same way we do today - skim off the best of the best from the gen pop. A large scale eugenics program can be implemented ethically and cheaply. Every generation will be slightly healthier, stronger, more intelligent and prettier than the last.

>>33537723
You'd bankrupt yourself with bureaucracy, oversight, and social controls long before you'd create a supersoldier.

>>33537551
Mostly what you said is not a valid counterpoint. Yeah, it's a breed of horse. That was made in 100 years. And that was without genetic engineering. We know today that smart people make smart kids, and so one for people with other beneficial traits. All you have to do is get the gametes and eggs from exceptional people and keep mixing them, using the sex cells from offspring that perform well to make the next generation. That's just basic eugenics. With genetic engineering, centuries of it could be done in one generation, assuming we can combine all the uber genes together and have them create a healthy offspring.

File: dense.png (438KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 720x528px

>>33538613
>Yeah, it's a breed of horse. That was made in 100 years.

Its a breed of horse. One that is not significantly different from the horses that immediately preceded it. One that benefits from all the previous development of horses. And we only got a minuscule advantage over those 100 years.

Why do you think that the development of the Thoroughbred justifies an absurdly long term and ridiculously expensive project for soldiers?

>All you have to do is get the gametes and eggs from exceptional people and keep mixing them, using the sex cells from offspring that perform well to make the next generation

Except we don't have an adequate knowledge of genetics to say "Oh this one of 1000 embryos we created will be smarter than the rest, this one will be the next step in the germline". We have to wait until it develops to test it. Which means 14 to 20 years for each generation.

>With genetic engineering

Also this thread is specifically about not using GE. If you're not OP, then fucking learn to read. If you are, keep a consistent fucking stance you retard. If we go into GE there are far better uses than fucking generational modifications - HFE, LRP5, MSTN to name a few.