3 ms·

Future of warfare is going to something more like Command And Conquer game, where operators will direct autonomous machine with a click of a mouse and warfare

Future of warfare is going to something more like Command And Conquer game, where operators will direct autonomous machine with a click of a mouse and warfare will be mostly done at a distance.... Probably with less casualties overall...

redthrowaway 9y ago
Future of symmetric warfare, sure. Future of asymmetric warfare looks a whole lot like Skynet sending robots to kill humans, but Skynet takes a mandated 15 minute coffee break every two hours.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  Future of asymmetric warfare looks like rich country leaders / oligarchs / corporations sending robots to kill poor civilians. Oh wait, it's the present.
rhcom2 9y ago
The ethics of asymmetrical warfare with one side nearly completely autonomous seem like very murky water. Imagine Iraq occupied with pretty much only machines and Iraqis never actually see an American. And if this removes the threat of death from one side, what does that do to the cost of war? Could it actually make it more common because it is less politically risky? It feels inevitable, but it also scares me.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  Ever heard of drones? "murky water" is quite an understatement.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dmurray 9y ago
  It would certainly make it more common. The cost in American soldiers is the main thing that slows down the US from starting minor wars: the population are not tolerant of losing soldiers. Other countries are more willing to lose soldiers but refrain from war for other reasons: the economic cost, fear of losing, loss of standing in the international community, or simply having no enemy they particularly want to fight.
- andrei_says_ 9y ago
  I found this short film to be an interesting exploration of this: https://youtu.be/gR3lXEH80Nw https://youtu.be/gR3lXEH80Nw Also, why just other countries? Asymmetrical (class) warfare is very popular, here, now. I don't see the kind of people waging it having moral setbacks about other kinds.
  - rhcom2 9y ago
    I don't think you're going to see autonomous class warfare, whatever that would be.
dforrestwilson 9y ago
less military casualties
joe_the_user 9y ago
Probably with less casualties overall... Civilian casualties have been a big part of war. It seems too soon to say an automated army won't have the potential to massively increase civilian casualties given that it lowers the cost to the attacker and robot don't care if they engage in atrocities, etc.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
You would think that, but if the advent of drones is anything to go by, it's going to simply make things worse. When you have to put your own humans in a combat situation, you think twice before sending your men to their potential doom. With robots and unmanned vehicles, you can just keep throwing them at the problem, cost is the only concern.
btilly 9y ago
A bloodless war is unable to inflict the necessary pain to force people to change their minds. The actual military logic goes like this... If the source of a country's military might is the ability of the civilian population to produce goods needed for the war effort, then the civilian population becomes a legitimate target. The result of that logic in WW II was mass bombing campaigns which were capable of "dehousing" 100k+ people in a single night. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPnppCelvk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPnppCelvk0 for an hour long documentary on how our world came to accept such logic as reasonable.
nthcolumn 9y ago
Operators? Machine learning has already come up with the ultimate zerg rush. Who needs operators? We could just flip coins but they would probably argue over the denomination. There was a fairly impressive display from Russian manufacturers of all kinds of autonomous mobile fighting units and fixed sentry emplacements recently. So it appears not building them is no longer an option. Some of them were even new.

redthrowaway 9y ago

Future of symmetric warfare, sure. Future of asymmetric warfare looks a whole lot like Skynet sending robots to kill humans, but Skynet takes a mandated 15 minute coffee break every two hours.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
Future of asymmetric warfare looks like rich country leaders / oligarchs / corporations sending robots to kill poor civilians. Oh wait, it's the present.

rhcom2 9y ago

The ethics of asymmetrical warfare with one side nearly completely autonomous seem like very murky water. Imagine Iraq occupied with pretty much only machines and Iraqis never actually see an American. And if this removes the threat of death from one side, what does that do to the cost of war? Could it actually make it more common because it is less politically risky? It feels inevitable, but it also scares me.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
Ever heard of drones? "murky water" is quite an understatement.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dmurray 9y ago
It would certainly make it more common. The cost in American soldiers is the main thing that slows down the US from starting minor wars: the population are not tolerant of losing soldiers. Other countries are more willing to lose soldiers but refrain from war for other reasons: the economic cost, fear of losing, loss of standing in the international community, or simply having no enemy they particularly want to fight.
andrei_says_ 9y ago
I found this short film to be an interesting exploration of this: https://youtu.be/gR3lXEH80Nw https://youtu.be/gR3lXEH80Nw Also, why just other countries? Asymmetrical (class) warfare is very popular, here, now. I don't see the kind of people waging it having moral setbacks about other kinds.
- rhcom2 9y ago
  I don't think you're going to see autonomous class warfare, whatever that would be.

dforrestwilson 9y ago

less military casualties

joe_the_user 9y ago

Probably with less casualties overall... Civilian casualties have been a big part of war. It seems too soon to say an automated army won't have the potential to massively increase civilian casualties given that it lowers the cost to the attacker and robot don't care if they engage in atrocities, etc.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

You would think that, but if the advent of drones is anything to go by, it's going to simply make things worse. When you have to put your own humans in a combat situation, you think twice before sending your men to their potential doom. With robots and unmanned vehicles, you can just keep throwing them at the problem, cost is the only concern.

btilly 9y ago

A bloodless war is unable to inflict the necessary pain to force people to change their minds. The actual military logic goes like this... If the source of a country's military might is the ability of the civilian population to produce goods needed for the war effort, then the civilian population becomes a legitimate target. The result of that logic in WW II was mass bombing campaigns which were capable of "dehousing" 100k+ people in a single night. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPnppCelvk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPnppCelvk0 for an hour long documentary on how our world came to accept such logic as reasonable.

nthcolumn 9y ago

Operators? Machine learning has already come up with the ultimate zerg rush. Who needs operators? We could just flip coins but they would probably argue over the denomination. There was a fairly impressive display from Russian manufacturers of all kinds of autonomous mobile fighting units and fixed sentry emplacements recently. So it appears not building them is no longer an option. Some of them were even new.