3 ms·
The ethics of asymmetrical warfare with one side nearly completely autonomous seem like very murky water. Imagine Iraq occupied with pretty much only machines
by 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 agoEver heard of drones? "murky water" is quite an understatement.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dmurray 9y agoIt 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 agoI 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 agoI don't think you're going to see autonomous class warfare, whatever that would be.