3 ms·
When you have precision weapons, you have options. But options might not be a good thing (overall) if it means more violence. Less precise weapons mean more d
by jotto 8y ago
When you have precision weapons, you have options.
But options might not be a good thing (overall) if it means more violence.
Less precise weapons mean more decision friction before a "shot is fired", and that friction before firing a shot might be a net positive overall.
- austincheney 8y agoThere is decision friction either way. Either you are free to engage without permission as dictated by the rules of engagement on the ground (people are shooting at you) or there is a matrix of agreement that must be met in accordance with law. The only real economic result attributed to precision is the degree of collateral damage. Is the life of a third world civilian worth the extra expense of more precise technology. As a war fighter I absolutely believe so. Civilian life is simply more valuable than the lives of the belligerents.
- jotto 8y agoI think your perspective assumes that nation states should neutralize most threats. I don't think that's the case, because it ignores blowback. For example, if a military uses a drone to precision kill enemies in foreign territory 10 times over a 6-month period, what effects does that have on the local population? It's kind of a philosophical difference.