4 ms·
But that's what war is. I would imagine it's easier, and less of a risk to all humans involved on both sides, to create drones with non-lethal capabilities than
by imustbeevil 8y ago
But that's what war is. I would imagine it's easier, and less of a risk to all humans involved on both sides, to create drones with non-lethal capabilities than to send non-lethal human forces into warzones.
Edit: I added the second paragraph to my original comment within 3 minutes of posting it, as I noticed there wasn't much hope of getting a response without fleshing out the question. I now have to choose between adding an additional reply to contend with the idea that I "keep editing my comments", or to edit this comment to deal with that additional claim.
- coldcode 8y agoI wonder though if the future will turn into the Star Trek episode where people are "killed" by an AI and then voluntarily submit to suicide. If war is too non-lethal it doesn't solve the reason for the war in the first place and eventually will lead to lethality anyway. As Sherman said "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." Perhaps more effort should go into eliminating the reason for war in the first place, which is of course easier said than done.
- epicureanideal 8y agoHopefully it would be more like... eventually technology becomes so dominant on the battlefield that without it it’s just suicide. So as soon as one side’s drones are wiped out, they just surrender. Although I suppose many countries would continue to resist in a Gandhi-like moral appeal to the victor’s population to stop the slaughter.
- baybal2 8y agoPfff, that will never happen. Western people no longer understand the nature of war. Even if one man with a nuke can effortlessly kill a million, a man with an axe can kill him as easily if he can manage to sneak close.