4 ms·

I think there's a larger and more complex argument here. Technologies like AR dehumanize war. It becomes not that different to dropping some bombs in a video ga

I think there's a larger and more complex argument here. Technologies like AR dehumanize war. It becomes not that different to dropping some bombs in a video game like Call of Duty. I believe people who work on these technologies simply don't want to have that "blood" on their hands. Unfortunately, for every person that don't want to get involved in this, there's probably a few that do. So those $450MM will end in the bank accounts of Raytheon or any of the other usuals suspects.

darkpuma 8y ago
Consider that a century ago technology had advanced to the point where artillery could kill people that couldn't be seen. With a map and a slide rule, trajectories over the horizon could be calculated with disturbing lethality. Of course the psychological impact of such artillery was almost as devastating as the lethal impact. Knowing that at any moment you could be killed without warning by a shell you'd never see coming, by a man over the horizon induced a great deal of PTSD.
pnw_hazor 8y ago
BS. Good imagery tech will keep the conflict closer and more personal because the shooter can clearly see or identify who he or she is killing. Compared to carpet bombing from 50,000 ft smart weapons make war very personal.
- gradstudent 8y ago
  Or it could, y'know, simply paint the proposed target with an overlay which makes it easier to kill but not sympathise with.
- elefanten 8y ago
  Yeah. People seem to forget that while technology advances have monotonically increased the potential for collateral damage, they've also in practice broadly lowered the incidence of collateral damage.
- whoisjuan 8y ago
  I don’t know dude. I think there’s a big difference between piloting a B-2 bomber over the Iraq desert, and firing at a target with an Xbox Controller and a Hololens Headset, from an office in a Virginia suburb. If it doesn’t dehumanize war at the very least is commoditizing warfare.
  - partiallypro 8y ago
    Uh, PTSD is really common among drone pilots.

darkpuma 8y ago

Consider that a century ago technology had advanced to the point where artillery could kill people that couldn't be seen. With a map and a slide rule, trajectories over the horizon could be calculated with disturbing lethality. Of course the psychological impact of such artillery was almost as devastating as the lethal impact. Knowing that at any moment you could be killed without warning by a shell you'd never see coming, by a man over the horizon induced a great deal of PTSD.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

BS. Good imagery tech will keep the conflict closer and more personal because the shooter can clearly see or identify who he or she is killing. Compared to carpet bombing from 50,000 ft smart weapons make war very personal.

gradstudent 8y ago
Or it could, y'know, simply paint the proposed target with an overlay which makes it easier to kill but not sympathise with.
elefanten 8y ago
Yeah. People seem to forget that while technology advances have monotonically increased the potential for collateral damage, they've also in practice broadly lowered the incidence of collateral damage.
whoisjuan 8y ago
I don’t know dude. I think there’s a big difference between piloting a B-2 bomber over the Iraq desert, and firing at a target with an Xbox Controller and a Hololens Headset, from an office in a Virginia suburb. If it doesn’t dehumanize war at the very least is commoditizing warfare.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  Uh, PTSD is really common among drone pilots.