4 ms·

I agree with you. Since WW2, the trend in military weaponry and intelligence is precision. - Instead of blowing up a submarine, why not disable the one critica

by bane 7y ago

I agree with you. Since WW2, the trend in military weaponry and intelligence is precision. - Instead of blowing up a submarine, why not disable the one critical crew member needed for it to launch? - Instead of leveling a city to stop arms production, why not just infect the control systems of the factories so only plows can be manufactured and not swords? - Cause a single screw to fall out of a piece of artillery so that it can no longer fire on target? - Better yet, cause a fire in the iron mine so that gun can't even be manufactured. To be effective, the affected parties wouldn't even know they were being targeted. They wouldn't even know they were at war. The lowest friction conduit your enemy civilization can proceed on is the one you want them to, and over time that's the one they'll inevitably settle into after becoming frustrated with their inability to make meaningful war on you. In a perfect scenario, you might not even know you're attacking them either. The series "The Golden Oecumene" explores this concept. In the story, the entire world's military might has reduced to a single sophisticated computer A.I. and a single man, who is usually cryogenically frozen and only brought out under extreme circumstances for specific operations that might include severing a single synaptic connection in a target using an x-ray laser stationed in orbit -- in order to change the target's mind.

vkou 7y ago
Since WW2, the trend has been the construction of bigger and bigger doomsday weapons. Why disable one critical crew member needed for a submarine's launch, when you can kill him, the entire crew, and everyone in a 10-mile radius with a single nuclear warhead? The only thing 'precision' weapons have been found to be any good for is bombing stone-age adversaries, without putting boots on the ground. I see no situation where nuclear superpowers can get into a high-stakes[1] shooting war which will not quickly devolve into a nuclear exchange. [1] Low-stakes, low-commitment engagements can continue to be performed by finding a stone-age adversary that you can bomb, as a proxy for your enemy. It's great for domestic morale, great for the military-industrial complex, and great for furthering our international ambitions.
- baybal2 7y ago
  > Why disable one critical crew member needed for a submarine's launch, when you can kill him, the entire crew, and everyone in a 10-mile radius with a single nuclear warhead? Because you don't have enough of them... You can't win against a nuclear state with 100+ ICBMs unless you strike first, or do a beheading strike. USSR had really no defensive plan, as was found after the fall. They really bet all on "firing all your guns, before enemy can destroy them"
dogma1138 7y ago
This only works during a “Cold War” one of the goals of intelligence is to prevent war by either maintaining your balance or superiority over your enemies and once a war breaks out provide intelligence that would grant you an advantage on the battle field. However if a full scale war ever breaks down it will definitely regress back to leveling whole cities fairly quickly because in the end of the day it’s the only way to beat an enemy. If the enemy could not sustain low levels of attrition even if key individuals they likely wouldn’t engage in a war in the first place. However people over estimate how much intelligence should be credited to stopping all out war vs the economics of the connected world even during the Cold War. Trade stops wars, hence why all recent wars have been civil in nature or ones against isolated actors of little to no economic importance on a global scale. While a war with China might break out under extreme circumstances it’s highly unlikely when the US public relies on it for anything from their tooth brushes to their iPhones. War with Russia is also extremely unlikely since half of Europe would freeze to death, they don’t need to nuke Berlin, as shutting off the gas supply would be nearly as devastating. Russia’s reliance on natural gas to fuel not only their economy but also their geopolitical capita is also why it reacts so aggressively against European incursion eastward that could threaten their monopoly on LPG. What Russia fears more than 500,000 NATO troops on its border is a Royal Dutch Shell pipeline going form the Caspian Sea through the Black Sea into Europe. So while space death rays might seem to be effective they aren’t really not are they necessary today to actually prevent conflict between the big players. With all the death rays in the world unless you’ll be willing to kill off the entire population of your enemies as long as they have enough peasants and rifles they can wage an effective war. For China to effectively conquer a country they only need enough guns as nukes aside even the US might not have enough conventional weapons to deal with China if they’ll go bat shit crazy and issue a gun, an inflatable raft and a parka to every able man and woman of military age and tell them to march north west till the reach Alaska then start marching south.
- abacadaba 7y ago
  There are small towns in Texas with enough conventional weapons for that. Had me till them
- codeisawesome 7y ago
zelon88 7y ago
> In a perfect scenario, you might not even know you're attacking them either. How terrifying. To think that we could have been living in this world for 10 years now and not even realize it. Remember the SR71 spy plane was classified for 40 years and when it was finally acknowledged after all that time it was still the fastest airplane ever created. Military technology tends to have a guiding effect to regular technology. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that war has been guided in some capacity by AI for quite some time.
- cwassified 7y ago
  Uh, I had toys in the mid-1980's that were based on the SR-71 blackbird. https://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/86/nightraven/ https://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/86/nightraven/ There were accurate SR-71 scale model kits by Monogram and Revell that I was putting together with Testor's glue in elementary school. It was not classified for 40 years. From 1959 to 1979 would indicate 20 years, if that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogram_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogram_(company) I was a small child when I learned about Guinness world records, and first discovered the SR-71 while writing a book report. It was understood that the blackbird had established records of mach 3 in the late 1960's. They even used to have an exhibit of Guinness records in the lobby of The Empire State Building in Manhattan that included this record. The Guinness record states 1968, and that was in print in the early 1980's. You can probably buy old, used copies of Guinness World Records editions, which prove this. https://www.amazon.com/Guiness-Book-World-Records-1980/dp/0806901683 https://www.amazon.com/Guiness-Book-World-Records-1980/dp/08... The 1988 edition had a newsprint/paperback quality photo of the plane: https://www.amazon.com/Guinness-Worlds-Records-Giant-Revised/dp/0553270664 https://www.amazon.com/Guinness-Worlds-Records-Giant-Revised... Parts of the program were obviously classified, but the aircraft was known to exist and was photographed by the press, unlike the F-117 and B-2, which had not emerged into public until the 1990's.

by bane 7y ago

vkou 7y ago

Since WW2, the trend has been the construction of bigger and bigger doomsday weapons. Why disable one critical crew member needed for a submarine's launch, when you can kill him, the entire crew, and everyone in a 10-mile radius with a single nuclear warhead? The only thing 'precision' weapons have been found to be any good for is bombing stone-age adversaries, without putting boots on the ground. I see no situation where nuclear superpowers can get into a high-stakes[1] shooting war which will not quickly devolve into a nuclear exchange. [1] Low-stakes, low-commitment engagements can continue to be performed by finding a stone-age adversary that you can bomb, as a proxy for your enemy. It's great for domestic morale, great for the military-industrial complex, and great for furthering our international ambitions.

baybal2 7y ago
> Why disable one critical crew member needed for a submarine's launch, when you can kill him, the entire crew, and everyone in a 10-mile radius with a single nuclear warhead? Because you don't have enough of them... You can't win against a nuclear state with 100+ ICBMs unless you strike first, or do a beheading strike. USSR had really no defensive plan, as was found after the fall. They really bet all on "firing all your guns, before enemy can destroy them"

dogma1138 7y ago

This only works during a “Cold War” one of the goals of intelligence is to prevent war by either maintaining your balance or superiority over your enemies and once a war breaks out provide intelligence that would grant you an advantage on the battle field. However if a full scale war ever breaks down it will definitely regress back to leveling whole cities fairly quickly because in the end of the day it’s the only way to beat an enemy. If the enemy could not sustain low levels of attrition even if key individuals they likely wouldn’t engage in a war in the first place. However people over estimate how much intelligence should be credited to stopping all out war vs the economics of the connected world even during the Cold War. Trade stops wars, hence why all recent wars have been civil in nature or ones against isolated actors of little to no economic importance on a global scale. While a war with China might break out under extreme circumstances it’s highly unlikely when the US public relies on it for anything from their tooth brushes to their iPhones. War with Russia is also extremely unlikely since half of Europe would freeze to death, they don’t need to nuke Berlin, as shutting off the gas supply would be nearly as devastating. Russia’s reliance on natural gas to fuel not only their economy but also their geopolitical capita is also why it reacts so aggressively against European incursion eastward that could threaten their monopoly on LPG. What Russia fears more than 500,000 NATO troops on its border is a Royal Dutch Shell pipeline going form the Caspian Sea through the Black Sea into Europe. So while space death rays might seem to be effective they aren’t really not are they necessary today to actually prevent conflict between the big players. With all the death rays in the world unless you’ll be willing to kill off the entire population of your enemies as long as they have enough peasants and rifles they can wage an effective war. For China to effectively conquer a country they only need enough guns as nukes aside even the US might not have enough conventional weapons to deal with China if they’ll go bat shit crazy and issue a gun, an inflatable raft and a parka to every able man and woman of military age and tell them to march north west till the reach Alaska then start marching south.

abacadaba 7y ago
There are small towns in Texas with enough conventional weapons for that. Had me till them
codeisawesome 7y ago

zelon88 7y ago

> In a perfect scenario, you might not even know you're attacking them either. How terrifying. To think that we could have been living in this world for 10 years now and not even realize it. Remember the SR71 spy plane was classified for 40 years and when it was finally acknowledged after all that time it was still the fastest airplane ever created. Military technology tends to have a guiding effect to regular technology. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that war has been guided in some capacity by AI for quite some time.

cwassified 7y ago
Uh, I had toys in the mid-1980's that were based on the SR-71 blackbird. https://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/86/nightraven/ https://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/86/nightraven/ There were accurate SR-71 scale model kits by Monogram and Revell that I was putting together with Testor's glue in elementary school. It was not classified for 40 years. From 1959 to 1979 would indicate 20 years, if that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogram_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogram_(company) I was a small child when I learned about Guinness world records, and first discovered the SR-71 while writing a book report. It was understood that the blackbird had established records of mach 3 in the late 1960's. They even used to have an exhibit of Guinness records in the lobby of The Empire State Building in Manhattan that included this record. The Guinness record states 1968, and that was in print in the early 1980's. You can probably buy old, used copies of Guinness World Records editions, which prove this. https://www.amazon.com/Guiness-Book-World-Records-1980/dp/0806901683 https://www.amazon.com/Guiness-Book-World-Records-1980/dp/08... The 1988 edition had a newsprint/paperback quality photo of the plane: https://www.amazon.com/Guinness-Worlds-Records-Giant-Revised/dp/0553270664 https://www.amazon.com/Guinness-Worlds-Records-Giant-Revised... Parts of the program were obviously classified, but the aircraft was known to exist and was photographed by the press, unlike the F-117 and B-2, which had not emerged into public until the 1990's.