4 ms·

Repeat of WWI, to be honest, with all these technologies clashing together for the first time. There weren't a lot of "ethical considerations" to using chemical

Repeat of WWI, to be honest, with all these technologies clashing together for the first time. There weren't a lot of "ethical considerations" to using chemical weapons when the alternative was losing thousands in another doomed charge out of the trenches. Same with WWII, where the US would rather open Pandora's box of the Nuclear Age than risk a ground invasion of mainland Japan.

tjchear 7y ago
I'll grant you that there weren't much ethical considerations to speak of in the last world wars, and perhaps my naive view has been unrealistically colored by sci-fi TV shows, but my point is simple: a broken autonomous killing system won't know when to stop. Even unethical war makers have affinity to humankind and know when to stop. And despite the meaning implied by the MAD doctrine, it never meant that humans will nuke themselves to oblivion; it simply says a nash equilibrium will be achieved with both conflicting parties staying out of each other's way.
- vidarh 7y ago
  Unintended consequences certainly gets more and more dangerous the more advanced autonomy these weapons gets. In keeping with your mention of sci-fi, there's a Star Trek Voyager episode where two sides of killer robots continue to wage war against each other after having killed their makers because their makers had agreed on a truce, and their instructions had been to eliminate anyone that prevented them from beating their enemy and hence by agreeing a truce their makers had become an obstacle to achieving their programmed goal. Having done software development my entire life, I'd never trust anyone to manage to avoid every pitfall in guaranteeing you have a foolproof way of making them stop...
trimboffle 7y ago
I put it to you that dropping multiple nukes was not about avoiding ground war in japan. The US simply wanted to drop the nukes and see the outcome and win the war through pure unadulterated terror and fear.
- thombat 7y ago
  Terror and fear was already present in greater abundance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Meetinghouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Mee... yet five months later Japan maintained an external persona of implacable resistance. For example the subsequent invasion of the Okinawa islands resulted in over 14,000 American deaths. It was reasonable to apprehend that the invasion of the far bigger Japanese home islands would be far more lethal, also for the Japanese population. In the Tokyo raid 96 American airmen were killed, despite the only effective defence being poorly co-ordinated anti-aircraft fire. Given a weapon that claimed the potential to end the war without further American losses it seems unrealistic to expect it not to be used.
- krageon 7y ago
  Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone dropped a few nukes so Germany would back off a bit quicker. In the end it wasn't exactly pretty, but saying it was just for terror and fear seems like it takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional. We've all been alive long enough to know real life is generally not that simple.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    Please don't. Hiroshima and Nagasaki hosted mostly old retired people and children, and women in a smaller percentage. It hosted no military equipment of any significance, nor strategic locations, nor any significant factory. A large number of people were [ex] fishermen and quite poor. These people had very little power or ability to either support or resist the militaristic elite. They were well in the bottom 20% of literacy, wealth, fitness for war, political influence and specialized skills. Therefore they were mostly innocent. They were wiped away as a show of force and aggressiveness to intimidate other countries including USSR. > They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time The Nazi did it, not "the Germans". And it still does not justify targeting a large number of retirees and children that are contributing nothing to the war effort. > takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional ...

tjchear 7y ago

I'll grant you that there weren't much ethical considerations to speak of in the last world wars, and perhaps my naive view has been unrealistically colored by sci-fi TV shows, but my point is simple: a broken autonomous killing system won't know when to stop. Even unethical war makers have affinity to humankind and know when to stop. And despite the meaning implied by the MAD doctrine, it never meant that humans will nuke themselves to oblivion; it simply says a nash equilibrium will be achieved with both conflicting parties staying out of each other's way.

vidarh 7y ago
Unintended consequences certainly gets more and more dangerous the more advanced autonomy these weapons gets. In keeping with your mention of sci-fi, there's a Star Trek Voyager episode where two sides of killer robots continue to wage war against each other after having killed their makers because their makers had agreed on a truce, and their instructions had been to eliminate anyone that prevented them from beating their enemy and hence by agreeing a truce their makers had become an obstacle to achieving their programmed goal. Having done software development my entire life, I'd never trust anyone to manage to avoid every pitfall in guaranteeing you have a foolproof way of making them stop...

trimboffle 7y ago

I put it to you that dropping multiple nukes was not about avoiding ground war in japan. The US simply wanted to drop the nukes and see the outcome and win the war through pure unadulterated terror and fear.

thombat 7y ago
Terror and fear was already present in greater abundance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Meetinghouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Mee... yet five months later Japan maintained an external persona of implacable resistance. For example the subsequent invasion of the Okinawa islands resulted in over 14,000 American deaths. It was reasonable to apprehend that the invasion of the far bigger Japanese home islands would be far more lethal, also for the Japanese population. In the Tokyo raid 96 American airmen were killed, despite the only effective defence being poorly co-ordinated anti-aircraft fire. Given a weapon that claimed the potential to end the war without further American losses it seems unrealistic to expect it not to be used.
krageon 7y ago
Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone dropped a few nukes so Germany would back off a bit quicker. In the end it wasn't exactly pretty, but saying it was just for terror and fear seems like it takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional. We've all been alive long enough to know real life is generally not that simple.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  Please don't. Hiroshima and Nagasaki hosted mostly old retired people and children, and women in a smaller percentage. It hosted no military equipment of any significance, nor strategic locations, nor any significant factory. A large number of people were [ex] fishermen and quite poor. These people had very little power or ability to either support or resist the militaristic elite. They were well in the bottom 20% of literacy, wealth, fitness for war, political influence and specialized skills. Therefore they were mostly innocent. They were wiped away as a show of force and aggressiveness to intimidate other countries including USSR. > They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time The Nazi did it, not "the Germans". And it still does not justify targeting a large number of retirees and children that are contributing nothing to the war effort. > takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional ...