5 ms·

"Once upon a time, in the very earliest days of interplanetary exploration, an unarmed human vessel was set upon by a warship from the planet Kzin-home of the f

by ISL 7y ago

"Once upon a time, in the very earliest days of interplanetary exploration, an unarmed human vessel was set upon by a warship from the planet Kzin-home of the fiercest warriors in Known Space. This was a fatal mistake for the Kzinti, of course; they learned the hard way that the reason humanity had decided to study war no more was that humans were so very, very, good at it." -- from the jacket of the anthology 'Man-Kzin Wars'. The same technology that makes for beautiful eye-detection autofocus in portraits can also make for efficient slaughter of those designated to die. We must each choose the world in which we wish to live.

fnord77 7y ago
Larry Niven ! funny you mention cameras - I was thinking about "subject tracking autofocus" as I was skimming that article. A large-scale non-nuclear war (is that even possible) in modern times would be pretty nasty
- ben_w 7y ago
  > A large-scale non-nuclear war (is that even possible) in modern times would be pretty nasty I’m not clear where the boundary is between “war” and other events involving large numbers of deliberate fatalities where the goals involve changing governance or borders. That said, considering recent tech developments and looking at the cost of each part separately, I won’t be surprised if the next decade gives us a genocidal conspiracy where a hundred people kill a million with self-made remote controlled or autonomous weapons.
  - taneq 7y ago
    It's "war" if the other guys are doing it and it's "peacekeeping" if we're doing it (no matter who 'we' and 'the other guys' are).
- SlipperySlope 7y ago
  China has pledged no first use of nukes. Suppose they go for Taiwan with amphibious assault. US Navy robot torpedo mines lurking offshore sink their navy for a while, but their ballistic anti ship missile swarms keep the USN carrier fleet way out of range. This sets the scene for conventional war and mass military deaths as the commies would spare the cities of Taiwan they want to occupy. Trump or his successor would be tempted to nuke mainland ports but mutual assured destruction would prevent it. Likely there is a growing motivation for Taiwan to get their own nukes as the Mainland Chinese fleet grows in size. Israel is the precedent.
Waterluvian 7y ago
I'm not sure it changes anything. If you've seen the horrible footage of modern aerial platforms turning unsuspecting enemy infantry into red mist, you might be surprised to learn that they haven't, in response, abandoned their AKs and RPGs in terror. I'm not sure there's a killing technology so exacting and guaranteed as to change the fundamental behaviour of these enemies. Though maybe I'm wrong and there is some magic bullet out there that will change modern warfighing.
- ISL 7y ago
  It has been a long while since the world has seen first-class militaries battling one another for survival. Current conflicts frequently have restrictive rules-of-engagement behind which inferior opponents can shelter. Furthermore, the 'insurgents' of today may feel that they have no other choice than the course of actions that they have selected, even if death loiters above. The next major conflict will have episodes that emulate some of the battles of World War One, where machine guns and chemical weapons utterly massacred those who were unprepared to face them. Imagine a 1990s-era armored column beset by a few thousand drones with small shaped charges -- it would be an attack without countermeasure; utterly confusing and over in minutes.
  - tashoecraft 7y ago
    “I don’t know what weapons world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will fought with sticks and stones”- idk A true major conflict would be annihilation and utter devastation across the globe.
    - nine_k 7y ago
      Not really. Imagine a nuclear war between US and USSR, which were on the brink of it several times. For simplicity, let's consider that 100% of populations of both countries, and half of Western Europe's, get killed in the war. This makes, roughly, 150M + 300M + 150M = 600M. With world population being around 6000M at the time of the demise of the USSR, that would make 10% of world population. Hardly a complete devastation. Much harder consequences would be the climate impact ("nuclear winter"; its original prognosis was reviewed since 1980s, it should be less severe), and radiation pollution (which, as we know from e.g. Chernobyl, is nasty but not immediately deadly after some time). Of course, the world has enough nukes to kill the entire population, but likely only if carefully planned for it, unlike any even remotely realistic conflict scenario.

by ISL 7y ago

fnord77 7y ago

Larry Niven ! funny you mention cameras - I was thinking about "subject tracking autofocus" as I was skimming that article. A large-scale non-nuclear war (is that even possible) in modern times would be pretty nasty

ben_w 7y ago
> A large-scale non-nuclear war (is that even possible) in modern times would be pretty nasty I’m not clear where the boundary is between “war” and other events involving large numbers of deliberate fatalities where the goals involve changing governance or borders. That said, considering recent tech developments and looking at the cost of each part separately, I won’t be surprised if the next decade gives us a genocidal conspiracy where a hundred people kill a million with self-made remote controlled or autonomous weapons.
- taneq 7y ago
  It's "war" if the other guys are doing it and it's "peacekeeping" if we're doing it (no matter who 'we' and 'the other guys' are).
SlipperySlope 7y ago
China has pledged no first use of nukes. Suppose they go for Taiwan with amphibious assault. US Navy robot torpedo mines lurking offshore sink their navy for a while, but their ballistic anti ship missile swarms keep the USN carrier fleet way out of range. This sets the scene for conventional war and mass military deaths as the commies would spare the cities of Taiwan they want to occupy. Trump or his successor would be tempted to nuke mainland ports but mutual assured destruction would prevent it. Likely there is a growing motivation for Taiwan to get their own nukes as the Mainland Chinese fleet grows in size. Israel is the precedent.

Waterluvian 7y ago

I'm not sure it changes anything. If you've seen the horrible footage of modern aerial platforms turning unsuspecting enemy infantry into red mist, you might be surprised to learn that they haven't, in response, abandoned their AKs and RPGs in terror. I'm not sure there's a killing technology so exacting and guaranteed as to change the fundamental behaviour of these enemies. Though maybe I'm wrong and there is some magic bullet out there that will change modern warfighing.

ISL 7y ago
It has been a long while since the world has seen first-class militaries battling one another for survival. Current conflicts frequently have restrictive rules-of-engagement behind which inferior opponents can shelter. Furthermore, the 'insurgents' of today may feel that they have no other choice than the course of actions that they have selected, even if death loiters above. The next major conflict will have episodes that emulate some of the battles of World War One, where machine guns and chemical weapons utterly massacred those who were unprepared to face them. Imagine a 1990s-era armored column beset by a few thousand drones with small shaped charges -- it would be an attack without countermeasure; utterly confusing and over in minutes.
- tashoecraft 7y ago
  “I don’t know what weapons world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will fought with sticks and stones”- idk A true major conflict would be annihilation and utter devastation across the globe.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    Not really. Imagine a nuclear war between US and USSR, which were on the brink of it several times. For simplicity, let's consider that 100% of populations of both countries, and half of Western Europe's, get killed in the war. This makes, roughly, 150M + 300M + 150M = 600M. With world population being around 6000M at the time of the demise of the USSR, that would make 10% of world population. Hardly a complete devastation. Much harder consequences would be the climate impact ("nuclear winter"; its original prognosis was reviewed since 1980s, it should be less severe), and radiation pollution (which, as we know from e.g. Chernobyl, is nasty but not immediately deadly after some time). Of course, the world has enough nukes to kill the entire population, but likely only if carefully planned for it, unlike any even remotely realistic conflict scenario.