18 ms·

Army wants smaller brigades, stronger divisions and lots of robots

165 points by Gaishan 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
baybal2 6y ago
Sounds surprisingly familiar https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/3rd_US_Infantry_Division_Pentomic.png/1280px-3rd_US_Infantry_Division_Pentomic.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/3r...
m0zg 6y ago
And I want the Army to get the fuck out of the Middle East. Not gonna happen now, I know, but I still want it. A man can dream, right? I don't get the downvotes for this one in particular. Does anyone here _not_ want to stop droning children in the Middle East?
- jackthehammer 6y ago
  Trump made a pretty good start at getting out of the Middle East. I don't know why he didn't use his foreign policy wins as running points, but he didn't.
- tempestn 6y ago
  At the very least the straw man in your second paragraph is probably attracting downvotes. As far as your first paragraph, I think the succinct counter-argument would be, "It's not that simple."
  - m0zg 6y ago
    We've been there for 20 years, and killed 600K+ people (mostly civilians) in Iraq alone. It is that simple. GTFO. Never come back. They're not a threat. They've never been a threat. Saddam never had WMD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > It is that simple. GTFO. Never come back. They're not a threat. This is a complicated subject. I'm not qualified to discuss it and, from the sound of it, neither are you. But consider the rise of ISIL as a cautionary tale against oversimplifying extraction.
      - m0zg 6y ago
        But we funded and armed ISIS-affiliated groups to get rid of Assad. Unsuccessfully. Once we stopped funding and arming them, ISIS disappeared. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isi...
    - asdff 6y ago
      It's risky at this point. The middle east is a jenga tower held up by coalition troops with no good governments able to fend against internal threats due to the rampant local corruption. The U.S. pulled out of iraq and isis promptly took over half the country. I think pulling out from the middle east entirely would do far more harm than good considering all the backing these various extremist militias have from foreign nations, inching to pounce and seize power and enact their fucked up agenda on the populace. Imo, we should replace drone strikes with sniper rifles or highly trained SEAL teams to verify and take out targets. Way too much taking people out and not nearly enough verifying is the problem, not that the troops are there at all.
      - m0zg 6y ago
        So what's the game plan here? Keep slaughtering them indefinitely, sinking trillions of dolalrs we don't have into that black hole?
        asdff 6y ago
        imo charge soldiers who commit warcrimes and continue trying to train a new generation of leadership. that second point will probably take another decade at least.
nomel 6y ago
War should sicken everyone involved, with each soldier that comes home dead acting as a motivation to ask the question "Is this worth the cost?". If one side never has to ask that question, how do you slow the war machine? Related, I'm currently not afraid of my government using the military against us any time soon. I think the morals of the soldiers would severely limit this. With a fleet of robots, it seems it would be much easier to suppress the people. Everyone knows this is the future, and saw it coming, but wow, I naively thought it would take longer.
- darawk 6y ago
  The problem with war is that if your side doesn't develop its armies, the other side will. Today, that other side is China. For all the faults of the United States, of which there are many, i'd prefer it any day over the Chinese politburo.
  - disown 6y ago
    That's funny cause it was the "chinese politburo" that liberated the chinese from the united states which invaded and occupied it for 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol But even if you are being sincere, and usually nobody using china as a boogeyman are, we aren't using our military to defend ourselves from a nonexistent chinese invasion. We used our military to kill iraqis, syrians, libyans, vietnamese, etc. If chinese did 1/100th of what we did, hypocrites would be crying they were the most evil nation on earth. We have nukes to deal with china. We don't have armies to deal with china. They've got 1.4 billion people. Pretty much all our wars have been offensive wars of conquest/genocide/domination. But yeah, it's china that's the bad guy. Can you think of the last defensive war we've fought? Even ww2 wasn't really a defensive war as we already attacked japan with sanctions. Edit: > China is not yet strong enough to do that outright with the west like it does within Asia and its maritime claims. Within Asia? Are you saying it's china that has troops in korea, japan, etc? It isn't china that colonized philippines, indonesia, india, etc. Lets be honest here, asia isn't in need of liberation from china, it's in need of liberation from the west. Just think about it. > With the west, it has taken on a different approach: infiltrate all levels of political, educational, and corporate institutions. Is that why everyone has a good opinion of china? China has infiltrated everything, that's why we started a trade war with china? If anything, I could understand if you said israel or saudi arabia has infiltrated all levels. But certainly not china or russia. When it comes to china, all I see is projection. Everything we are accusing china of doing, we are guilty of. We are the ones who invaded and brutalized asia ( including china, india, etc ). We are ones that invaded and occupied. And as best as I can tell, it's us who are meddling in chinese affairs and telling them what they should do or not do. Edit1: > I can't name another empire or superpower in human history that has shown more restraint. Is this a joke? We wiped out an entire continent full of people. Dozens of native nations were exterminated. We dropped nukes on civilians. That's restraint? And we've been involved in wars in every corner of the earth. What amazing restraint. For those hypocrites downvoting me, try replacing US with china for every historical act. 9/11 happens and china invades afghanistan and iraq murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. I bet every hypocrite downvoting would call them monsters.
marktangotango 6y ago
I think this is the relevant part about the robotic aspect being discussed > Cold War doctrine envisioned engaging the enemy along what’s called the Forward Line Of Troops, or FLOT. In the new concept, according to a briefing at the conference, a Forward Line Of Unmanned Aerial Systems (FLUA) will fly ahead through no-man’s-land into enemy-held territory, followed by a Forward Line Of Robots (FLOR) on the ground, followed in turn by the Forward Line Of (Human) Troops. The unmanned systems will flush out the enemy, stumble into meeting engagements and ambushes, take and receive the first hits, and map the enemy position for the human troops coming along behind them. Patton famously told his scouts to “go down that road until you get blown up then, report back”. Presumably robots would be assuming this role going forward.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tvszzzz 6y ago
  It's already happening https://www.shield.ai/products/nova-class https://www.shield.ai/products/nova-class
zelias 6y ago
Generally you want to start out with stim and combat shield, but sometimes the widow mines are the way to go instead.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  Stim and Combat Shield only affects marines. This is an Army article. (To explain the joke to everyone else: the parent is talking about Starcraft 2)
- rtkwe 6y ago
  Aren't widow mines mostly used to harass and attack workers in the early game? Seems like a war crime.
  - tempestn 6y ago
    They can be great defensively too. Still, would indeed appear to contravene the Ottawa Treaty.
aazaa 6y ago
> “Be cautious of revolutions in military affairs,” said Donald Sando, Donahoe’s civilian deputy and an intellectual mainstay at Fort Benning for many years. “We can’t hope endlessly that technology will make warfare easier or less brutal or less costly, [because] The reality is, it doesn’t; it changes it. It makes it harder in many cases.” I can't imagine the mental gymnastics those working on this horrible idea must go through just to look themselves in the mirror every day.
- malandrew 6y ago
  It's not mental gymnastics. It's often someone that has seen a side of humanity that most people haven't. It's not even a side you can eradicate. You can create conditions where it lays dormant, but it's never really gone and when it does show up it's better to be prepared.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    That's the argument for having a defensive force, not what we have. EDIT: Since y'all are downvoting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYTxuW2vmzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYTxuW2vmzk (The Collateral Murder video, warning: war crimes)
    - chokeartist 6y ago
      There is no such thing as a pure defensive force... you disingenuous asshole.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > I can't imagine the mental gymnastics those working on this horrible idea must go through just to look themselves in the mirror every day. I understand you're virtue signalling, but ... 1) The mentality is that if they consider war, the rest of the population doesn't have to. Also deterrence prevents conflict. 2) War is the normal state of mankind, and has been for thousands of years. The globe has had relative peace since 1945 because the USA has the biggest stick, and chooses to use it for mainly deterrence. (This is not commonly featured in discussions, but all of the Allied and Axis power leaders were warlords before WW2 started: Roosevelt and Churchill (Navy), Hitler (Army) and Stalin (revolutionary.)) The two things that can upset the current peace are: i) The CCP, for some completely unnecessary reason, wants to subjugate mankind using salami-slicing tactics. Instead of just being the world's factory, they want to dominate the world. This appears to be insecurity over China's 200 years of decline before the current Western capital injection. According to Dr. VDH, 75% of the time when a new power arises, there's war. ii) Each day brings the world closer to an Islamic atomic bomb. If you're familiar with the Koran, then you know what the implications are. So enjoy the current peacetime while you can. It won't last.
kristopolous 6y ago
It's pretty incredible how just by coincidence the recommendation exactly matches what would be most profitable for contracting firms, have the least amount oversight from the public on how the tax dollars are used and is also the best strategy for avoiding the politically costly ordeal of hurting children of people who vote in American elections. Just a remarkable coincidence
- torstenvl 6y ago
  It's a common trope to take this kind of attitude, but this dynamic is not some kind of nefarious kickback scheme. It is the natural result of the Revolution in Military Affairs concept and the political impossibility of developing these technologies in-house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_military_affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_military_affairs
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    Think tanks exist to rationalize unpalatable policies to the american public in plausible ways like that. Salaried teams spend all day inventing cover stories - that's why they exist as institutions. We're told there's some elaborate other system at play yet they never make a decision or recommendation which goes against the margins and stock prices of the corporations funding the think tanks. Instead, if there's multiple options they always seem to conclude that the most profitable is the best. Until this impeccably consistent 1000 batting average is broken we can be forgiven for suspecting it's all just manufactured nonsense.
    - an_opabinia 6y ago
      But aren’t drones way cheaper than pretty much anything else?
      - kristopolous 6y ago
        Not the ones the military uses. They are more expensive then their planes with humans in them.
shartshooter 6y ago
It's hard to predict what the next outbreak of war will look like. Are we going to see more Syria/Yemen/Sudan-type conflicts or will we get back to a conventional war with tank battles and all? In the 20th century warfare evolved trench warfare to asymmetrical war. You don't need divisions to make an impact, you need someone willing to set off a suicide vest in a police station, a pregnant woman to sit an a VBIED and drive past a checkpoint or someone strong enough to fire an RPG. To assume robots or technology is going to solve those problems is probably a naive position. It's of course important to prepare for a larger scale war against China, Russia, etc. but realistically we're more likely to be fighting a handful of goat herders in Afghanistan with an AK and a bag full of rice before we're taking on an armored division. The best line in the article was "We can’t hope endlessly that technology will make warfare easier or less brutal or less costly, [because] The reality is, it doesn’t; it changes it. It makes it harder in many cases." Note: I was in the US Army from 03-07 serving in the Rangers with 4 deployments and have seen ingenuity trump technology
- mjfl 6y ago
  > Are we going to see more Syria/Yemen/Sudan-type conflicts or will we get back to a conventional war with tank battles and all? Every major power that can manufacture tanks also can make nukes. Thus there will probably be no pre-apocalyptic war like that.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  > or will we get back to a conventional war with tank battles and all? The answer is: no. There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle. There is no more such thing as tank warfare. At this point it's impossible to defeat USA on the high seas, or on land.
  - nradov 6y ago
    True for now but the Chinese navy is expanding at a rate not seen since the peak of the Cold War. If they sustain the effort for a couple decades then they'll be in a position to defeat the USA on the high seas.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
killjoywashere 6y ago
A couple of notes for those seeking solace at the far ends of the spectrum (chicken-hawks and peaceniks): no one hates war more than soldiers. We'd all go home if we could. But the enemy gets a vote. Few countries are necessarily our enemy, and we'd like to keep it that way. Making a military success unpalatable helps keep it that way. Detente is in many ways offers a more stable peace than pacifism, particularly for a major world power entangled in many alliances.
- 3131s 6y ago
  > But the enemy gets a vote. A million Muslims dead in the last 20 years. How many deployments is it for you now? You're the enemy.
rlv-dan 6y ago
Title should say US Army
NalNezumi 6y ago
As someone who studied Robotics in Uni I remember the ethics classes, and the focus on military usage of robotics. Still, I wonder how many people from Robotics would accept a military application development job offering? I would guess the number would be higher than most people would feel comfortable to admit. I certainly would, if the technical aspect of it sounds interesting & challenging (and well paid) and if the opportunity was given when other opportunities are scarce. The latter was the case of the local market when I graduated; the country of my residence had very low number of any robotics jobs, so most people I knew went in to traditional industries (or CS) anyway. Less than 20% of the classmate I knew is right now working in robotics. If any of them would've given the chance to work in what they studied (and found fun) they would probably take it even though it would include military application.
- jdndbfbf 6y ago
  What is wrong with the military application of robotics?
threw243234 6y ago
What a dystopian world it'll be when the US gets its hands on this! The only thing stopping warmongers in Washington is the US public opinion in having American soldiers killed in random wars meant to enrich the MIC. Once the human cost is removed, every nation on earth will be forced to turn into a vassal and the Anglo-Saxon imperial termites will run the world again. The British empire is dead, long live the American empire.
aaron695 6y ago
It's not going to be that complex. It's loitering munition like the IAI Harop that are being used all this year in war. Suicide drone, after suicide drone raining down. We are just a little off really cheap mass production. Harop video https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1311725913172856833 https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1311725913172856833 https://twitter.com/AuroraIntel/status/1320459261579796484 https://twitter.com/AuroraIntel/status/1320459261579796484 https://twitter.com/kamerknc/status/1318292332165402624 https://twitter.com/kamerknc/status/1318292332165402624 Home made Armenian kamikaze drone strike on an Azerbaijan military target in Karabakh. https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1320408687094226947 https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1320408687094226947 (And nothing to do with that stupid Slaughterbots, man I hate that video)
- FrojoS 6y ago
  While Azerbaiujan was extremely successful in using this drone technology, it might not have worked as well, had Armenia proper air defense systems.
  - aaron695 6y ago
    "Should an air-defence radar lock on to it with malicious intent, though, the drone will follow the radar signal to its source and the warhead nestled in its bulbous nose will blow the drone, the radar and any radar operators in the vicinity to kingdom come." https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/01/19/autonomous-weapons-and-the-new-laws-of-war https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/01/19/autonomous-wea... Autonomous weapons are hard to stop.
    - FrojoS 6y ago
      SEAD is nothing new. Doesnt mean it is always effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen...
  - baybal2 6y ago
    No air defence today is effective against such low, and slow flying targets
jsilence 6y ago
If only we as humanity would stop fighting and start using these huge amounts of resources for good. Much would be gained.
loceng 6y ago
I view health as the other end of the spectrum to war - with an open mind and open heart, found through practices to heal past unhealed/unprocessed trauma - and so spending on health and good policy regarding protecting and supporting health (preventative, proactive) you're in fact combating war (civil and otherwise); plus lead by example, role model.
fsflover 6y ago
Please don't let this happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg.
exabrial 6y ago
Task and Purpose on YouTube just did a video about mixed weapon squads and how this was a relatively new development in WWII. Traditionally you would have entire regiments of the same weapons line up and face off.

165 points by Gaishan 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Sounds surprisingly familiar https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/3rd_US_Infantry_Division_Pentomic.png/1280px-3rd_US_Infantry_Division_Pentomic.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/3r...

m0zg 6y ago

And I want the Army to get the fuck out of the Middle East. Not gonna happen now, I know, but I still want it. A man can dream, right? I don't get the downvotes for this one in particular. Does anyone here _not_ want to stop droning children in the Middle East?

jackthehammer 6y ago
Trump made a pretty good start at getting out of the Middle East. I don't know why he didn't use his foreign policy wins as running points, but he didn't.
tempestn 6y ago
At the very least the straw man in your second paragraph is probably attracting downvotes. As far as your first paragraph, I think the succinct counter-argument would be, "It's not that simple."
- m0zg 6y ago
  We've been there for 20 years, and killed 600K+ people (mostly civilians) in Iraq alone. It is that simple. GTFO. Never come back. They're not a threat. They've never been a threat. Saddam never had WMD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > It is that simple. GTFO. Never come back. They're not a threat. This is a complicated subject. I'm not qualified to discuss it and, from the sound of it, neither are you. But consider the rise of ISIL as a cautionary tale against oversimplifying extraction.
    - m0zg 6y ago
      But we funded and armed ISIS-affiliated groups to get rid of Assad. Unsuccessfully. Once we stopped funding and arming them, ISIS disappeared. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isi...
  - asdff 6y ago
    It's risky at this point. The middle east is a jenga tower held up by coalition troops with no good governments able to fend against internal threats due to the rampant local corruption. The U.S. pulled out of iraq and isis promptly took over half the country. I think pulling out from the middle east entirely would do far more harm than good considering all the backing these various extremist militias have from foreign nations, inching to pounce and seize power and enact their fucked up agenda on the populace. Imo, we should replace drone strikes with sniper rifles or highly trained SEAL teams to verify and take out targets. Way too much taking people out and not nearly enough verifying is the problem, not that the troops are there at all.
    - m0zg 6y ago
      So what's the game plan here? Keep slaughtering them indefinitely, sinking trillions of dolalrs we don't have into that black hole?
      - asdff 6y ago
        imo charge soldiers who commit warcrimes and continue trying to train a new generation of leadership. that second point will probably take another decade at least.

nomel 6y ago

War should sicken everyone involved, with each soldier that comes home dead acting as a motivation to ask the question "Is this worth the cost?". If one side never has to ask that question, how do you slow the war machine? Related, I'm currently not afraid of my government using the military against us any time soon. I think the morals of the soldiers would severely limit this. With a fleet of robots, it seems it would be much easier to suppress the people. Everyone knows this is the future, and saw it coming, but wow, I naively thought it would take longer.

darawk 6y ago
The problem with war is that if your side doesn't develop its armies, the other side will. Today, that other side is China. For all the faults of the United States, of which there are many, i'd prefer it any day over the Chinese politburo.
- disown 6y ago
  That's funny cause it was the "chinese politburo" that liberated the chinese from the united states which invaded and occupied it for 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol But even if you are being sincere, and usually nobody using china as a boogeyman are, we aren't using our military to defend ourselves from a nonexistent chinese invasion. We used our military to kill iraqis, syrians, libyans, vietnamese, etc. If chinese did 1/100th of what we did, hypocrites would be crying they were the most evil nation on earth. We have nukes to deal with china. We don't have armies to deal with china. They've got 1.4 billion people. Pretty much all our wars have been offensive wars of conquest/genocide/domination. But yeah, it's china that's the bad guy. Can you think of the last defensive war we've fought? Even ww2 wasn't really a defensive war as we already attacked japan with sanctions. Edit: > China is not yet strong enough to do that outright with the west like it does within Asia and its maritime claims. Within Asia? Are you saying it's china that has troops in korea, japan, etc? It isn't china that colonized philippines, indonesia, india, etc. Lets be honest here, asia isn't in need of liberation from china, it's in need of liberation from the west. Just think about it. > With the west, it has taken on a different approach: infiltrate all levels of political, educational, and corporate institutions. Is that why everyone has a good opinion of china? China has infiltrated everything, that's why we started a trade war with china? If anything, I could understand if you said israel or saudi arabia has infiltrated all levels. But certainly not china or russia. When it comes to china, all I see is projection. Everything we are accusing china of doing, we are guilty of. We are the ones who invaded and brutalized asia ( including china, india, etc ). We are ones that invaded and occupied. And as best as I can tell, it's us who are meddling in chinese affairs and telling them what they should do or not do. Edit1: > I can't name another empire or superpower in human history that has shown more restraint. Is this a joke? We wiped out an entire continent full of people. Dozens of native nations were exterminated. We dropped nukes on civilians. That's restraint? And we've been involved in wars in every corner of the earth. What amazing restraint. For those hypocrites downvoting me, try replacing US with china for every historical act. 9/11 happens and china invades afghanistan and iraq murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. I bet every hypocrite downvoting would call them monsters.

marktangotango 6y ago

I think this is the relevant part about the robotic aspect being discussed > Cold War doctrine envisioned engaging the enemy along what’s called the Forward Line Of Troops, or FLOT. In the new concept, according to a briefing at the conference, a Forward Line Of Unmanned Aerial Systems (FLUA) will fly ahead through no-man’s-land into enemy-held territory, followed by a Forward Line Of Robots (FLOR) on the ground, followed in turn by the Forward Line Of (Human) Troops. The unmanned systems will flush out the enemy, stumble into meeting engagements and ambushes, take and receive the first hits, and map the enemy position for the human troops coming along behind them. Patton famously told his scouts to “go down that road until you get blown up then, report back”. Presumably robots would be assuming this role going forward.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tvszzzz 6y ago
It's already happening https://www.shield.ai/products/nova-class https://www.shield.ai/products/nova-class

zelias 6y ago

Generally you want to start out with stim and combat shield, but sometimes the widow mines are the way to go instead.

dragontamer 6y ago
Stim and Combat Shield only affects marines. This is an Army article. (To explain the joke to everyone else: the parent is talking about Starcraft 2)
rtkwe 6y ago
Aren't widow mines mostly used to harass and attack workers in the early game? Seems like a war crime.
- tempestn 6y ago
  They can be great defensively too. Still, would indeed appear to contravene the Ottawa Treaty.

aazaa 6y ago

> “Be cautious of revolutions in military affairs,” said Donald Sando, Donahoe’s civilian deputy and an intellectual mainstay at Fort Benning for many years. “We can’t hope endlessly that technology will make warfare easier or less brutal or less costly, [because] The reality is, it doesn’t; it changes it. It makes it harder in many cases.” I can't imagine the mental gymnastics those working on this horrible idea must go through just to look themselves in the mirror every day.

malandrew 6y ago
It's not mental gymnastics. It's often someone that has seen a side of humanity that most people haven't. It's not even a side you can eradicate. You can create conditions where it lays dormant, but it's never really gone and when it does show up it's better to be prepared.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  That's the argument for having a defensive force, not what we have. EDIT: Since y'all are downvoting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYTxuW2vmzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYTxuW2vmzk (The Collateral Murder video, warning: war crimes)
  - chokeartist 6y ago
    There is no such thing as a pure defensive force... you disingenuous asshole.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> I can't imagine the mental gymnastics those working on this horrible idea must go through just to look themselves in the mirror every day. I understand you're virtue signalling, but ... 1) The mentality is that if they consider war, the rest of the population doesn't have to. Also deterrence prevents conflict. 2) War is the normal state of mankind, and has been for thousands of years. The globe has had relative peace since 1945 because the USA has the biggest stick, and chooses to use it for mainly deterrence. (This is not commonly featured in discussions, but all of the Allied and Axis power leaders were warlords before WW2 started: Roosevelt and Churchill (Navy), Hitler (Army) and Stalin (revolutionary.)) The two things that can upset the current peace are: i) The CCP, for some completely unnecessary reason, wants to subjugate mankind using salami-slicing tactics. Instead of just being the world's factory, they want to dominate the world. This appears to be insecurity over China's 200 years of decline before the current Western capital injection. According to Dr. VDH, 75% of the time when a new power arises, there's war. ii) Each day brings the world closer to an Islamic atomic bomb. If you're familiar with the Koran, then you know what the implications are. So enjoy the current peacetime while you can. It won't last.

kristopolous 6y ago

It's pretty incredible how just by coincidence the recommendation exactly matches what would be most profitable for contracting firms, have the least amount oversight from the public on how the tax dollars are used and is also the best strategy for avoiding the politically costly ordeal of hurting children of people who vote in American elections. Just a remarkable coincidence

torstenvl 6y ago
It's a common trope to take this kind of attitude, but this dynamic is not some kind of nefarious kickback scheme. It is the natural result of the Revolution in Military Affairs concept and the political impossibility of developing these technologies in-house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_military_affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_military_affairs
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Think tanks exist to rationalize unpalatable policies to the american public in plausible ways like that. Salaried teams spend all day inventing cover stories - that's why they exist as institutions. We're told there's some elaborate other system at play yet they never make a decision or recommendation which goes against the margins and stock prices of the corporations funding the think tanks. Instead, if there's multiple options they always seem to conclude that the most profitable is the best. Until this impeccably consistent 1000 batting average is broken we can be forgiven for suspecting it's all just manufactured nonsense.
  - an_opabinia 6y ago
    But aren’t drones way cheaper than pretty much anything else?
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      Not the ones the military uses. They are more expensive then their planes with humans in them.

shartshooter 6y ago

It's hard to predict what the next outbreak of war will look like. Are we going to see more Syria/Yemen/Sudan-type conflicts or will we get back to a conventional war with tank battles and all? In the 20th century warfare evolved trench warfare to asymmetrical war. You don't need divisions to make an impact, you need someone willing to set off a suicide vest in a police station, a pregnant woman to sit an a VBIED and drive past a checkpoint or someone strong enough to fire an RPG. To assume robots or technology is going to solve those problems is probably a naive position. It's of course important to prepare for a larger scale war against China, Russia, etc. but realistically we're more likely to be fighting a handful of goat herders in Afghanistan with an AK and a bag full of rice before we're taking on an armored division. The best line in the article was "We can’t hope endlessly that technology will make warfare easier or less brutal or less costly, [because] The reality is, it doesn’t; it changes it. It makes it harder in many cases." Note: I was in the US Army from 03-07 serving in the Rangers with 4 deployments and have seen ingenuity trump technology

mjfl 6y ago
> Are we going to see more Syria/Yemen/Sudan-type conflicts or will we get back to a conventional war with tank battles and all? Every major power that can manufacture tanks also can make nukes. Thus there will probably be no pre-apocalyptic war like that.
VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
> or will we get back to a conventional war with tank battles and all? The answer is: no. There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle. There is no more such thing as tank warfare. At this point it's impossible to defeat USA on the high seas, or on land.
- nradov 6y ago
  True for now but the Chinese navy is expanding at a rate not seen since the peak of the Cold War. If they sustain the effort for a couple decades then they'll be in a position to defeat the USA on the high seas.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

killjoywashere 6y ago

A couple of notes for those seeking solace at the far ends of the spectrum (chicken-hawks and peaceniks): no one hates war more than soldiers. We'd all go home if we could. But the enemy gets a vote. Few countries are necessarily our enemy, and we'd like to keep it that way. Making a military success unpalatable helps keep it that way. Detente is in many ways offers a more stable peace than pacifism, particularly for a major world power entangled in many alliances.

3131s 6y ago
> But the enemy gets a vote. A million Muslims dead in the last 20 years. How many deployments is it for you now? You're the enemy.

rlv-dan 6y ago

Title should say US Army

NalNezumi 6y ago

As someone who studied Robotics in Uni I remember the ethics classes, and the focus on military usage of robotics. Still, I wonder how many people from Robotics would accept a military application development job offering? I would guess the number would be higher than most people would feel comfortable to admit. I certainly would, if the technical aspect of it sounds interesting & challenging (and well paid) and if the opportunity was given when other opportunities are scarce. The latter was the case of the local market when I graduated; the country of my residence had very low number of any robotics jobs, so most people I knew went in to traditional industries (or CS) anyway. Less than 20% of the classmate I knew is right now working in robotics. If any of them would've given the chance to work in what they studied (and found fun) they would probably take it even though it would include military application.

jdndbfbf 6y ago
What is wrong with the military application of robotics?

threw243234 6y ago

What a dystopian world it'll be when the US gets its hands on this! The only thing stopping warmongers in Washington is the US public opinion in having American soldiers killed in random wars meant to enrich the MIC. Once the human cost is removed, every nation on earth will be forced to turn into a vassal and the Anglo-Saxon imperial termites will run the world again. The British empire is dead, long live the American empire.

aaron695 6y ago

It's not going to be that complex. It's loitering munition like the IAI Harop that are being used all this year in war. Suicide drone, after suicide drone raining down. We are just a little off really cheap mass production. Harop video https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1311725913172856833 https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1311725913172856833 https://twitter.com/AuroraIntel/status/1320459261579796484 https://twitter.com/AuroraIntel/status/1320459261579796484 https://twitter.com/kamerknc/status/1318292332165402624 https://twitter.com/kamerknc/status/1318292332165402624 Home made Armenian kamikaze drone strike on an Azerbaijan military target in Karabakh. https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1320408687094226947 https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1320408687094226947 (And nothing to do with that stupid Slaughterbots, man I hate that video)

FrojoS 6y ago
While Azerbaiujan was extremely successful in using this drone technology, it might not have worked as well, had Armenia proper air defense systems.
- aaron695 6y ago
  "Should an air-defence radar lock on to it with malicious intent, though, the drone will follow the radar signal to its source and the warhead nestled in its bulbous nose will blow the drone, the radar and any radar operators in the vicinity to kingdom come." https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/01/19/autonomous-weapons-and-the-new-laws-of-war https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/01/19/autonomous-wea... Autonomous weapons are hard to stop.
  - FrojoS 6y ago
    SEAD is nothing new. Doesnt mean it is always effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen...
- baybal2 6y ago
  No air defence today is effective against such low, and slow flying targets

jsilence 6y ago

If only we as humanity would stop fighting and start using these huge amounts of resources for good. Much would be gained.

loceng 6y ago

I view health as the other end of the spectrum to war - with an open mind and open heart, found through practices to heal past unhealed/unprocessed trauma - and so spending on health and good policy regarding protecting and supporting health (preventative, proactive) you're in fact combating war (civil and otherwise); plus lead by example, role model.

fsflover 6y ago

Please don't let this happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg.

exabrial 6y ago

Task and Purpose on YouTube just did a video about mixed weapon squads and how this was a relatively new development in WWII. Traditionally you would have entire regiments of the same weapons line up and face off.