4 ms·

100% disagree. We have treaties that prevent use of gas weapons. We need governments to coordinate and cooperate rather than race each other to murderous death.

• srcmap 5y ago
  How do we enforce any treaties the prevent AI usage?
  • mLuby 5y ago
    With an AI, specifically an AI that kills younger AIs (called the Great Old 1).
• ethbr0 5y ago
  A cynic would say that we only banned chemical weapons because they weren't particularly useful in major power combat. See: cluster munition and mine bans
  • munk-a 5y ago
    That cynic would be wrong since chemical weapons are extremely effective in combat. When the scales aren't even (i.e. something like the vietnam war) the stronger side can afford equipment that allows their soldiers to operate effectively while the other side is unable to respond to aggression greatly lowering expected casualties. With powers on par you still have the factor of well coordinated chemical attacks allowing breakthroughs to be executed much easier. Chemical weapons being banned is an example of a mostly inexplicably altruistic action on the part of major powers. Well, inexplicable if you're a cynic.
    • dmitriid 5y ago
      > That cynic would be wrong since chemical weapons are extremely effective in combat. They are not. It's the most ineffective weapon outside swords and bows. A sibling comment provided the link discussing it: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
    • saiya-jin 5y ago
      Yes and no. There was still Agent orange in Vietnam. There is still uranium ammo in ie A-10 Warthog which provably sows all kinds of cancer and deformities in children being born in the area decades after usage. Not poisonous gases that burn your lungs per se, but generally if the deal is too sweet to refuse, it stays on the table for some time.
      • rich_sasha 5y ago
        These aren’t really chemical weapons. They have a non-“chemical” primary use, and also happen to be toxic. Depleted uranium will harm people, but in timescales useless in a war (unless it hits them fast, that is). Also, surely, none of those are anywhere near as bad as mustard gas. Yes, agent orange gives people cancer, but presumably not everyone (?), and anyway mustard gas immediately burns your lungs. That’s just a different league.
        • munk-a 5y ago
          Depleted uranium is actually a bit disfavored since most of the harm from handling the ammunition actually falls on the military using it. You get shot with a cannon round once, but someone needed to load and carry that round for days on end - it does have some really unfortunate side effects if it remains perpetually in an environment but it isn't enriched - it's depleted and, honestly, landmines are still a thing and cause way more damage. My understanding is that DU tends to be favored for three primary reasons(ish) 1. It's super dense and thus packs a super hard punch in terms of momentum you can slug at a distance for a given caliber barrel. 2. It's incredibly hard and can deflect things that steel can't stand a chance against. 3. That momentum from firing is often high enough that it actually ignites on impact in most circumstances, causing a lot more material damage to whatever you're shooting. DU might honestly be phased out soon anyways - it's primary strengths are that it's wicked heavy and not stupid soft like lead, but there are some replacements out there for it and a lot of countries have signed on to banning it in warfare - just not the big ones yet.
    • mywittyname 5y ago
      Chemical weapons are great when you have a long line of densely packed, dug in troops. But much less so against modern armies that don't operate shoulder-to-shoulder and carry protection with them. They are very effective against civilian populations though. Which is likely the real reason behind the ban. Especially when you consider that certain chemical weapons are only selectively banned; they can't be used against a target for toxicity, but it's completely fine to use it to use it in another manner. White phosphorous is most famous example if this, it's a war crime to poison people with it, but a-okay to light them on fire with it, even though that's a horrific way to die. The only explanation for this hypocrisy is that chemical weapons don't have much value against military targets anymore. So substances are banned unless they are actually useful in other capacities.
• tablespoon 5y ago
  > 100% disagree. We have treaties that prevent use of gas weapons. I don't have a link, I read a pretty interesting analysis is that the only reason we have such treaties is because those weapons are ineffective against a 1st tier military and are also useless to them. Basically, defense is possible as the needed PPE is relatively cheap and can be used effectively by highly-trained troops, and high-tech conventional weapons used by a trained force are far more effective than gas. So basically, those treaties were about giving up something advanced militaries would have abandoned anyway.
  • jtolmar 5y ago
    > I don't have a link It's probably this: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
    • tablespoon 5y ago
      That's it. Thanks!
• neatze 5y ago
  It is better to have AI weapons fighting each other, then to have 19-24 years old fighting each other.
  • the_only_law 5y ago
    I imagine in a number of cases it will be more like AI weapons fighting 19-24 year olds.
    • neatze 5y ago
      True, but what option will you choice: 1. Send trained 19-30 years old to risk there's life, minimum civilian casualties, but highest chance of combat casualties. 2. Bomb urban area out of existence, with massive civilian casualties, medium chance of combat casualties. 3. Send terminators with medium civilian causalities and 0 combat casualties.
      • mywittyname 5y ago
        I wonder how developed nations will deal with #3s being deployed on their shores. It might be much easier to sneak in Terminators than any sorts of bombs. And the terror factor would be off the charts.
      • yboris 5y ago
        If you take people out of war, wars are more likely to happen. There will be less opposition from the public when it's just "toasters" and "microwaves" (electronics) being sent overseas to fight "the bad guys". Given the track record of how many unjust wars that have been fought, we need more preventative measures against wars, not more technology to make wars easier and more palatable.
  • yboris 5y ago
    Are you thinking battles happen in open fields with no one around other than rows of opposing forces? Do you think no bad actors are going to have access to such weapons? The world is a lot more complex than what you describe.
• jonas21 5y ago
  Ironically, the best way to get such a treaty may be to have two or more countries with sufficiently advanced AI weapons that it becomes in each of their best interest to stop the others.
  • seg_lol 5y ago
    Lets have an AI weapon Olympics and the world can see why we can't have them.
• seppin 5y ago
  > We have treaties that prevent use of gas weapons. Ask Syrian civilians how effective those treaties are. You can't, of course.
• Havoc 5y ago
  I don’t think this particular genie can be kept in the out as easily as gas
• truth_ 5y ago
  If and when the shit would hit the fan on a global scale, you will see everything exists- biological weapons, gas weapons, "inhumane" weapons of mass destruction, you name it. Every major player has these and will show them when there is a global war. Treaties do shit. A slightly unrelated example: There are major laws that you can't kill a journalist in your embassy. But did those stop it from happening?