7 ms·

In America’s Next War, Machines Will Do the Thinking

31 points by jonbaer 5y ago

mercy_dude 5y ago
I am not so sure about that. If Afghanistan and corona response have shown anything, a complete and total failure of American intelligence and military apparatus isn’t really far fetched anymore.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Neither of those examples have anything at all to do with the military or IC, so it's hard to understand what you're trying to communicate. Would you mind trying a different approach?
  - sofixa 5y ago
    How is the Afghanistan withdrawal and subsequent collapse of the propped up government anything but a US military and intelligence failure? #1 was badly organised, hurried and left many people behind to certain death ( translators and others who helped the US army). #2 came as a complete surprise to everyone. The decision to withdraw wasn't a military one, but they didn't really do a good job at executing it. What better way to cap off the fiasco that was that war?
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      The military and IC were aware of the downsides of the President's plan and repeatedly warned against it. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghan... You're faulting the military for... what, exactly? Not committing mutiny against the Commander in Chief?
      - sofixa 5y ago
        To better plan what they had to do. The withdrawal was extremely amateurish.
        torstenvl 5y ago
        This is non-responsive. What exactly are you faulting the military for? Because there's pretty much nothing any military service messed up about the withdrawal.
themihai 5y ago
Will the machines work against Talibans as well?The best U.S tech couldn't deter some medieval-like army. You can't talk about a super army/next level army and forget Afghanistan...
- dogma1138 5y ago
  When the US invaded Afghanistan in the Taliban was defeated within about 6 weeks. US deterrence very much remained in place until it began to withdraw. Winning against a force like the Taliban requires you to be able to operate with much looser ROEs than the US as well as operate against their enabled in the region and outside of it which the US was unable and or unwilling to do. The Taliban was formed in Pakistan and it drew many of its fighters from there it was true in the late 80’s and it’s true today. Winning a war and sustaining occupation are also completely different things, and most importantly this is about a peer or near peer enemy. An occupation that is actually being opposed can only be won by extermination or expulsion whilst wars are won by making it too costly to continue fighting and allowing for or forcing a surrender.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    The results of the US withdrawal make it pretty obvious that the Taliban as an organization were in hiding rather than defeated, and probably had backchannel communications going with local leaders the entire time the US was there, given that at least some of the rapid takeover of the country again seems to have come from pre-negotiated surrender agreements.
    - dogma1138 5y ago
      They suffered many losses and run back to Pakistan to regroup, sat there for over 15 years and when the US began to withdraw they pretty much took Afghanistan back without a fight. To finish them off the US had to invade Pakistan or make it so costly for them to support the Taliban that they would have to give them up and they weren’t willing to do that for obvious reasons.
atarikraken 5y ago
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
crooked-v 5y ago
> Autonomy — enabled by artificial intelligence, edge computing and other technologies — allows you to operate at scales and speeds that you simply cannot do under the traditional model of big, expensive, heavily manned systems that, no matter how much money you throw at them, will only be able to do a limited number of things. I can't wait to see the headlines in 2050 about a badly-trained neural network leading to US warbots gunning down anyone carrying a banana.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  American police forces seem to acquire a lot of surplus military equipment. Coming to a town near you!
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    I'd rather my town's police department have a bunch of gear they don't need than for there to be a SWAT situation that they have to wait an hour for another department to come handle.
    - Sebguer 5y ago
      Even when the evidence shows they'll start inventing new reasons to use it?
    - donw 5y ago
      There's this thing called "weapon pull". The more different weapons you give somebody, the more likely they are to use all of them. Beat cops need service pistols, batons, and a patrol rifle (AR-15) in the cruiser. That's it. OC spray isn't that useful. It's a weak area-denial weapon, which means that it usually hits the user as well as the target. Tasers are downright stupid. You get one shot and that's it. Having those extra options on the duty belt is (a) a pain in the ass, and (b) results in more deadly use-of-force. Same goes for non-police, by the way.
    - ecf 5y ago
      How often do you imagine SWAT scenarios occurring? Get out of your bubble of fear.
jowday 5y ago
More like collateral damage will be attributed to the machines.
AndyMcConachie 5y ago
Only if it costs lots of money so that defense contractors can upgrade their McMansions by selling it. It's not like America is any good at war. They're just good at spending money on war.
imtringued 5y ago
The hard part of modern warfare is only killing the people you intend to kill. If you are fine with collateral damage you can just send in the nuclear weapons. The desire to kill an individual may end the world but the mission is accomplished either way.
abhinai 5y ago
I don't see a future where a single bullet should be allowed to be fired without a human in the loop. It is true that even with humans in the loop, lots of mistakes have been made in the past. But machines should be made to prove themselves before they are given the autonomy. There is always hope that machines, once fully autonomous, will be better at making certain judgements than humans and maybe the world would be a better place for it.
sovietmudkipz 5y ago
Cool. Kinda like the forever war, where battle AI figured out how to deploy future warriors against an alien horde.
29athrowaway 5y ago
Machines have been doing some of the thinking for a while. Many armed forces use software that simulates combat in order to save money in military exercises. In the event of war, plans based on those simulations are used.
spectramax 5y ago
I think all wars are fucked up in unique way. I see a lot of bashing of US Military here with knee-jerk reactions based on Afghanistan withdrawal. I'd suggest what a successful war, Operations Desert Storm, looks like from an extremely detailed perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqKx3FG0Lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqKx3FG0Lw
brundolf 5y ago
People have been saying this since WarGames (1983)
pvaldes 5y ago
Whom are doing the thinking until now don't qualify as totally humans in any case.
Goety 5y ago
You gotta wonder how much we're using machines to think for supply chain development.
smrtinsert 5y ago
Just in case you haven't seen this great page: https://autonomousweapons.org/ https://autonomousweapons.org/
simorley 5y ago
Next War. I guess we will never stop until someone destroys us. Or we destroy the world.
IXxXI 5y ago
Does anyone trust autonomous war machines that could have hidden backdoors built in to their hardware?

31 points by jonbaer 5y ago

I am not so sure about that. If Afghanistan and corona response have shown anything, a complete and total failure of American intelligence and military apparatus isn’t really far fetched anymore.

torstenvl 5y ago
Neither of those examples have anything at all to do with the military or IC, so it's hard to understand what you're trying to communicate. Would you mind trying a different approach?
- sofixa 5y ago
  How is the Afghanistan withdrawal and subsequent collapse of the propped up government anything but a US military and intelligence failure? #1 was badly organised, hurried and left many people behind to certain death ( translators and others who helped the US army). #2 came as a complete surprise to everyone. The decision to withdraw wasn't a military one, but they didn't really do a good job at executing it. What better way to cap off the fiasco that was that war?
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    The military and IC were aware of the downsides of the President's plan and repeatedly warned against it. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghan... You're faulting the military for... what, exactly? Not committing mutiny against the Commander in Chief?
    - sofixa 5y ago
      To better plan what they had to do. The withdrawal was extremely amateurish.
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        This is non-responsive. What exactly are you faulting the military for? Because there's pretty much nothing any military service messed up about the withdrawal.

themihai 5y ago

Will the machines work against Talibans as well?The best U.S tech couldn't deter some medieval-like army. You can't talk about a super army/next level army and forget Afghanistan...

dogma1138 5y ago
When the US invaded Afghanistan in the Taliban was defeated within about 6 weeks. US deterrence very much remained in place until it began to withdraw. Winning against a force like the Taliban requires you to be able to operate with much looser ROEs than the US as well as operate against their enabled in the region and outside of it which the US was unable and or unwilling to do. The Taliban was formed in Pakistan and it drew many of its fighters from there it was true in the late 80’s and it’s true today. Winning a war and sustaining occupation are also completely different things, and most importantly this is about a peer or near peer enemy. An occupation that is actually being opposed can only be won by extermination or expulsion whilst wars are won by making it too costly to continue fighting and allowing for or forcing a surrender.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  The results of the US withdrawal make it pretty obvious that the Taliban as an organization were in hiding rather than defeated, and probably had backchannel communications going with local leaders the entire time the US was there, given that at least some of the rapid takeover of the country again seems to have come from pre-negotiated surrender agreements.
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    They suffered many losses and run back to Pakistan to regroup, sat there for over 15 years and when the US began to withdraw they pretty much took Afghanistan back without a fight. To finish them off the US had to invade Pakistan or make it so costly for them to support the Taliban that they would have to give them up and they weren’t willing to do that for obvious reasons.

atarikraken 5y ago

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

crooked-v 5y ago

> Autonomy — enabled by artificial intelligence, edge computing and other technologies — allows you to operate at scales and speeds that you simply cannot do under the traditional model of big, expensive, heavily manned systems that, no matter how much money you throw at them, will only be able to do a limited number of things. I can't wait to see the headlines in 2050 about a badly-trained neural network leading to US warbots gunning down anyone carrying a banana.

tuatoru 5y ago
American police forces seem to acquire a lot of surplus military equipment. Coming to a town near you!
- josephcsible 5y ago
  I'd rather my town's police department have a bunch of gear they don't need than for there to be a SWAT situation that they have to wait an hour for another department to come handle.
  - Sebguer 5y ago
    Even when the evidence shows they'll start inventing new reasons to use it?
  - donw 5y ago
    There's this thing called "weapon pull". The more different weapons you give somebody, the more likely they are to use all of them. Beat cops need service pistols, batons, and a patrol rifle (AR-15) in the cruiser. That's it. OC spray isn't that useful. It's a weak area-denial weapon, which means that it usually hits the user as well as the target. Tasers are downright stupid. You get one shot and that's it. Having those extra options on the duty belt is (a) a pain in the ass, and (b) results in more deadly use-of-force. Same goes for non-police, by the way.
  - ecf 5y ago
    How often do you imagine SWAT scenarios occurring? Get out of your bubble of fear.

jowday 5y ago

More like collateral damage will be attributed to the machines.

AndyMcConachie 5y ago

Only if it costs lots of money so that defense contractors can upgrade their McMansions by selling it. It's not like America is any good at war. They're just good at spending money on war.

imtringued 5y ago

The hard part of modern warfare is only killing the people you intend to kill. If you are fine with collateral damage you can just send in the nuclear weapons. The desire to kill an individual may end the world but the mission is accomplished either way.

abhinai 5y ago

I don't see a future where a single bullet should be allowed to be fired without a human in the loop. It is true that even with humans in the loop, lots of mistakes have been made in the past. But machines should be made to prove themselves before they are given the autonomy. There is always hope that machines, once fully autonomous, will be better at making certain judgements than humans and maybe the world would be a better place for it.

sovietmudkipz 5y ago

Cool. Kinda like the forever war, where battle AI figured out how to deploy future warriors against an alien horde.

29athrowaway 5y ago

Machines have been doing some of the thinking for a while. Many armed forces use software that simulates combat in order to save money in military exercises. In the event of war, plans based on those simulations are used.

spectramax 5y ago

I think all wars are fucked up in unique way. I see a lot of bashing of US Military here with knee-jerk reactions based on Afghanistan withdrawal. I'd suggest what a successful war, Operations Desert Storm, looks like from an extremely detailed perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqKx3FG0Lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSqKx3FG0Lw

brundolf 5y ago

People have been saying this since WarGames (1983)

pvaldes 5y ago

Whom are doing the thinking until now don't qualify as totally humans in any case.

Goety 5y ago

You gotta wonder how much we're using machines to think for supply chain development.

smrtinsert 5y ago

Just in case you haven't seen this great page: https://autonomousweapons.org/ https://autonomousweapons.org/

simorley 5y ago

Next War. I guess we will never stop until someone destroys us. Or we destroy the world.

IXxXI 5y ago

Does anyone trust autonomous war machines that could have hidden backdoors built in to their hardware?