4 ms·

The trouble is, there are undemocratic societies where this is being built as well. This drone swarm is actually from China. The reasons why we build these syst

The trouble is, there are undemocratic societies where this is being built as well. This drone swarm is actually from China. The reasons why we build these systems is to prevent the undemocratic societies gaining power over us. The threat of our own societies becoming undemocratic doesn't feel as pressing as the threat of undemocratic societies that exist today. The atomic bomb is a good example, a lot of the scientist working on it wouldn't have if there weren't fears that Nazi Germany was going to build it first. This also reminds of the prisoners dilemma. If both parties choose not to build these systems we would be all fine, if one builds it and the others doesn't the other is screwed. If both build it they are both screwed but not as much.

hibernator149 4y ago
These slaughterbots will completely shift military strategies, just like atomic bombs. In the last 100 years (and probalbly even further back) it has been incredibly difficult to fight an opponent who was fortified in a (bombed) city. Ukraine is a great example of what a few organized soldiers with anti-tank weapons can hold off. Swarms of jamming resistant drones would completely trivialize urban fighting for the attacker. I'm worried about the future if attacking becomes easier than defending.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  Swarm of drones could probably be countered by an opposing swarm of drones that search and destroy enemy bots. But yes, this does raise the stakes, and those without tools to combat these weapons are absolutely screwed. But you mentioned the anti-tank weapons. These didn't exist and before and a column of tanks would have an easy time with even a large and organized force of infantry soldiers. This is what happened in Poland during WW2. So I'm hopeful that we will have a counter for these new systems like we now have counters to tanks.
- true_religion 4y ago
  Ukraine is an example of what you can hold off… if and only if your enemy refuses to use chemical weapons developed in 1910. Like Chechnya, like the Iraqi holdouts who went against Saddam, they are going to lose the moment international eyes turn away or their enemy no longer views international disappointment as a threat.
  - hoseja 4y ago
    Do you fundamentally disagree with this writeup? 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...
    - true_religion 4y ago
      It’s a bit of a lot read, so I can’t respond substantially right now. However, the write up doesn’t seem to apply in this situation. The article states it applies to a select group of counties only. Quote: > why ‘we’ – and by ‘we’ here, I mean the top-tier of modern militaries… I don’t think either of my examples were top tier militaries, which is presumably why they resorted to chemical weapons to both win and subjugate the civilian population. Edit: I read the article you posted now. I don’t think I and the article disagree. I think chemical weapons are of use against civilian holdouts / paramilitary. This is especially the examples I used. The goal of this last phase of the war is not to kill everyone, but to make them lose hope and surrender. Fighting them upright is a bad deal. You can overwhelm civilians but every tank they destroy boosts morale to the point you have to just destroy the city and kill hundreds of thousands to get them to give in. Chemical weapons disrupt life, injure civilians, and give them no proper enemy to fight back against for morale boosts. That they are ineffective is a positive in this scenario as from your POV, this is just a “police action” against “rebels”. You don’t want more effective weapons, since you believe you already won, and doing more is just wasting the population and resources you came here to conquer anyways.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Yeah, what if we increase the capability of our weapon? Oh right, it will be expensive again.

hibernator149 4y ago

These slaughterbots will completely shift military strategies, just like atomic bombs. In the last 100 years (and probalbly even further back) it has been incredibly difficult to fight an opponent who was fortified in a (bombed) city. Ukraine is a great example of what a few organized soldiers with anti-tank weapons can hold off. Swarms of jamming resistant drones would completely trivialize urban fighting for the attacker. I'm worried about the future if attacking becomes easier than defending.

DeWilde 4y ago
Swarm of drones could probably be countered by an opposing swarm of drones that search and destroy enemy bots. But yes, this does raise the stakes, and those without tools to combat these weapons are absolutely screwed. But you mentioned the anti-tank weapons. These didn't exist and before and a column of tanks would have an easy time with even a large and organized force of infantry soldiers. This is what happened in Poland during WW2. So I'm hopeful that we will have a counter for these new systems like we now have counters to tanks.
true_religion 4y ago
Ukraine is an example of what you can hold off… if and only if your enemy refuses to use chemical weapons developed in 1910. Like Chechnya, like the Iraqi holdouts who went against Saddam, they are going to lose the moment international eyes turn away or their enemy no longer views international disappointment as a threat.
- hoseja 4y ago
  Do you fundamentally disagree with this writeup? 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...
  - true_religion 4y ago
    It’s a bit of a lot read, so I can’t respond substantially right now. However, the write up doesn’t seem to apply in this situation. The article states it applies to a select group of counties only. Quote: > why ‘we’ – and by ‘we’ here, I mean the top-tier of modern militaries… I don’t think either of my examples were top tier militaries, which is presumably why they resorted to chemical weapons to both win and subjugate the civilian population. Edit: I read the article you posted now. I don’t think I and the article disagree. I think chemical weapons are of use against civilian holdouts / paramilitary. This is especially the examples I used. The goal of this last phase of the war is not to kill everyone, but to make them lose hope and surrender. Fighting them upright is a bad deal. You can overwhelm civilians but every tank they destroy boosts morale to the point you have to just destroy the city and kill hundreds of thousands to get them to give in. Chemical weapons disrupt life, injure civilians, and give them no proper enemy to fight back against for morale boosts. That they are ineffective is a positive in this scenario as from your POV, this is just a “police action” against “rebels”. You don’t want more effective weapons, since you believe you already won, and doing more is just wasting the population and resources you came here to conquer anyways.
imtringued 4y ago
Yeah, what if we increase the capability of our weapon? Oh right, it will be expensive again.