4 ms·

Yes, because it can scale massively and it removes even the chance of a moral reconsideration on the part of the killer. With a human soldier there's at least a

Yes, because it can scale massively and it removes even the chance of a moral reconsideration on the part of the killer. With a human soldier there's at least a chance they'll decide to disobey an order to murder innocent people.

jrimbault 5y ago
Isn't it the case that only 1 in X soldiers actually fires their weapon ? I think vaguely remember something to that effect.
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  If you refer to the WW1 claim floating around, then it is most likely false. If you are talking about the fact modern military has many nore support ropes than combat roles, then... yeah, but that tells nothing about the willingness to fire a gun.
- hnaccount_rng 5y ago
  Yeah about 8:1 in 2005 for the US https://acoup.blog/2022/04/22/fireside-friday-april-22-2022/ https://acoup.blog/2022/04/22/fireside-friday-april-22-2022/
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  There's a book on this called On Killing by David Grossman.[1] "In World War II, only 15 to 20 percent of combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles. In Korea, about 50 percent. In Vietnam, the figure rose to more than 90 percent." [1] - https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932 https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-S...
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  I wonder what they start doing after enduring a single artillery barrage in a city. That must be horribly traumatising to see. I recently came back home from travels and realised that our neighbour’s car burned down(I live in London), and it just struck me how horrible it looks like. That’s after seeing many videos of total destruction in Ukraine. It just never popped into my mind how unusual it is to see something like that. That wasn’t even people dying, just practical realisation how not far we are from total civilisation collapse, if the majority of citizens wanted that.
RealityVoid 5y ago
How could smart drones scale massively more than firearms and trucks? If anything, we see from the conflict in Ukraine that keeping smart weapons supplied in a modern conflict it a huge effort that needs a lot of interconnected players.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  One person can control, at most, about two guns and one truck at a time.
  - dougabug 5y ago
    > One person can control, at most, about two guns and one truck at a time. A really big gun, or missile (battery)…
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lm28469 5y ago
  This isn't the same problem at all. The weapons we have trouble supplying are huge (howitzer with smart rounds, &c.) and require good roads and rails You could drop hundreds of autonomous drone by air, make them land somewhere and wait in standby until they get activated or detect a threat. They scale massively because 1 guy with 100 rifles won't do much more than 1 guy with 1 rifle, 1 guy with 100 trucks won't move faster than 1 guy with 1 truck. 0 guy with 100 drones would potentially kill 100 guys simultaneously for cheap since switchblade style drones are glorified DJIs with a grenade straped at the front
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    I admit that control has the _possibility_ to scale well. Supply, on the contrary, it would be much harder to maintain.
    - sangnoir 5y ago

jrimbault 5y ago

Isn't it the case that only 1 in X soldiers actually fires their weapon ? I think vaguely remember something to that effect.

RealityVoid 5y ago
If you refer to the WW1 claim floating around, then it is most likely false. If you are talking about the fact modern military has many nore support ropes than combat roles, then... yeah, but that tells nothing about the willingness to fire a gun.
hnaccount_rng 5y ago
Yeah about 8:1 in 2005 for the US https://acoup.blog/2022/04/22/fireside-friday-april-22-2022/ https://acoup.blog/2022/04/22/fireside-friday-april-22-2022/
pmoriarty 5y ago
There's a book on this called On Killing by David Grossman.[1] "In World War II, only 15 to 20 percent of combat infantry were willing to fire their rifles. In Korea, about 50 percent. In Vietnam, the figure rose to more than 90 percent." [1] - https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932 https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-S...
heavenlyblue 5y ago
I wonder what they start doing after enduring a single artillery barrage in a city. That must be horribly traumatising to see. I recently came back home from travels and realised that our neighbour’s car burned down(I live in London), and it just struck me how horrible it looks like. That’s after seeing many videos of total destruction in Ukraine. It just never popped into my mind how unusual it is to see something like that. That wasn’t even people dying, just practical realisation how not far we are from total civilisation collapse, if the majority of citizens wanted that.

RealityVoid 5y ago

How could smart drones scale massively more than firearms and trucks? If anything, we see from the conflict in Ukraine that keeping smart weapons supplied in a modern conflict it a huge effort that needs a lot of interconnected players.

ceejayoz 5y ago
One person can control, at most, about two guns and one truck at a time.
- dougabug 5y ago
  > One person can control, at most, about two guns and one truck at a time. A really big gun, or missile (battery)…
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lm28469 5y ago
This isn't the same problem at all. The weapons we have trouble supplying are huge (howitzer with smart rounds, &c.) and require good roads and rails You could drop hundreds of autonomous drone by air, make them land somewhere and wait in standby until they get activated or detect a threat. They scale massively because 1 guy with 100 rifles won't do much more than 1 guy with 1 rifle, 1 guy with 100 trucks won't move faster than 1 guy with 1 truck. 0 guy with 100 drones would potentially kill 100 guys simultaneously for cheap since switchblade style drones are glorified DJIs with a grenade straped at the front
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  I admit that control has the _possibility_ to scale well. Supply, on the contrary, it would be much harder to maintain.
  - sangnoir 5y ago