3 ms·

> Do you think it’s a risk that more authoritarian and belligerent states develop them first? It does not require the development and realization of a technolo

> Do you think it’s a risk that more authoritarian and belligerent states develop them first? It does not require the development and realization of a technology to create a defense against that technology. We don't fight bombers with bombers, nor do we fight ICBMs with ICBMs, nor nukes with nukes (OK, perhaps not the best example, but only because MAD is a political deterrant against rational actors (which one can argue Putin is not)). > Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, that did not bring them peace. Arguably if they had nukes, they would not be at war. Only if they were depraved enough to use them. At which point they have to concede that they too will be annihilated. The threat of nukes alone does not prevent a country from being attacked - especially by madmen.

lowbloodsugar 4y ago
I think you have a simplistic view of strategic counters. The weapon that counters an ICBM is, in fact, an ICBM. The counter for a bomber is another plane. The counter for the plane is a faster bomber, another plane. And the counter to that is an AI plane, and then an AI bomber, etc. If you are thinking "missile defense", missiles are simply rocket-based drones, and they will have to become smarter too. Whatever your weapon of choice, the counter is AI <something>. We test this theory every day with Bots vs Humans in any number of computer games. Bots will kill you every time, as long as they can recognize you. Hence AI Vision (and sensing in general) being the last hurdle.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > The weapon that counters an ICBM is, in fact, an ICBM Not at all. You can't hit an ICBM with an ICBM. All you can do is retaliate. > The counter for a bomber is another plane. Realistically, the counter is RADAR. Once you see the bomber, you can use any number of tools against it, including aircraft, SAMs, surface-to-air artillery, blacking out cities, etc. > missiles are simply rocket-based drones For an incredibly specific definition of a drone, sure. But in that case, so are bombs, satellites, and steerable ballistic projectiles. > and they will have to become smarter too. They have. > the counter is AI Not at all. An AI still has to operate a craft within the bounds of physics, and an aircraft flown at any speed will still follow a predictable path. Getting close enough with hypersonic shrapnel has proven effective throughout the years. > We test this theory every day with Bots vs Humans in any number of computer games. Bots in games don't need to follow the laws of physics. Their performance doesn't degrade with damage or environmental conditions. They have perfect information beyond just their vision. Also, bots in games that require more information than "see avatar shoot avatar" - i.e. RTS games - have to cheat to outwit humans.
darksaints 4y ago
> We don't fight bombers with bombers The Six Day War was won by an inferior fighting force when Israel used bombers to attack bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus > nor do we fight ICBMs with ICBMs Our only viable methods of defense against ICBMs is ABMs, which are basically the same thing in every way except the targeting systems and maybe payload.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Unless I misread that wiki page, they defeated fixed ground airports with bombers. Which is 100% a usecase for bombers, and always has been. The innovation there was a different bomb. An ABM is not a ballistic missile - which is to say it does not travel in a ballistic trajectory. It's a specialized SAM designed for attacking ballistic missiles. In addition to the targeting systems and payload other thing that's different is the motor - providing a greater propulsive force with a shorter overall range - which is basically the entire missile.
  - darksaints 4y ago
    They didn't just destroy airfields, they also destroyed aircraft. 450 in total, across the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian Air Forces. I know bombing a sitting plane in an open airfield isn't out of the ordinary or impressive, but it is nonetheless an example of a bomber being used to attack other bombers, and to great strategic effect.

lowbloodsugar 4y ago

I think you have a simplistic view of strategic counters. The weapon that counters an ICBM is, in fact, an ICBM. The counter for a bomber is another plane. The counter for the plane is a faster bomber, another plane. And the counter to that is an AI plane, and then an AI bomber, etc. If you are thinking "missile defense", missiles are simply rocket-based drones, and they will have to become smarter too. Whatever your weapon of choice, the counter is AI <something>. We test this theory every day with Bots vs Humans in any number of computer games. Bots will kill you every time, as long as they can recognize you. Hence AI Vision (and sensing in general) being the last hurdle.

falcolas 4y ago
> The weapon that counters an ICBM is, in fact, an ICBM Not at all. You can't hit an ICBM with an ICBM. All you can do is retaliate. > The counter for a bomber is another plane. Realistically, the counter is RADAR. Once you see the bomber, you can use any number of tools against it, including aircraft, SAMs, surface-to-air artillery, blacking out cities, etc. > missiles are simply rocket-based drones For an incredibly specific definition of a drone, sure. But in that case, so are bombs, satellites, and steerable ballistic projectiles. > and they will have to become smarter too. They have. > the counter is AI Not at all. An AI still has to operate a craft within the bounds of physics, and an aircraft flown at any speed will still follow a predictable path. Getting close enough with hypersonic shrapnel has proven effective throughout the years. > We test this theory every day with Bots vs Humans in any number of computer games. Bots in games don't need to follow the laws of physics. Their performance doesn't degrade with damage or environmental conditions. They have perfect information beyond just their vision. Also, bots in games that require more information than "see avatar shoot avatar" - i.e. RTS games - have to cheat to outwit humans.

darksaints 4y ago

> We don't fight bombers with bombers The Six Day War was won by an inferior fighting force when Israel used bombers to attack bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus > nor do we fight ICBMs with ICBMs Our only viable methods of defense against ICBMs is ABMs, which are basically the same thing in every way except the targeting systems and maybe payload.

falcolas 4y ago
Unless I misread that wiki page, they defeated fixed ground airports with bombers. Which is 100% a usecase for bombers, and always has been. The innovation there was a different bomb. An ABM is not a ballistic missile - which is to say it does not travel in a ballistic trajectory. It's a specialized SAM designed for attacking ballistic missiles. In addition to the targeting systems and payload other thing that's different is the motor - providing a greater propulsive force with a shorter overall range - which is basically the entire missile.
- darksaints 4y ago
  They didn't just destroy airfields, they also destroyed aircraft. 450 in total, across the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian Air Forces. I know bombing a sitting plane in an open airfield isn't out of the ordinary or impressive, but it is nonetheless an example of a bomber being used to attack other bombers, and to great strategic effect.