4 ms·

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

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.

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.