4 ms·

The battlefield will always be where the people are until all industrial capacity is fully automated (if ever). Why would a robot army that finds itself at a di

The battlefield will always be where the people are until all industrial capacity is fully automated (if ever). Why would a robot army that finds itself at a disadvantage ever attack a superior army out in a field somewhere far from strategic targets? They will focus their attacks on logistics, manufacturing, C&C, and any civilian population that can actually influence enemy politics. It’d be nice if all wars were basically a simulated conflict with robots fighting each other far from any humans but the defector that turns their robots on human populations will always have an advantage in actually winning wars.

drited 2y ago
Due to defence keeping them from strategic targets. Same reason large parts of human wars today occur in trenches in the middle of nowhere (witness Ukraine).
- throwup238 2y ago
  Those trenches aren’t in the middle of nowhere. They’re dug around cities and other strategic targets. The fights in the middle of nowhere are fought by mobile combat units. Besides, these are wars of attrition where killing off the young men who fight wars is the entire point. A robot that takes a few months to manufacture instead of 18 years to raise changes the calculus entirely.
  - eru 2y ago
    > A robot that takes a few months to manufacture instead of 18 years to raise changes the calculus entirely. The robot could still take 18 man-years to manufacture.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    This whole thread is fun to think about, but misses something. War is largely about fear / intimidation. Yes, an RTS-like "destroy the assets" is how it's abstracted, but ultimately it's about intimidating a leader and population into submission. Keeping the attackers away from cities is very much part of that calculus, as is dropping long-range attacks on those cities. If both sides have robots that take months to manufacture, the goal would still be the same: "Keep their robots away" and visa-versa "Get into their population centers and seize power symbols". At this stage, with established defenders, the goal seems to be "seize ground yard by yard" And "outproduce them" aka "grind down their will" is still going to be a viable strategy.
    - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
      What about a war for genocide. Second world war, for example. And something that is ongoing right now which shall not be mentioned.
      - gowld 2y ago
        WWII was not a war "for" genocide. The genocide was not the war. It was a "police" operation against a nearly entirely unarmed enemy. The war was to to stop Germany from expanding past its borders, and also maybe to stop the genocide.
        catlikesshrimp 2y ago
        To be fair, the Racism / Xenophobia component is always alive. AFD does exist in Germany, and Trump can get away with saying 'poisoning the blood' (He later said he didn't copy it from Hitler but he didn't apologize) As I understand it, Racism was a strong motivator in the propaganda. It was part of Hitler's narrative even before he was in power (something something culture destroyers something something parasites lorem ipsum) Only recently have I noticed that some groups support a Theory that downplays racism because people are obediently blind. I have seen racism and xenophobia and know it is neither obedience nor blind. But as to the extend of the power it held in the Germany of 1930, I have only read about it.
        tomp 2y ago
        I think it's far more complicated than "racism / xenophobia". Hitler had delusions about "Aryan" race, white blond people, even though he was not blond. Also, the war was mostly fought in Europe (or at least started in), i.e. mostly among people of the same race. It couldn't have been "xenophobia" either, given he wasn't even German! A lot of people who were sent to the concentration camps, besides Jews, were Roma (Gypsies), gays [1], Slavic people, probably more. I havne't studied history that deeply, maybe this talk about "undesirables" was all just propaganda, conveniently constructed to help fulfill military goals, but it's clearly far from neatly fitting "racism / xenophobia".
- hnbad 2y ago
  Russia literally complained about Ukraine putting its military installations in civilian centers rather than putting them in the middle of nowhere (where they'd be more exposed and easier to destroy). "Human shields" have been a consistent talking point by Israel in its attacks on Gaza despite IDF infrastructure likewise being in civilian areas. Most wars today don't occur in trenches in the middle of nowhere. Actually the most recent thing I can think of is medieval battlefields but even then a major component of warfare were sieges which targeted entire cities because it didn't make sense to have your military fortress out in the sticks where it was easy to cut off the supply lines. Even World War 1 doesn't count because the "middle of nowhere" where the trenches were were often only uninhabited because of the war. That said, we won't see wars of Terminator-style killing machines pitted against each other just like we don't see genuine tank-on-tank duels anymore. It's far cheaper to put some explosives on a UAV and call it a day. Any evenly matched war between nations capable of producing battle robots is likely one between nations with access to nuclear bombs. If Indian border conflicts are any indication, those wars are more likely to be fought with literal sticks to avoid any action that could trigger a nuclear first strike.
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    There will be no serious international wars anymore. The loser would go nuclear. I think we will now have asymmetric wars. Africa doesn't count because those countries don't have nuclear bombs
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > There will be no serious international wars anymore. The Russo-Ukrainian war seems pretty serious. > The loser would go nuclear. If annihilation was viewed better than even unconditional surrender, unconditional surrender would never have happened in the past. But it has, and thus if there is a credible marginal threat of nuclear retaliation for a nuclear strike, there is very good reason to suspect that the loser in major convential war would not go nuclear. The risk of nuclear escalation of course impacts the calculus of war involving one or more nuclear powers, but a firm statement that “the loser will go nuclear” does not seem justified, except perhaps in the case where the otherwise winning side is not, and would not (at least in the perception of the losing nuclear power) in the event of nuclear attack be protected by, a nuclear power. > Africa doesn't count because those countries don't have nuclear bombs The vast majority of non-African countries also don't have nuclear bombs.
mock-possum 2y ago
I remember reading a sci-fi story - kind of an echo of ender’s fame - where that was the precise setting, smart kids being raised to compete against other nations in what were essentially hyper-realistic RTS games as a proxy for actual wars. I don’t remember if it had the same twist as ender’s game, but maybe it did? Man I should try to dig that up again.
- gravescale 2y ago
  Also Surface Detail where a large portion of the plot involves a virtual war to solve a disagreement.
  - batch12 2y ago
    It reminded me too of Star Trek's "A Taste of Armageddon". Not the same, but a computer simulated "civilized" war.
- sdwr 2y ago
  I remember reading that one too, the child commanders were hyper-precise with their motion controls, getting down to microns of accuracy. I'm sure there was a plot or something too
- mzd348 2y ago
  Sounds like "The Last Child Into The Mountain": http://www.williamflew.com/omni54a.html http://www.williamflew.com/omni54a.html

drited 2y ago

Due to defence keeping them from strategic targets. Same reason large parts of human wars today occur in trenches in the middle of nowhere (witness Ukraine).

throwup238 2y ago
Those trenches aren’t in the middle of nowhere. They’re dug around cities and other strategic targets. The fights in the middle of nowhere are fought by mobile combat units. Besides, these are wars of attrition where killing off the young men who fight wars is the entire point. A robot that takes a few months to manufacture instead of 18 years to raise changes the calculus entirely.
- eru 2y ago
  > A robot that takes a few months to manufacture instead of 18 years to raise changes the calculus entirely. The robot could still take 18 man-years to manufacture.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  This whole thread is fun to think about, but misses something. War is largely about fear / intimidation. Yes, an RTS-like "destroy the assets" is how it's abstracted, but ultimately it's about intimidating a leader and population into submission. Keeping the attackers away from cities is very much part of that calculus, as is dropping long-range attacks on those cities. If both sides have robots that take months to manufacture, the goal would still be the same: "Keep their robots away" and visa-versa "Get into their population centers and seize power symbols". At this stage, with established defenders, the goal seems to be "seize ground yard by yard" And "outproduce them" aka "grind down their will" is still going to be a viable strategy.
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    What about a war for genocide. Second world war, for example. And something that is ongoing right now which shall not be mentioned.
    - gowld 2y ago
      WWII was not a war "for" genocide. The genocide was not the war. It was a "police" operation against a nearly entirely unarmed enemy. The war was to to stop Germany from expanding past its borders, and also maybe to stop the genocide.
      - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
        To be fair, the Racism / Xenophobia component is always alive. AFD does exist in Germany, and Trump can get away with saying 'poisoning the blood' (He later said he didn't copy it from Hitler but he didn't apologize) As I understand it, Racism was a strong motivator in the propaganda. It was part of Hitler's narrative even before he was in power (something something culture destroyers something something parasites lorem ipsum) Only recently have I noticed that some groups support a Theory that downplays racism because people are obediently blind. I have seen racism and xenophobia and know it is neither obedience nor blind. But as to the extend of the power it held in the Germany of 1930, I have only read about it.
        tomp 2y ago
        I think it's far more complicated than "racism / xenophobia". Hitler had delusions about "Aryan" race, white blond people, even though he was not blond. Also, the war was mostly fought in Europe (or at least started in), i.e. mostly among people of the same race. It couldn't have been "xenophobia" either, given he wasn't even German! A lot of people who were sent to the concentration camps, besides Jews, were Roma (Gypsies), gays [1], Slavic people, probably more. I havne't studied history that deeply, maybe this talk about "undesirables" was all just propaganda, conveniently constructed to help fulfill military goals, but it's clearly far from neatly fitting "racism / xenophobia".
hnbad 2y ago
Russia literally complained about Ukraine putting its military installations in civilian centers rather than putting them in the middle of nowhere (where they'd be more exposed and easier to destroy). "Human shields" have been a consistent talking point by Israel in its attacks on Gaza despite IDF infrastructure likewise being in civilian areas. Most wars today don't occur in trenches in the middle of nowhere. Actually the most recent thing I can think of is medieval battlefields but even then a major component of warfare were sieges which targeted entire cities because it didn't make sense to have your military fortress out in the sticks where it was easy to cut off the supply lines. Even World War 1 doesn't count because the "middle of nowhere" where the trenches were were often only uninhabited because of the war. That said, we won't see wars of Terminator-style killing machines pitted against each other just like we don't see genuine tank-on-tank duels anymore. It's far cheaper to put some explosives on a UAV and call it a day. Any evenly matched war between nations capable of producing battle robots is likely one between nations with access to nuclear bombs. If Indian border conflicts are any indication, those wars are more likely to be fought with literal sticks to avoid any action that could trigger a nuclear first strike.
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  There will be no serious international wars anymore. The loser would go nuclear. I think we will now have asymmetric wars. Africa doesn't count because those countries don't have nuclear bombs
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > There will be no serious international wars anymore. The Russo-Ukrainian war seems pretty serious. > The loser would go nuclear. If annihilation was viewed better than even unconditional surrender, unconditional surrender would never have happened in the past. But it has, and thus if there is a credible marginal threat of nuclear retaliation for a nuclear strike, there is very good reason to suspect that the loser in major convential war would not go nuclear. The risk of nuclear escalation of course impacts the calculus of war involving one or more nuclear powers, but a firm statement that “the loser will go nuclear” does not seem justified, except perhaps in the case where the otherwise winning side is not, and would not (at least in the perception of the losing nuclear power) in the event of nuclear attack be protected by, a nuclear power. > Africa doesn't count because those countries don't have nuclear bombs The vast majority of non-African countries also don't have nuclear bombs.

mock-possum 2y ago

I remember reading a sci-fi story - kind of an echo of ender’s fame - where that was the precise setting, smart kids being raised to compete against other nations in what were essentially hyper-realistic RTS games as a proxy for actual wars. I don’t remember if it had the same twist as ender’s game, but maybe it did? Man I should try to dig that up again.

gravescale 2y ago
Also Surface Detail where a large portion of the plot involves a virtual war to solve a disagreement.
- batch12 2y ago
  It reminded me too of Star Trek's "A Taste of Armageddon". Not the same, but a computer simulated "civilized" war.
sdwr 2y ago
I remember reading that one too, the child commanders were hyper-precise with their motion controls, getting down to microns of accuracy. I'm sure there was a plot or something too
mzd348 2y ago
Sounds like "The Last Child Into The Mountain": http://www.williamflew.com/omni54a.html http://www.williamflew.com/omni54a.html