4 ms·

With the advent of AI, robotics and killing drones the question becomes: "How long do billionaires tolerate the poor?".

dexwiz 2y ago
That is my question for all those prognosticating an upcoming violent uprising. The disparity in power has only risen in the last 100 years. A single well armed solider could kill tens to hundreds of civilians in minutes given the right conditions. How do you rise up in the face of such disparate conditions?
- Teever 2y ago
  You seem to have missed the last twenty five years where the people of Afghanistan and Iraq beat the world's most powerful military and unlimited budget. Asymmetric warfare is only going to get easier for the underdog with the advent of cheap drones.
  - Gud 2y ago
    They didn’t though. This is just the same old tiresome revisionism. The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. What failed was remaking Afghanistan into a modern democracy. Money and patience ran out. But militarily, it was a total victory.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      If I was calling my campaign a victory, I’d be able to walk in my new territory without fear of being attacked and killed. It might be a military success by some sort of conventional military definition. But it was a complete failure and utter waste by pretty much every other measure.
      - Gud 2y ago
        But that’s not how this works. It takes decades to subjugate the local population by the invading force and some local resistance will remain for a long, long time.
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        What you are describing does not sound like a victory to me. If victory means "we are now bogged down in some decades-long occupation against guerrillas that drains resources and has no meaningful benefit".
        Gud 2y ago
        The person I originally responded to claimed that "the people of Afghanistan"(Actually the Taliban) defeated the "worlds most powerful military". This is objectively false. Eventually, occupation became politically hard to motivate for an American public that was tired of war. But to claim the Taliban beat the US military is ridiculous. FWIW I was there.
        Teever 2y ago
        I was under impression that the Taliban is in charge of things in Afghanistan in 2025. Is this not the case? And furthermore to my original point do you think that the ubiquity of cheap drones on the battlefield in 2025 would make similar attempts to conquer Afghanistan by the US easier or more difficult if the US were to try the same again?
        Gud 2y ago
        You are not at all addressing the point I made, that the military campaign against the Taliban was a swift and successful action. You stated that the Taliban beat the worlds most advanced military, which they didn't. That the subsequent occupation ended with the Talibans return to power has nothing to do with the war itself but has political reasons. In my opinion, the occupation could have ended completely different with a longer commitment. Unfortunately, the Iraq invasion happened and the American population had little long term interest in nation building, two nations at once. FWIW Iraq and Afghanistan are very different places. But this has nothing to do with the military campaign itself. When I was there and where I was(2010, northern Afghanistan), it was a fairly peaceful place. Things were progressing in the right direction. Regarding your second question, I don't think that the Taliban would have great use of drones considering that we could use essentially the same counter measures we used against remotely operated IEDs(jamming). Ukraine does not have access to the same equipment we did in Afghanistan. EDIT: This article pretty much reflects my views on what went wrong. The US government half assed the occupation and withdrew too early. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runaway-general-the-profile-that-brought-down-mcchrystal-192609/?RS_show_page=0 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runa...
    - owebmaster 2y ago
      > The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. But I'm the end, who had to flee and who is in power in Afghanistan since then?
      - kennysoona 2y ago
        > But I'm the end, who had to flee No one fled.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        They didn’t leave as winners.
        kennysoona 2y ago
        They did more so than they did as losers.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        It spent $2.3 trillion, lost 2,324 U.S. military and 3,917 contractors. And then there’s the hundred thousand afghan deaths. What did the US get? https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-loss-better-peace https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-lo...
        kennysoona 2y ago
        > What did the US get? It improved the quality of life and security for the people their immeasurably positively. If the withdrawal had not happened, and better leadership was displayed, the would have been completely wiped out. What they were trying to get, was another ally in the region. They could have to, if it weren't for poor leadership.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        I know some of the things they were tying to get, and I’m also not convinced it was as altruistic as that. But I’m not talking about goals. What was achieved? It isn’t safer and the US hasn’t made an ally. Those things have not been achieved. If those were the aims, the US lost and the Teliban won.
Teever 2y ago
There are far more poor people than rich people, and in a world where even the homeless have smartphones the poor will also have drones. The question then becomes "A rich man may be able to dodge taxes, but can he dodge drones?"
- 1659447091 2y ago
  A "rich man" can afford jammers and more sophisticated jam resistant drones that track down the nuisance
  - Teever 2y ago
    It's not so simple. Technology is a race between offense and defense and right now we're seeing offense leapfrog defense. The status quo that we've known our whole lives has meant that anyone trying to assassinate a powerful figure will only get one shot at it before they're caught which does not allow them to learn from their mistakes and sends a chilling message to others who would do the same. With remote controlled or autonomous drones the dynamic changes because people can operate from a distance -- perhaps even in an entirely different country that doesn't extradite. What's the defense against that? At the end of the day the attacker only has to succeed once whereas the defender has to succeed every single time. There may come a time where the ultra-wealthy and powerful decide that it isn't viable for them to be out in public due to the security risks so they will retire to a gilded cage -- which is still a cage -- and what's worse it reduces the search space for attackers to find them. This doesn't even get into the near future advancements in biotechnology that will allow small groups of dedicated people to develop biological weapons that selectively target a wealthy person's family -- how can they defend themselves against that other than going into a fully sealed environment? At the end of the day it'll end up being easier and better for these people to just make decisions that benefit the world at large instead of decisions that benefit themselves to the detriment of everyone else. If you piss less people off less people want to kill you and in fact more people will want to defend you.
black_13 2y ago
[dead]

That is my question for all those prognosticating an upcoming violent uprising. The disparity in power has only risen in the last 100 years. A single well armed solider could kill tens to hundreds of civilians in minutes given the right conditions. How do you rise up in the face of such disparate conditions?

Teever 2y ago
You seem to have missed the last twenty five years where the people of Afghanistan and Iraq beat the world's most powerful military and unlimited budget. Asymmetric warfare is only going to get easier for the underdog with the advent of cheap drones.
- Gud 2y ago
  They didn’t though. This is just the same old tiresome revisionism. The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. What failed was remaking Afghanistan into a modern democracy. Money and patience ran out. But militarily, it was a total victory.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    If I was calling my campaign a victory, I’d be able to walk in my new territory without fear of being attacked and killed. It might be a military success by some sort of conventional military definition. But it was a complete failure and utter waste by pretty much every other measure.
    - Gud 2y ago
      But that’s not how this works. It takes decades to subjugate the local population by the invading force and some local resistance will remain for a long, long time.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        What you are describing does not sound like a victory to me. If victory means "we are now bogged down in some decades-long occupation against guerrillas that drains resources and has no meaningful benefit".
        Gud 2y ago
        The person I originally responded to claimed that "the people of Afghanistan"(Actually the Taliban) defeated the "worlds most powerful military". This is objectively false. Eventually, occupation became politically hard to motivate for an American public that was tired of war. But to claim the Taliban beat the US military is ridiculous. FWIW I was there.
        Teever 2y ago
        I was under impression that the Taliban is in charge of things in Afghanistan in 2025. Is this not the case? And furthermore to my original point do you think that the ubiquity of cheap drones on the battlefield in 2025 would make similar attempts to conquer Afghanistan by the US easier or more difficult if the US were to try the same again?
        Gud 2y ago
        You are not at all addressing the point I made, that the military campaign against the Taliban was a swift and successful action. You stated that the Taliban beat the worlds most advanced military, which they didn't. That the subsequent occupation ended with the Talibans return to power has nothing to do with the war itself but has political reasons. In my opinion, the occupation could have ended completely different with a longer commitment. Unfortunately, the Iraq invasion happened and the American population had little long term interest in nation building, two nations at once. FWIW Iraq and Afghanistan are very different places. But this has nothing to do with the military campaign itself. When I was there and where I was(2010, northern Afghanistan), it was a fairly peaceful place. Things were progressing in the right direction. Regarding your second question, I don't think that the Taliban would have great use of drones considering that we could use essentially the same counter measures we used against remotely operated IEDs(jamming). Ukraine does not have access to the same equipment we did in Afghanistan. EDIT: This article pretty much reflects my views on what went wrong. The US government half assed the occupation and withdrew too early. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runaway-general-the-profile-that-brought-down-mcchrystal-192609/?RS_show_page=0 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-runa...
  - owebmaster 2y ago
    > The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. But I'm the end, who had to flee and who is in power in Afghanistan since then?
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      > But I'm the end, who had to flee No one fled.
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        They didn’t leave as winners.
        kennysoona 2y ago
        They did more so than they did as losers.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        It spent $2.3 trillion, lost 2,324 U.S. military and 3,917 contractors. And then there’s the hundred thousand afghan deaths. What did the US get? https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-loss-better-peace https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-lo...
        kennysoona 2y ago
        > What did the US get? It improved the quality of life and security for the people their immeasurably positively. If the withdrawal had not happened, and better leadership was displayed, the would have been completely wiped out. What they were trying to get, was another ally in the region. They could have to, if it weren't for poor leadership.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        I know some of the things they were tying to get, and I’m also not convinced it was as altruistic as that. But I’m not talking about goals. What was achieved? It isn’t safer and the US hasn’t made an ally. Those things have not been achieved. If those were the aims, the US lost and the Teliban won.

Teever 2y ago

There are far more poor people than rich people, and in a world where even the homeless have smartphones the poor will also have drones. The question then becomes "A rich man may be able to dodge taxes, but can he dodge drones?"

1659447091 2y ago
A "rich man" can afford jammers and more sophisticated jam resistant drones that track down the nuisance
- Teever 2y ago
  It's not so simple. Technology is a race between offense and defense and right now we're seeing offense leapfrog defense. The status quo that we've known our whole lives has meant that anyone trying to assassinate a powerful figure will only get one shot at it before they're caught which does not allow them to learn from their mistakes and sends a chilling message to others who would do the same. With remote controlled or autonomous drones the dynamic changes because people can operate from a distance -- perhaps even in an entirely different country that doesn't extradite. What's the defense against that? At the end of the day the attacker only has to succeed once whereas the defender has to succeed every single time. There may come a time where the ultra-wealthy and powerful decide that it isn't viable for them to be out in public due to the security risks so they will retire to a gilded cage -- which is still a cage -- and what's worse it reduces the search space for attackers to find them. This doesn't even get into the near future advancements in biotechnology that will allow small groups of dedicated people to develop biological weapons that selectively target a wealthy person's family -- how can they defend themselves against that other than going into a fully sealed environment? At the end of the day it'll end up being easier and better for these people to just make decisions that benefit the world at large instead of decisions that benefit themselves to the detriment of everyone else. If you piss less people off less people want to kill you and in fact more people will want to defend you.

black_13 2y ago

[dead]