8 ms·

This isn't surprising. I think the future of warfare will be massive armies of drones controlled by algorithms. If we can remove the pilot from the equation, we

by j_baker 13y ago

This isn't surprising. I think the future of warfare will be massive armies of drones controlled by algorithms. If we can remove the pilot from the equation, we can drastically increase the size of our military. That's not to say that algorithmic warfare will be good. I'm merely saying it is inevitable.

ck2 13y ago
Why would there be anything past the first "battle" - terrorist fill drones with dirty radioactive dust, launch from sea into US, slowly release payload. Game over, half the population on the east or west coast becomes extremely ill or develop cancers, food and water sources permanently tainted. Instead of making drones we should be making drone detection and capture systems.
- glenra 13y ago
  "radioactive dust" does not work that way. You should run some numbers and see if your movie-plot threat is plausible before proposing it as a risk. (hint: it's not)
  - ck2 13y ago
    US soldiers and others near battlefields overseas are constantly getting ill from dust from the (badly named) depleted uranium ordinance that the US uses (and white phosphorus weapons). That's what leads me to believe this is plausible.
    - glenra 13y ago
      > US soldiers and others near battlefields overseas are constantly getting ill from dust from the (badly named) depleted uranium ordinance that the US uses (and white phosphorus weapons). No, they aren't. What's your source claiming this? Why do you say depleted uranium is "badly named"? And if you took some of this dust and spread it on "the east coast" or "the west coast", wouldn't that dilute the concentration by more than a factor of a million and turn an already speculative and unproven risk into a truly truly insignificant risk? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Studies_indicating_negligible_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Studies_indic...
      - ck2 13y ago
        Did you purposely link to heritage or was that an accidental result of google? Because that is pretty much a showstopper as they are wild right-wing nuts. Okay now you are using wikipedia. Read the rest of the page and realize that only the US, UK and Israel say the DU is okay, the rest of the UN says not. I wonder who has DU ammunition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxi...
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Australia, too, and the IAEA. I think you are in too much of a hurry to make your point.
    - nether 13y ago
      *ordnance It's a shame US tank designers also use DU tank armor to protect soldiers. They're actually killing them with the radiation!
  - olefoo 13y ago
    As a psychological weapon it's extremely effective; sure the actual dose of radiation would be less than you'd be exposed to flying cross-country. But the fear? That would be very effective. A terror weapon in multiple senses of the word.
- j_baker 13y ago
  You seem to be missing my point. Should those drone detection and capture systems be controlled by humans or algorithms? Just because you remove the word "drone" doesn't make algorithmic warfare any less inevitable.
- johngalt 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
- angersock 13y ago
  You have stumbled across an idea older than nuclear weapons. Heinlen's "Solution Unsatisfactory" was written with a very similar solution in mind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_Unsatisfactory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_Unsatisfactory ). That said, that is perhaps the silliest way of using drones if one meant business.
samograd 13y ago
Can't we just do that in a computer and pretend that things were destroyed and killed? Maybe calculate the transfer of wealth that would have occurred as a consequence of inferior algorithms leading to the destruction of your virtual societies?
- benologist 13y ago
  Then you'd need a real army to enforce the victory.
  - samograd 13y ago
    I'm sure the financial sector is ready to take on such a challenge.
- melling 13y ago
  Wasn't this already answered in an episode of Star Trek from the 1960s?
  - samograd 13y ago
    That was the basis of these thoughts, except for the fact that in that episode they would calculate the casualties and vaporize them; my idea is based on the pure transfer of 'wealth' that would have occurred through the destruction and re-allocation of the 'resources' from the 'loser' to the 'winner'. No actual death need occur directly due to violence but only through purely economic and financial means (job loss, starvation), similar to what has already happened after the last 'Financial Crisis' in developing countries.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
- Lockyy 13y ago
  This only works when both sides are sufficiently advanced and willing to take part in the system. You would still need an army for when enemyCountryX decides that they can just pummel you because you're busy playing video games.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by j_baker 13y ago

ck2 13y ago

Why would there be anything past the first "battle" - terrorist fill drones with dirty radioactive dust, launch from sea into US, slowly release payload. Game over, half the population on the east or west coast becomes extremely ill or develop cancers, food and water sources permanently tainted. Instead of making drones we should be making drone detection and capture systems.

glenra 13y ago
"radioactive dust" does not work that way. You should run some numbers and see if your movie-plot threat is plausible before proposing it as a risk. (hint: it's not)
- ck2 13y ago
  US soldiers and others near battlefields overseas are constantly getting ill from dust from the (badly named) depleted uranium ordinance that the US uses (and white phosphorus weapons). That's what leads me to believe this is plausible.
  - glenra 13y ago
    > US soldiers and others near battlefields overseas are constantly getting ill from dust from the (badly named) depleted uranium ordinance that the US uses (and white phosphorus weapons). No, they aren't. What's your source claiming this? Why do you say depleted uranium is "badly named"? And if you took some of this dust and spread it on "the east coast" or "the west coast", wouldn't that dilute the concentration by more than a factor of a million and turn an already speculative and unproven risk into a truly truly insignificant risk? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Studies_indicating_negligible_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Studies_indic...
    - ck2 13y ago
      Did you purposely link to heritage or was that an accidental result of google? Because that is pretty much a showstopper as they are wild right-wing nuts. Okay now you are using wikipedia. Read the rest of the page and realize that only the US, UK and Israel say the DU is okay, the rest of the UN says not. I wonder who has DU ammunition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxi...
      - jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Australia, too, and the IAEA. I think you are in too much of a hurry to make your point.
  - nether 13y ago
    *ordnance It's a shame US tank designers also use DU tank armor to protect soldiers. They're actually killing them with the radiation!
- olefoo 13y ago
  As a psychological weapon it's extremely effective; sure the actual dose of radiation would be less than you'd be exposed to flying cross-country. But the fear? That would be very effective. A terror weapon in multiple senses of the word.
j_baker 13y ago
You seem to be missing my point. Should those drone detection and capture systems be controlled by humans or algorithms? Just because you remove the word "drone" doesn't make algorithmic warfare any less inevitable.
johngalt 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
angersock 13y ago
You have stumbled across an idea older than nuclear weapons. Heinlen's "Solution Unsatisfactory" was written with a very similar solution in mind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_Unsatisfactory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_Unsatisfactory ). That said, that is perhaps the silliest way of using drones if one meant business.

samograd 13y ago

Can't we just do that in a computer and pretend that things were destroyed and killed? Maybe calculate the transfer of wealth that would have occurred as a consequence of inferior algorithms leading to the destruction of your virtual societies?

benologist 13y ago
Then you'd need a real army to enforce the victory.
- samograd 13y ago
  I'm sure the financial sector is ready to take on such a challenge.
melling 13y ago
Wasn't this already answered in an episode of Star Trek from the 1960s?
- samograd 13y ago
  That was the basis of these thoughts, except for the fact that in that episode they would calculate the casualties and vaporize them; my idea is based on the pure transfer of 'wealth' that would have occurred through the destruction and re-allocation of the 'resources' from the 'loser' to the 'winner'. No actual death need occur directly due to violence but only through purely economic and financial means (job loss, starvation), similar to what has already happened after the last 'Financial Crisis' in developing countries.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
Lockyy 13y ago
This only works when both sides are sufficiently advanced and willing to take part in the system. You would still need an army for when enemyCountryX decides that they can just pummel you because you're busy playing video games.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]