5 ms·

Yeah, but this puts us closer than ever to the brink of a nuclear exchange. For the purposes of a thought experiment, consider the false dichotomy of "America"

Yeah, but this puts us closer than ever to the brink of a nuclear exchange. For the purposes of a thought experiment, consider the false dichotomy of "America" and "NotAmerica" as two hypothetical opposing forces, where America has nukes and killer robots and NotAmerica has only nukes. If you find yourself living in NotAmerica, your motivation to pre-emptively nuke America, simply to avoid the threat of a horrific death dispensed by killer robots, presents itself as an absurdly simple choice. Even if it means suicide.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
As I am sure you know John, nuclear policy is a bit more nuanced than that. It is completely valid that by having a nuclear arsenal that can destroy any nation, a nation does not need to have a standing army that can repel an invasion (after all if you invaded, you're home country would get obliterated). The discussion referenced by Defense News though is policy around the deployment of Squad and Battalion level forces which are typically engaged in situations where either the nation-state isn't the target (say Somali pirates, of Afghan warlords), and/or the goal is incompatible with mass destruction. Your hypothetical suicide inference leaves out the choice of compliance. One could look at a place like NotAmerica' where no one is at risk of horrific death due to killer robots, versus NotAmerica where death by remote action is a more common occurrence, and look at what is different between the two places. In all the theaters of the world today it's pretty clear what action would completely remove that threat of horrific death. (hint: it isn't going to America and blowing yourself up.)
- downer83 13y ago
  The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an accounting model. Stock markets, as social laboratories of economic exchange, will always have crashes because there are black markets that operate behind them in secrecy. Certain companies might befall "unfortunate accidents" and whoopsie daisy! How did that happen? Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?
  - ballard 13y ago
    Policy, war and business are different arenas for the same game: who gets comfortable and who gets dead.
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    "Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?" Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned by a meat-cop. And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.
    - NAFV_P 13y ago
      > And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason. Concerning the film "Robocop", it was interesting that you discover most of his character traits after he has been transformed into a cyborg, and my opinion is that he was a brutal copper.
    - downer83 13y ago
      When your accusers are provided the luxury of never having to face you, how confident are you that "the law" will be carried out fairly, and that the "laws" themselves will not be arbitrary? Just as confident as you are now of the law? This is about power differential. Imbalances of power contribute to instability. The kinds of power discussed in this equation are vast, and not to be trifled with. Errors made with the toys of modern warfare can be unforgiving to the point that submarine personnel might be the only survivors. When you scale up conflict beyond the individual concept of arrest and imprisonment, there is a volatility to open warfare that is whithering, when compared to civil society. If you're that eager to thwart some cops in their activities, then vote a draft into law, advocate mandatory military service and then go rob a bank and shoot some tellers while you're at it. I dare you.
      - georgemcbay 13y ago
jahewson 13y ago
> Even if it means suicide. Erm, this is why nuclear deterrents work.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ballard 13y ago
Nukes were a concern. Having an army of terminators controlled by a handful of people gives them the power to hold a lasting monopoly of violence: power. It also removes potential for disobedience and whistleblowers of organic soldiers. It further makes it more palatable to exterminate the troublemakers and keep the rest in line.
chaostheory 13y ago
This doesn't make any sense. When you two adversaries with global ballistic nuclear weapons, you're not going to have a winner even if one side has "killer robots", unless those robots have the ability to stop what happens when the opposing side pushes the big red button. Right now they don't.
- ballard 13y ago
  Foreign Policy should be buzzing about how to first defend against quadrocopters strapped with an IED. The moment the first one happens, there will be dozens more. And that's just getting warmed up for emergent "asymmetric" threats. (Banning and licensure won't make it go away.)
  - krapp 13y ago
    Wouldn't those be much easier to detect and defend against than your standard IED?
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    I'm sure the military is already concerned about this, but I don't see why foreign policy would be buzzing about a threat that won't come from a nation state.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

As I am sure you know John, nuclear policy is a bit more nuanced than that. It is completely valid that by having a nuclear arsenal that can destroy any nation, a nation does not need to have a standing army that can repel an invasion (after all if you invaded, you're home country would get obliterated). The discussion referenced by Defense News though is policy around the deployment of Squad and Battalion level forces which are typically engaged in situations where either the nation-state isn't the target (say Somali pirates, of Afghan warlords), and/or the goal is incompatible with mass destruction. Your hypothetical suicide inference leaves out the choice of compliance. One could look at a place like NotAmerica' where no one is at risk of horrific death due to killer robots, versus NotAmerica where death by remote action is a more common occurrence, and look at what is different between the two places. In all the theaters of the world today it's pretty clear what action would completely remove that threat of horrific death. (hint: it isn't going to America and blowing yourself up.)

downer83 13y ago
The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an accounting model. Stock markets, as social laboratories of economic exchange, will always have crashes because there are black markets that operate behind them in secrecy. Certain companies might befall "unfortunate accidents" and whoopsie daisy! How did that happen? Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?
- ballard 13y ago
  Policy, war and business are different arenas for the same game: who gets comfortable and who gets dead.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  "Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?" Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned by a meat-cop. And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.
  - NAFV_P 13y ago
    > And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason. Concerning the film "Robocop", it was interesting that you discover most of his character traits after he has been transformed into a cyborg, and my opinion is that he was a brutal copper.
  - downer83 13y ago
    When your accusers are provided the luxury of never having to face you, how confident are you that "the law" will be carried out fairly, and that the "laws" themselves will not be arbitrary? Just as confident as you are now of the law? This is about power differential. Imbalances of power contribute to instability. The kinds of power discussed in this equation are vast, and not to be trifled with. Errors made with the toys of modern warfare can be unforgiving to the point that submarine personnel might be the only survivors. When you scale up conflict beyond the individual concept of arrest and imprisonment, there is a volatility to open warfare that is whithering, when compared to civil society. If you're that eager to thwart some cops in their activities, then vote a draft into law, advocate mandatory military service and then go rob a bank and shoot some tellers while you're at it. I dare you.
    - georgemcbay 13y ago

jahewson 13y ago

> Even if it means suicide. Erm, this is why nuclear deterrents work.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ballard 13y ago

Nukes were a concern. Having an army of terminators controlled by a handful of people gives them the power to hold a lasting monopoly of violence: power. It also removes potential for disobedience and whistleblowers of organic soldiers. It further makes it more palatable to exterminate the troublemakers and keep the rest in line.

chaostheory 13y ago

This doesn't make any sense. When you two adversaries with global ballistic nuclear weapons, you're not going to have a winner even if one side has "killer robots", unless those robots have the ability to stop what happens when the opposing side pushes the big red button. Right now they don't.

ballard 13y ago
Foreign Policy should be buzzing about how to first defend against quadrocopters strapped with an IED. The moment the first one happens, there will be dozens more. And that's just getting warmed up for emergent "asymmetric" threats. (Banning and licensure won't make it go away.)
- krapp 13y ago
  Wouldn't those be much easier to detect and defend against than your standard IED?
- chaostheory 13y ago
  I'm sure the military is already concerned about this, but I don't see why foreign policy would be buzzing about a threat that won't come from a nation state.