6 ms·

I'd argue that China, Russia and the US have already passed this point w.r.t. nucelar weapons: Every side is sufficiently armed so that a war between any of the

I'd argue that China, Russia and the US have already passed this point w.r.t. nucelar weapons: Every side is sufficiently armed so that a war between any of them cannot be won. As soon as you start winning in a conventional scenario the other side might as well use nuclear weapons, just to ensure you'll lose too. In short a war between nuclear powers makes no sense, since the "victory condition" has been removed. I'd assume that this is the same in asymmetric conflicts: If you are fighting a guerilla war, you "win" when you kill some of your enemies troops and demoralize them. However if enemy sends only machines, then cannot win as long as the enemy is capable of producing more of these autonomous weapons than you can destroy. As you've said the cost savings do enable that. Hence the guerilla side also loses its victory condition. This is a scenario I'd actually like to see, since it might put an effective end to the kind of fighting we've seen in the middle east. Your argument is of course correct when we consider two countries which are both capable of producing such weapons and neither side has a nuclear weapon. Saudi-Arabia and Iran are candidates which could probably fall into this kind of an arms race and that would indeed make the situation there even worse.

vlehto 11y ago
"Hence the guerilla side also loses its victory condition. This is a scenario I'd actually like to see, since it might put an effective end to the kind of fighting we've seen in the middle east." As a Finn, this is exactly the kind of stuff I don't want to see. Russia can win conventional war against Finland any day, if Finland would be absolutely certain to lose also the ensuing guerrilla war, we would lose our independence without fighting. Maybe not de jure independence, but practically yes. Nukes are unusable as you said. This has not prevented conventional arms race and it's usage for proxy wars during cold war. It's unlikely it would do so in future. It might even make the whole situation worse, as now you can supply the "mujahideen" with so much more potent weapons. And you need less popular support to maintain similar levels of guerrilla activity. Damn I hope I'm wrong on that. The possible counter could be autonomous aerial denial weapons. If they get better than autonomous assault weapons, we might actually see more peaceful world in the fashion of Kant(1). It might mean that Taleban might rule Afganistan again. But it would also mean that Russia can't wing Georgia, Egypt can't win Israel and Iran can't win Iraq. Westphalian utopia. :D [1] https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm It's really awkwardly worded essay, but the point is that if everybody defends and nobody attacks, we can get resilient world peace. With the downside of occasional minor conflict, but also with no "world government". If you start to think the election of president of world government, the whole idea seems pretty obviously oppressive and potentially very totalitarian.
- swombat 11y ago
  Just a worthwhile note: guerilla warfare is not, by far, the only option. There are all sorts of techniques available to overthrow dictators and other occupiers. A good example of this in real life is what Denmark ended up doing when occupied by the Nazis - non-compliance, plain refusal to cooperate with the Final Solution, and eventually even convincing the Nazis who were based in Denmark to sabotage their own country's plans. Read more here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews And I also recommend the book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" by Gene Sharp which outlines many principles and techniques for non-violent resistance.
- throweway 11y ago
  > we might actually see more peaceful world in the fashion of Kant(1). I think we would just have nutters bombing us from the skies.

vlehto 11y ago

"Hence the guerilla side also loses its victory condition. This is a scenario I'd actually like to see, since it might put an effective end to the kind of fighting we've seen in the middle east." As a Finn, this is exactly the kind of stuff I don't want to see. Russia can win conventional war against Finland any day, if Finland would be absolutely certain to lose also the ensuing guerrilla war, we would lose our independence without fighting. Maybe not de jure independence, but practically yes. Nukes are unusable as you said. This has not prevented conventional arms race and it's usage for proxy wars during cold war. It's unlikely it would do so in future. It might even make the whole situation worse, as now you can supply the "mujahideen" with so much more potent weapons. And you need less popular support to maintain similar levels of guerrilla activity. Damn I hope I'm wrong on that. The possible counter could be autonomous aerial denial weapons. If they get better than autonomous assault weapons, we might actually see more peaceful world in the fashion of Kant(1). It might mean that Taleban might rule Afganistan again. But it would also mean that Russia can't wing Georgia, Egypt can't win Israel and Iran can't win Iraq. Westphalian utopia. :D [1] https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm It's really awkwardly worded essay, but the point is that if everybody defends and nobody attacks, we can get resilient world peace. With the downside of occasional minor conflict, but also with no "world government". If you start to think the election of president of world government, the whole idea seems pretty obviously oppressive and potentially very totalitarian.

swombat 11y ago
Just a worthwhile note: guerilla warfare is not, by far, the only option. There are all sorts of techniques available to overthrow dictators and other occupiers. A good example of this in real life is what Denmark ended up doing when occupied by the Nazis - non-compliance, plain refusal to cooperate with the Final Solution, and eventually even convincing the Nazis who were based in Denmark to sabotage their own country's plans. Read more here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews And I also recommend the book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" by Gene Sharp which outlines many principles and techniques for non-violent resistance.
throweway 11y ago
> we might actually see more peaceful world in the fashion of Kant(1). I think we would just have nutters bombing us from the skies.