6 ms·

The future of warfare

32 points by rberger 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Mithaldu 12y ago
> sentient robots Stopped reading there. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but trying to get it from a writer with literally zero integrity is pointless.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  That appears to be a quote from a UN conference. Besides that, the article makes a couple of pretty good points. If you label every writer that ever made an error in their writings (or quotations) as having 'literally zero integrity' and then you stop reading because further consumption is pointless you'll throw out a lot of good with the bad. For instance, I wasn't aware of the Russian Robotic Warfare program mentioned in the link gleaned from the article.
  - Mithaldu 12y ago
    It is not a quote. In fact it is almost the opposite. It is a sentence fragment the author tagged to the end of an actual quote; the result being, as you demonstrate, that there will be some people who believe that was actually discussed. It is an embellishment which nobody who had done any diligent research on the matter could have come up with. Thus the entirety of the article is suspect, and the flowery writing style does not help in extracting what might be the actual facts.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  Well they led the article with a picture of a terminator. You pretty much have to expect an agenda with a cultural cue like that.
  - dm2 12y ago
    Is the real life version less scary? http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas.jpg http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas... You wouldn't really be able to track a mobile robot with sophisticated evasion skills. It could popup randomly, kill with unmatched precision, then disappear. An army of these robots would be nearly unstoppable. Several robots are being armed these days, with grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and both light and heavy machine guns (as seen on the guard sentries in the article) https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/ https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/ The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries. Right now we have to either strap a gasoline engine on it, tether it, or create it so that it's efficient enough to run off of existing batteries, which greatly limits their abilities.
    - oldmanjay 12y ago
      Well you kinda already incorporated my reply into your post, yes, the real life version is much less scary, because it doesn't actually exist yet. Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure they're doing the right thing.
      - unclebucknasty 12y ago
        >Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure they're doing the right thing. Seems that if you can see all of that, then you might be able to ignore the bits you don't like and discuss the topic on its merits. It would be much more interesting to read your thoughts on, say, the technology, morality, etc. This, rather than a critique of the author's writing style.
- dm2 12y ago
  Current anti-aircraft/anti-missile/anti-mortar systems are already partially "sentient", they can see/heart/detect potential threats and respond appropriately (a human is usually required to press the "ok to fire" button but it's not necessary at all). The article might not be very good, but this topic does need to be discussed publicly.
beloch 12y ago
Eventually, two forces with these military golems will turn them on each other, either in a bid for supremacy or simply to evaluate their effectiveness and inform the designers of the next generation of golems. What kind of collateral damage will result from these automated clashes? Will both sides agree to keep their golems confined to a predetermined and uninhabited area of conflict, or will golem battles spill over into populated areas? Will weapons currently considered off limits for use against humans (e.g. tactical nukes, cluster bombs, and landmines) become palatable for use against golems? Will invading golems use civilians and infrastructure as cover? How will defending golems respond to this, or even determine that it has happened? If a computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila, why give a computer an automatic rifle and a rocket launcher?
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  Sentient robots aren't necessary, nor the greatest danger. That is the danger that the US Congress can get into a war that doesn't cause body bags to come home to Dover, Delaware. The USA has a military comparable to the rest of the World combined. We have used that military, directly and indirectly, Worldwide to abuse our position. The only constraint for the past two decades has been said body bags. Given the use of drones and non-sentient robots, that one limit to US Federal power could evaporate soon, perhaps by 2020.
johngalt 12y ago
What possible autonomous system could be worse than a battery of ICBMs?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- richardw 12y ago
  ICBM's remain unused due to clear mutually-assured destruction. Autonomous weapons are much easier to introduce to actual warfare and once introduced are assured of continual improvement until...what? Whatever we think the limits are, we're probably wrong.
- TheEzEzz 12y ago
  Many things. What matters is real world outcomes, not hypothetical potential for destruction. The US doesn't use ICBMs, so in the real world they are effectively harmless. The US public and the rest of the world will not allow their use. Autonomous mechanical soldiers, on the other hand, may very well be fair game.
- waps 12y ago
  Okay, compare the muslim/"Mughal" invasion of India to oh, say 100 Hiroshima's. Then tell me which is worse. I think you'll agree that the invasion was much, much worse. ICBMs are not the world-enders their reputation seems to indicate. The real problem with ICBMs is that nothing can stop them. You know where someone is, an ICBM can kill them, with very, very few exceptions. No other technology will do that. That's why they're so feared. Not because they'll "end" a country, but because politicians fear for their own skin. Russia can destroy the white house, and there isn't a damn thing the US can do to stop them using ICBMs (one would not reliably do it). By far the most scary weapon in the world is extremely humble : knives. Not even "scary" knives. Think blunt, 10cm long or less, knives. They are by a ridiculous margin, the weapon most people were killed with. The second place are short, curved swords.
btbuildem 12y ago
Lem covered this a long time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)
JVIDEL 12y ago
Sentient != autonomous, ie: the future are drones with that can receive orders and act on them rather than needing commands in real-time from an operator far away. Of course talking about sentient machines with a terminator pic is much more clickbaity...
richliss 12y ago
The first nation to achieve accurate mobile laser defenses with rapid firing that could shoot down ICBM's could take out the primary weapons of all of its enemies (and even friends). Chances are that its going to be the US. Should the US decide that China is going to be too powerful eventually then they could create some false flag events, possibly involving a regional ally such as Japan, that would give the US this power: 1. Nuke the entire country without reply. Not likely. 2. Force the Chinese government to scrap all nuclear weapons. Likely. 3. Force the Chinese government to not have a large standing army. Likely. 4. Force elections. Likely. Now rinse and repeat for Russia and anyone else. Every other nation would be forced to sign a treaty to not pursue laser weapons. Many countries would have to force their local populations to disarm. Now add in drones and you've got the US then able to continuously monitor and fly weapons of war over other sovereign states to "keep the peace". No need for land based robots when a drone in the sky could fire a laser instantly killing someone as soon as they show a gun. That's what I call complete dominance and control.
- waps 12y ago
  And even that is only an advantage if America then decides to attack. That's just one thing you fail to include in the calculations there. > That's what I call complete dominance and control. You have a complete lack of imagination and perspective. Let me help you with some history : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions To take out a few examples of complete dominance and control : religious and ethnic cleansings over large areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests eliminating opponents and stealing everything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BD_Dynasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BD_Dynasty or how about this, the ottoman side famous for imposing a "child tax" (not kidding): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Habsburg_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Habsburg_wars Of course that sort of thing will only happen if America loses. The truth is that during the worst part of slavery in the US, the US treated it's slaves better than most empires after the Roman Empire treated their own citizens. Problem is, America hasn't really lost any war for almost 2 generations now, we don't really hear from the places where domination exists (e.g. Sudan, Mali, southernmost Algeria) and people are starting to seriously lack imagination the way you do. Dominance and control, historically, is NOT about spreading democracy and/or getting favorable resource deals. It is about complete dominance and control : things like the ability to commit ethnic cleansings ongoing for centuries, having the entire enemy population working as slaves, imposing ethnic/religious taxes of 90%+, "death or islam", ... Laser weapons are useless for these purposes.

32 points by rberger 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

> sentient robots Stopped reading there. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but trying to get it from a writer with literally zero integrity is pointless.

jacquesm 12y ago
That appears to be a quote from a UN conference. Besides that, the article makes a couple of pretty good points. If you label every writer that ever made an error in their writings (or quotations) as having 'literally zero integrity' and then you stop reading because further consumption is pointless you'll throw out a lot of good with the bad. For instance, I wasn't aware of the Russian Robotic Warfare program mentioned in the link gleaned from the article.
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  It is not a quote. In fact it is almost the opposite. It is a sentence fragment the author tagged to the end of an actual quote; the result being, as you demonstrate, that there will be some people who believe that was actually discussed. It is an embellishment which nobody who had done any diligent research on the matter could have come up with. Thus the entirety of the article is suspect, and the flowery writing style does not help in extracting what might be the actual facts.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
oldmanjay 12y ago
Well they led the article with a picture of a terminator. You pretty much have to expect an agenda with a cultural cue like that.
- dm2 12y ago
  Is the real life version less scary? http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas.jpg http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas... You wouldn't really be able to track a mobile robot with sophisticated evasion skills. It could popup randomly, kill with unmatched precision, then disappear. An army of these robots would be nearly unstoppable. Several robots are being armed these days, with grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and both light and heavy machine guns (as seen on the guard sentries in the article) https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/ https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/ The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries. Right now we have to either strap a gasoline engine on it, tether it, or create it so that it's efficient enough to run off of existing batteries, which greatly limits their abilities.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    Well you kinda already incorporated my reply into your post, yes, the real life version is much less scary, because it doesn't actually exist yet. Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure they're doing the right thing.
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      >Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure they're doing the right thing. Seems that if you can see all of that, then you might be able to ignore the bits you don't like and discuss the topic on its merits. It would be much more interesting to read your thoughts on, say, the technology, morality, etc. This, rather than a critique of the author's writing style.
dm2 12y ago
Current anti-aircraft/anti-missile/anti-mortar systems are already partially "sentient", they can see/heart/detect potential threats and respond appropriately (a human is usually required to press the "ok to fire" button but it's not necessary at all). The article might not be very good, but this topic does need to be discussed publicly.

beloch 12y ago

Eventually, two forces with these military golems will turn them on each other, either in a bid for supremacy or simply to evaluate their effectiveness and inform the designers of the next generation of golems. What kind of collateral damage will result from these automated clashes? Will both sides agree to keep their golems confined to a predetermined and uninhabited area of conflict, or will golem battles spill over into populated areas? Will weapons currently considered off limits for use against humans (e.g. tactical nukes, cluster bombs, and landmines) become palatable for use against golems? Will invading golems use civilians and infrastructure as cover? How will defending golems respond to this, or even determine that it has happened? If a computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila, why give a computer an automatic rifle and a rocket launcher?

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
Sentient robots aren't necessary, nor the greatest danger. That is the danger that the US Congress can get into a war that doesn't cause body bags to come home to Dover, Delaware. The USA has a military comparable to the rest of the World combined. We have used that military, directly and indirectly, Worldwide to abuse our position. The only constraint for the past two decades has been said body bags. Given the use of drones and non-sentient robots, that one limit to US Federal power could evaporate soon, perhaps by 2020.

johngalt 12y ago

What possible autonomous system could be worse than a battery of ICBMs?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
richardw 12y ago
ICBM's remain unused due to clear mutually-assured destruction. Autonomous weapons are much easier to introduce to actual warfare and once introduced are assured of continual improvement until...what? Whatever we think the limits are, we're probably wrong.
TheEzEzz 12y ago
Many things. What matters is real world outcomes, not hypothetical potential for destruction. The US doesn't use ICBMs, so in the real world they are effectively harmless. The US public and the rest of the world will not allow their use. Autonomous mechanical soldiers, on the other hand, may very well be fair game.
waps 12y ago
Okay, compare the muslim/"Mughal" invasion of India to oh, say 100 Hiroshima's. Then tell me which is worse. I think you'll agree that the invasion was much, much worse. ICBMs are not the world-enders their reputation seems to indicate. The real problem with ICBMs is that nothing can stop them. You know where someone is, an ICBM can kill them, with very, very few exceptions. No other technology will do that. That's why they're so feared. Not because they'll "end" a country, but because politicians fear for their own skin. Russia can destroy the white house, and there isn't a damn thing the US can do to stop them using ICBMs (one would not reliably do it). By far the most scary weapon in the world is extremely humble : knives. Not even "scary" knives. Think blunt, 10cm long or less, knives. They are by a ridiculous margin, the weapon most people were killed with. The second place are short, curved swords.

btbuildem 12y ago

Lem covered this a long time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)

JVIDEL 12y ago

Sentient != autonomous, ie: the future are drones with that can receive orders and act on them rather than needing commands in real-time from an operator far away. Of course talking about sentient machines with a terminator pic is much more clickbaity...

richliss 12y ago

The first nation to achieve accurate mobile laser defenses with rapid firing that could shoot down ICBM's could take out the primary weapons of all of its enemies (and even friends). Chances are that its going to be the US. Should the US decide that China is going to be too powerful eventually then they could create some false flag events, possibly involving a regional ally such as Japan, that would give the US this power: 1. Nuke the entire country without reply. Not likely. 2. Force the Chinese government to scrap all nuclear weapons. Likely. 3. Force the Chinese government to not have a large standing army. Likely. 4. Force elections. Likely. Now rinse and repeat for Russia and anyone else. Every other nation would be forced to sign a treaty to not pursue laser weapons. Many countries would have to force their local populations to disarm. Now add in drones and you've got the US then able to continuously monitor and fly weapons of war over other sovereign states to "keep the peace". No need for land based robots when a drone in the sky could fire a laser instantly killing someone as soon as they show a gun. That's what I call complete dominance and control.

waps 12y ago
And even that is only an advantage if America then decides to attack. That's just one thing you fail to include in the calculations there. > That's what I call complete dominance and control. You have a complete lack of imagination and perspective. Let me help you with some history : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions To take out a few examples of complete dominance and control : religious and ethnic cleansings over large areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests eliminating opponents and stealing everything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BD_Dynasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BD_Dynasty or how about this, the ottoman side famous for imposing a "child tax" (not kidding): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Habsburg_wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Habsburg_wars Of course that sort of thing will only happen if America loses. The truth is that during the worst part of slavery in the US, the US treated it's slaves better than most empires after the Roman Empire treated their own citizens. Problem is, America hasn't really lost any war for almost 2 generations now, we don't really hear from the places where domination exists (e.g. Sudan, Mali, southernmost Algeria) and people are starting to seriously lack imagination the way you do. Dominance and control, historically, is NOT about spreading democracy and/or getting favorable resource deals. It is about complete dominance and control : things like the ability to commit ethnic cleansings ongoing for centuries, having the entire enemy population working as slaves, imposing ethnic/religious taxes of 90%+, "death or islam", ... Laser weapons are useless for these purposes.