I agree with the signatories to that letter and disagree with the OP.
2) I think there's no basis for the notion that autonomous weapons will result in fewer deaths. As technology has advanced war has invariably become more deadly. Occasionally people make predictions that new weapons will bring about peace. When the gatling gun was invented some thought it would end war as they knew it, it being so deadly and so impossible to attack those armed with such weapons. We saw how that turned out. I challenge anyone to name a technological development that actually made war less deadly. The only contender I can think of is nuclear weapons, and it has yet to be seen how far MAD will take us.
You can't generalize what a particular type of technological advance is going to do. I agree that the nature of arms races makes it impossible for technological advances in the effectiveness and power of killing to create peace by domination--the enemy will always eventually build their own cannons or whatever and you're right back where you started.
But the particular advance of automation has the potential to result in fewer deaths, certainly on the side of the aggressors, who no longer have to risk their own soldiers' lives, and possibly on the other side as well, for a number of reasons. Strikes can be more contained, robots can have less violent rules of engagement, robots don't go out and commit atrocities. As I said upthread, I think replacing piloted bomber planes with unmanned drones is a technological development that results in fewer deaths, both because the pilots are no longer at risk and because drones are better at not killing civilians.
I don't think the implication is that if we send robots to Iran, the Iranians will stop fighting and peace will reign. I think the implication is that if we need to send something to Iran, robots are definitely preferable for us and may be better for the Iranians, too.
3) Robots make war politically cheap. With no need to draft or maintain fighting forces, and no worry of war-weariness from human casualties or disabled vets, war becomes something that can be entered into with less political risk at home. This is a major selling point to drones right now.
War is already politically cheap, especially in America, where we have no draft.
Secondly, why is war a problem? Partly because engaging in war means having your soldiers killed or disabled. If war is more frequent in an AI-combat world, it is also less horrible. That balance may still end up being progress overall.
3) Even if everyone gets autonomous robots, war won't become robots killing robots and sparing innocents. War is politics by different means. Its purpose is to affect change in people and states. A country that has its army defeated in the field may surrender, or it may not, depending on what the leadership wages its chances are. In the 20th century it has often taken widescale destruction of cities to bring about the end to wars. Adding robots to this mix doesn't change change much, since its still humans, in the end, that you need to put the screws to.
Countries surrender when they lose the will to continue fighting, not when they've run out of people and buildings. Robots fighting robots is expensive, and if a country runs out of both robots and the money to make new robots, they're likely to surrender before the country that still has robots decides to put a bunch of their citizens to the robo-sword.
There is a huge implicit "for you" there. War is less horrible for you. You're assuming that everyone will have robots, yet they won't. When was the last time the us fought an equivalently armed country?
But the particular advance of automation has the potential to result in fewer deaths, certainly on the side of the aggressors, who no longer have to risk their own soldiers' lives, and possibly on the other side as well, for a number of reasons. Strikes can be more contained, robots can have less violent rules of engagement, robots don't go out and commit atrocities.
Who knows what robots will be able to do in the future? Technology is increasing substantially in many areas, and what we have right now it'd be very easy for them to commit atrocities - since they're dependent on human operators.
As I said upthread, I think replacing piloted bomber planes with unmanned drones is a technological development that results in fewer deaths, both because the pilots are no longer at risk and because drones are better at not killing civilians.
There's always civilian casualties. Weapon technology will have to improve dramatically past what we have to limit to single targets with missiles, and decrease their explosive output.
I don't think the implication is that if we send robots to Iran, the Iranians will stop fighting and peace will reign. I think the implication is that if we need to send something to Iran, robots are definitely preferable for us and may be better for the Iranians, too.
Why would it be better for the Iranians? They'd be getting slaughtered by the robots, and they won't be able to hurt American casualties via soldiers.
War is already politically cheap, especially in America, where we have no draft.
Which is a big problem America has. It's rare when we aren't in a war.
Secondly, why is war a problem? Partly because engaging in war means having your soldiers killed or disabled. If war is more frequent in an AI-combat world, it is also less horrible. That balance may still end up being progress overall.
That's not balance, casualties aren't limited to soldiers. Civilians die in large numbers in conflicts. This is partially why drone warfare is controversial - their missile strikes kill more than one person when they hit, innocent people die in the carnage.
War is a very distasteful practice that should be a last resort, and this increases the distance between us and the war on the ground. America's already struggling with being apathetic to the destruction in wars as it is, by letting robots take a hold it becomes even more like a video-game to the media, government and public. It won't be the country with robots with the blood, it'll be their enemies and civilian caught in the cross fire. War being more frequent than it is now is chilling. We'd have less resistance from the public with bad wars like Iraq, and less people on the ground trying to make connections with the natives who live in the war zones. War isn't a bloodless endeavor, or it wouldn't be war. It just won't be our's as much it used to be, which isn't always a good thing to personal investment for countries. I'd rather not let the next George W. Bush have that power when they get into office.
Countries surrender when they lose the will to continue fighting, not when they've run out of people and buildings. Robots fighting robots is expensive, and if a country runs out of both robots and the money to make new robots, they're likely to surrender before the country that still has robots decides to put a bunch of their citizens to the robo-sword.
Or they'll fight to the death with what they have. Not every terrorist group or nation is going to surrender peacefully, Japan had to have two nuclear bombs dropped on it before it did.
There is a huge implicit "for you" there. War is less horrible for you. You're assuming that everyone will have robots, yet they won't. When was the last time the us fought an equivalently armed country?
Nah war would be less horrible for them too. The horror of war is the war itself not who wins or loses.
Your concern here seems to be more about who's able to easily win wars which is certainly a valid concern but also a different one.
There is a huge implicit "for you" there. War is less horrible for you. You're assuming that everyone will have robots, yet they won't. When was the last time the us fought an equivalently armed country?
Nah war would be less horrible for them too. The horror of war is the war itself not who wins or loses.
Your concern here seems to be more about who's able to easily win wars which is certainly a valid concern but also a different one.
I fail to see a populated building being destroyed by a robot than a human makes the act less horrible.
There is a huge implicit "for you" there. War is less horrible for you. You're assuming that everyone will have robots, yet they won't. When was the last time the us fought an equivalently armed country?
Nah war would be less horrible for them too. The horror of war is the war itself not who wins or loses.
Your concern here seems to be more about who's able to easily win wars which is certainly a valid concern but also a different one.
I fail to see a populated building being destroyed by a robot than a human makes the act less horrible.
Everyone suffering from PTSD after participating in such acts would disagree.
The problem I'm seeing, again, is your concern with who's wielding the power and what they're doing with it. Which is absolutely a valid concern. But that has nothing to do with the weapons and everything to do with the people directing them.
There is a huge implicit "for you" there. War is less horrible for you. You're assuming that everyone will have robots, yet they won't. When was the last time the us fought an equivalently armed country?
Nah war would be less horrible for them too. The horror of war is the war itself not who wins or loses.
Your concern here seems to be more about who's able to easily win wars which is certainly a valid concern but also a different one.
I fail to see a populated building being destroyed by a robot than a human makes the act less horrible.
Everyone suffering from PTSD after participating in such acts would disagree.
And the casualties and the American public? Because they care about that no matter who or what pulls the trigger.
It's a noble act to take the soldiers out of warfare to protect them from harm. I get where you;re coming from, however war isn't that bloodless. Someone always pays the price in blood, whether it's a terrorist, enemy soldier, civilian or all of the above. And there's the collateral damage. Taking America's soldiers out of wars won't change that, war will continue with or without their presence.
The problem I'm seeing, again, is your concern with who's wielding the power and what they're doing with it. Which is absolutely a valid concern. But that has nothing to do with the weapons and everything to do with the people directing them.
And whose pulling the trigger matters. Because that trigger will get pulled and someone will die.
I agree with the signatories to that letter and disagree with the OP.
2) I think there's no basis for the notion that autonomous weapons will result in fewer deaths. As technology has advanced war has invariably become more deadly. Occasionally people make predictions that new weapons will bring about peace. When the gatling gun was invented some thought it would end war as they knew it, it being so deadly and so impossible to attack those armed with such weapons. We saw how that turned out. I challenge anyone to name a technological development that actually made war less deadly. The only contender I can think of is nuclear weapons, and it has yet to be seen how far MAD will take us.
You can't generalize what a particular type of technological advance is going to do. I agree that the nature of arms races makes it impossible for technological advances in the effectiveness and power of killing to create peace by domination--the enemy will always eventually build their own cannons or whatever and you're right back where you started.
But the particular advance of automation has the potential to result in fewer deaths, certainly on the side of the aggressors, who no longer have to risk their own soldiers' lives, and possibly on the other side as well, for a number of reasons. Strikes can be more contained, robots can have less violent rules of engagement, robots don't go out and commit atrocities. As I said upthread, I think replacing piloted bomber planes with unmanned drones is a technological development that results in fewer deaths, both because the pilots are no longer at risk and because drones are better at not killing civilians.
Well I can and am trying to generalize. Copper smithing, siege weapons, the stirrup, longbows, gunpowder, gattling guns, artillery, strategic bombing, assault rifles- I can't think of any new weapon that has made war less deadly. Again the only possible exception I can think of is nukes, and the jury is still out on how well they keep the peace.
Robots don't necessarily make war more deadly, I'm just saying that advances in weapons technology haven't led to less deadly wars.
3) Robots make war politically cheap. With no need to draft or maintain fighting forces, and no worry of war-weariness from human casualties or disabled vets, war becomes something that can be entered into with less political risk at home. This is a major selling point to drones right now.
War is already politically cheap, especially in America, where we have no draft.
I hope you're joking, because the US is in a bout of war wearniess not seen since post-Vietnam. Afghanistan and Iraq have made "boots on the ground" almost an impossibility. Which is why we see drones and special forces being used. War, the kind of war that involves men shooting things in faraway lands is incredibly politically expensive right now.
Secondly, why is war a problem? Partly because engaging in war means having your soldiers killed or disabled. If war is more frequent in an AI-combat world, it is also less horrible. That balance may still end up being progress overall.
...
3) Even if everyone gets autonomous robots, war won't become robots killing robots and sparing innocents. War is politics by different means. Its purpose is to affect change in people and states. A country that has its army defeated in the field may surrender, or it may not, depending on what the leadership wages its chances are. In the 20th century it has often taken widescale destruction of cities to bring about the end to wars. Adding robots to this mix doesn't change change much, since its still humans, in the end, that you need to put the screws to.
Countries surrender when they lose the will to continue fighting, not when they've run out of people and buildings. Robots fighting robots is expensive, and if a country runs out of both robots and the money to make new robots, they're likely to surrender before the country that still has robots decides to put a bunch of their citizens to the robo-sword.
You're right that its about the will to fight, usually amongst the leadership. Trouble is they often don't know when to quit, and are willing to sacrifice others to stay in the game. Even when there's a large discrepancy of power, say the US compared to any of its foes since WW2, there is at least token and often die-hard resistance, even if it means people being effectively put to the sword by bombing campaigns or whatever. More important is the industrial base, which is actually really difficult to destroy even with a fuck ton of bombs. This actually is more important in robo-war, since losing people doesn't mean losing soliders. All you need to do is repair your industrial base, pump out some more robo warriors and you're back in the game. Leaders often hold out way longer than they should, and I don't think autonomous robots will encourage them to throw in the towel sooner.
And, what the fuck, why is war a problem? Sure this is a fun wannabe-intellectual exercise but war is a horrific experience for everyone involved and I'm not going to say "oh yeah thats fine" if the killing side of war is pointed at someone other than myself. War, and the technology that supports it affects people, real people, and fuck no I won't give even tacit support to technology designed to increase its efficiency.
There is a huge implicit "for you" there. War is less horrible for you. You're assuming that everyone will have robots, yet they won't. When was the last time the us fought an equivalently armed country?
Nah war would be less horrible for them too. The horror of war is the war itself not who wins or loses.
Your concern here seems to be more about who's able to easily win wars which is certainly a valid concern but also a different one.
I fail to see a populated building being destroyed by a robot than a human makes the act less horrible.
Everyone suffering from PTSD after participating in such acts would disagree.
And the casualties and the American public? Because they care about that no matter who or what pulls the trigger.
It's a noble act to take the soldiers out of warfare to protect them from harm. I get where you;re coming from, however war isn't that bloodless. Someone always pays the price in blood, whether it's a terrorist, enemy soldier, civilian or all of the above. And there's the collateral damage. Taking America's soldiers out of wars won't change that, war will continue with or without their presence.
The problem I'm seeing, again, is your concern with who's wielding the power and what they're doing with it. Which is absolutely a valid concern. But that has nothing to do with the weapons and everything to do with the people directing them.
And whose pulling the trigger matters. Because that trigger will get pulled and someone will die.
No one said war would be bloodless or cease to exist. They said it would be less awful. Cause fewer people would die. I, personally, consider fewer people dying to be better.
And you only addressed part of my statement with your last one. The problem with a theoretical killing robot isn't the killing robot part. The only problem is who controls it. Much like the concern has always been who controls every weapon ever. Completely one sided war is already the reality we live in. Robots aren't wouldn't make that any worse or better. Only people will.
There is a huge implicit "for you" there. War is less horrible for you. You're assuming that everyone will have robots, yet they won't. When was the last time the us fought an equivalently armed country?
Nah war would be less horrible for them too. The horror of war is the war itself not who wins or loses.
Your concern here seems to be more about who's able to easily win wars which is certainly a valid concern but also a different one.
I fail to see a populated building being destroyed by a robot than a human makes the act less horrible.
As Quid notes, but I'd argue the lack of human factors makes the building being destroyed less likely. Robots can have their very raison d'etre to obey the laws of armed conflict. Humans simply can't get there.
Honestly, those wanting to minimize the suffering of war should be excited. Imagine a system where rules of engagement are pre-approved by a third party observer, and/or where command influence war crimes tribunals have black and white, unambiguous evidence to either condemn or verify accounts. You don't need to worry about who told who what, you have the signature of General XYZ, in black and white, approving bots to go into the area, who had clearly immorally and illegally broad engagement settings.
I think automated weapons would vastly undermine the capability to use lower ranked people or "bad apples" arguments to avoid culpability.
+7
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I agree with the signatories to that letter and disagree with the OP.
2) I think there's no basis for the notion that autonomous weapons will result in fewer deaths. As technology has advanced war has invariably become more deadly. Occasionally people make predictions that new weapons will bring about peace. When the gatling gun was invented some thought it would end war as they knew it, it being so deadly and so impossible to attack those armed with such weapons. We saw how that turned out. I challenge anyone to name a technological development that actually made war less deadly. The only contender I can think of is nuclear weapons, and it has yet to be seen how far MAD will take us.
You can't generalize what a particular type of technological advance is going to do. I agree that the nature of arms races makes it impossible for technological advances in the effectiveness and power of killing to create peace by domination--the enemy will always eventually build their own cannons or whatever and you're right back where you started.
But the particular advance of automation has the potential to result in fewer deaths, certainly on the side of the aggressors, who no longer have to risk their own soldiers' lives, and possibly on the other side as well, for a number of reasons. Strikes can be more contained, robots can have less violent rules of engagement, robots don't go out and commit atrocities. As I said upthread, I think replacing piloted bomber planes with unmanned drones is a technological development that results in fewer deaths, both because the pilots are no longer at risk and because drones are better at not killing civilians.
Well I can and am trying to generalize. Copper smithing, siege weapons, the stirrup, longbows, gunpowder, gattling guns, artillery, strategic bombing, assault rifles- I can't think of any new weapon that has made war less deadly. Again the only possible exception I can think of is nukes, and the jury is still out on how well they keep the peace.
I'm a layperson when it comes to military history, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't advances in history that have made killing more precise, or changed the tactics such that part of warfare became less deadly. Jet fighting seems far less bloody than biplane dogfights, for instance. Once we invented cars we stopped killing so many horses. Etc.
Robots don't necessarily make war more deadly, I'm just saying that advances in weapons technology haven't led to less deadly wars.
I'm just saying that automation is an entirely new kind of technological advance. Increasing the autonomy of your weapons is something very different from increasing the size, speed, effectiveness, durability, maneuverability, etc of your weapons, and history is almost entirely a series of advances in the latter regard. You can't therefore use that history to predict or even suggest that will happen when we make advances of autonomy.
3) Robots make war politically cheap. With no need to draft or maintain fighting forces, and no worry of war-weariness from human casualties or disabled vets, war becomes something that can be entered into with less political risk at home. This is a major selling point to drones right now.
War is already politically cheap, especially in America, where we have no draft.
I hope you're joking, because the US is in a bout of war wearniess not seen since post-Vietnam. Afghanistan and Iraq have made "boots on the ground" almost an impossibility. Which is why we see drones and special forces being used. War, the kind of war that involves men shooting things in faraway lands is incredibly politically expensive right now.[/quote]
Wait, what kind of war are we talking about? If drones and special forces don't count as war, neither should robots, which are more likely in the "right now" you're focusing on to replace the special forces.
And, what the fuck, why is war a problem?
I meant that and the following sentence to mean, "War is a problem partly because it means soldiers in the field getting killed," not, "Let's go back and question the assumption that war is horrible." It was just a rhetorical question. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Sure this is a fun wannabe-intellectual exercise but war is a horrific experience for everyone involved and I'm not going to say "oh yeah thats fine" if the killing side of war is pointed at someone other than myself. War, and the technology that supports it affects people, real people, and fuck no I won't give even tacit support to technology designed to increase its efficiency.
Which is better, A or B:
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 troops
and for a bonus, how about C?
C: 10 years later, the same two countries get into a war, and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 robots
War affects real people. The fewer real people who get killed, the better, no matter what side they're on. If technological advances can make that happen, I'm all for them.
I agree with the signatories to that letter and disagree with the OP.
2) I think there's no basis for the notion that autonomous weapons will result in fewer deaths. As technology has advanced war has invariably become more deadly. Occasionally people make predictions that new weapons will bring about peace. When the gatling gun was invented some thought it would end war as they knew it, it being so deadly and so impossible to attack those armed with such weapons. We saw how that turned out. I challenge anyone to name a technological development that actually made war less deadly. The only contender I can think of is nuclear weapons, and it has yet to be seen how far MAD will take us.
You can't generalize what a particular type of technological advance is going to do. I agree that the nature of arms races makes it impossible for technological advances in the effectiveness and power of killing to create peace by domination--the enemy will always eventually build their own cannons or whatever and you're right back where you started.
But the particular advance of automation has the potential to result in fewer deaths, certainly on the side of the aggressors, who no longer have to risk their own soldiers' lives, and possibly on the other side as well, for a number of reasons. Strikes can be more contained, robots can have less violent rules of engagement, robots don't go out and commit atrocities. As I said upthread, I think replacing piloted bomber planes with unmanned drones is a technological development that results in fewer deaths, both because the pilots are no longer at risk and because drones are better at not killing civilians.
Well I can and am trying to generalize. Copper smithing, siege weapons, the stirrup, longbows, gunpowder, gattling guns, artillery, strategic bombing, assault rifles- I can't think of any new weapon that has made war less deadly. Again the only possible exception I can think of is nukes, and the jury is still out on how well they keep the peace.
I'm a layperson when it comes to military history, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't advances in history that have made killing more precise, or changed the tactics such that part of warfare became less deadly. Jet fighting seems far less bloody than biplane dogfights, for instance. Once we invented cars we stopped killing so many horses. Etc.
Robots don't necessarily make war more deadly, I'm just saying that advances in weapons technology haven't led to less deadly wars.
I'm just saying that automation is an entirely new kind of technological advance. Increasing the autonomy of your weapons is something very different from increasing the size, speed, effectiveness, durability, maneuverability, etc of your weapons, and history is almost entirely a series of advances in the latter regard. You can't therefore use that history to predict or even suggest that will happen when we make advances of autonomy.
3) Robots make war politically cheap. With no need to draft or maintain fighting forces, and no worry of war-weariness from human casualties or disabled vets, war becomes something that can be entered into with less political risk at home. This is a major selling point to drones right now.
War is already politically cheap, especially in America, where we have no draft.
I hope you're joking, because the US is in a bout of war wearniess not seen since post-Vietnam. Afghanistan and Iraq have made "boots on the ground" almost an impossibility. Which is why we see drones and special forces being used. War, the kind of war that involves men shooting things in faraway lands is incredibly politically expensive right now.
Wait, what kind of war are we talking about? If drones and special forces don't count as war, neither should robots, which are more likely in the "right now" you're focusing on to replace the special forces.
And, what the fuck, why is war a problem?
I meant that and the following sentence to mean, "War is a problem partly because it means soldiers in the field getting killed," not, "Let's go back and question the assumption that war is horrible." It was just a rhetorical question. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Sure this is a fun wannabe-intellectual exercise but war is a horrific experience for everyone involved and I'm not going to say "oh yeah thats fine" if the killing side of war is pointed at someone other than myself. War, and the technology that supports it affects people, real people, and fuck no I won't give even tacit support to technology designed to increase its efficiency.
Which is better, A or B:
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 troops
and for a bonus, how about C?
C: 10 years later, the same two countries get into a war, and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 robots
War affects real people. The fewer real people who get killed, the better, no matter what side they're on. If technological advances can make that happen, I'm all for them.[/quote]
I'm a layperson when it comes to military history, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't advances in history that have made killing more precise, or changed the tactics such that part of warfare became less deadly. Jet fighting seems far less bloody than biplane dogfights, for instance. Once we invented cars we stopped killing so many horses. Etc.
The first biplane dog fights involved pilots trying to shoot each other with pistols. It was remarkably un-deadly. You are right that technology has decreased horse mortality rates in war.
However aircraft were quickly adopted to roles in strategic bombing, notably the British used them to put down rebellions in then-Mesopotemia after WW1. Cars adapted to war, ie tanks, are pretty damn deadly.
I'm just saying that automation is an entirely new kind of technological advance. Increasing the autonomy of your weapons is something very different from increasing the size, speed, effectiveness, durability, maneuverability, etc of your weapons, and history is almost entirely a series of advances in the latter regard. You can't therefore use that history to predict or even suggest that will happen when we make advances of autonomy.
Then on what basis are we making our predictions about the future?
Wait, what kind of war are we talking about? If drones and special forces don't count as war, neither should robots, which are more likely in the "right now" you're focusing on to replace the special forces.
Robots make war easier to wage, is what I mean. I'm not completely sure what you mean here, but yeah whats going on today is absolutely war, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere. Its kept quiet, most especially with US casualties, in order to keep it going. I don't want more of it.
I meant that and the following sentence to mean, "War is a problem partly because it means soldiers in the field getting killed," not, "Let's go back and question the assumption that war is horrible." It was just a rhetorical question. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
For the past 100 years or so the number of innocents killed in war has dwarfed the number of soldiers killed. Civilians bear the brunt, not just in the immediate war but in the hardships and migrations and the wars that come about a generation later in response. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, had it been done with robots, probably would have resulted in fewer US casualties. This is not a net bonus to me, since it would still result in thousands of innocents dead as the country tears itself apart. Unless robots prove themselves as well to be more capable occupation administrators.
Which is better, A or B:
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 troops
and for a bonus, how about C?
C: 10 years later, the same two countries get into a war, and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 robots
The first two are equivalent. Not sure about C, though I'm pretty sure its impossible.
Lets take a counter hypothetical
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 0 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops from poison gas attacks
Poison gas was banned because it's indiscriminate and ineffective (military don masks civilians don't) not because it's inherently inhumane or something. It also has negative consequences for the terrai. Chemical weapons are a means to terrorize civilian polulations mainly, rather than a way to kill soldiers.
Hence why your hypothetical does not hold.
Edit: the real argument for robots is that robots can afford to be discriminate with their attacks. They can take the time to determine if a target is legitimate or not and if it's worth it to suffer the collateral. Humans can't, the risk of dying is too high. Risk of dying for a robot is nothing, it's a robot.
Goumindong on
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I'm just saying that automation is an entirely new kind of technological advance. Increasing the autonomy of your weapons is something very different from increasing the size, speed, effectiveness, durability, maneuverability, etc of your weapons, and history is almost entirely a series of advances in the latter regard. You can't therefore use that history to predict or even suggest that will happen when we make advances of autonomy.
Then on what basis are we making our predictions about the future?
By looking at the thing itself and speculating on how that thing might affect the future. Automation is a different kind of innovation and will have different effects on warfare, just as the technological advance of dynamite (more explosive power, easier to handle safely) differed in nature from the technological advance of arrows (increased maximum combat range).
Wait, what kind of war are we talking about? If drones and special forces don't count as war, neither should robots, which are more likely in the "right now" you're focusing on to replace the special forces.
Robots make war easier to wage, is what I mean. I'm not completely sure what you mean here, but yeah whats going on today is absolutely war, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere. Its kept quiet, most especially with US casualties, in order to keep it going. I don't want more of it.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but here's my impression of this little subthread:
you: "Robots will make war politically cheaper to engage in"
me: "War is already very easy to engage in politically, at least for America"
you: "No, war is very hard to engage in right now, because we're war-weary, so we have to rely on drones at present"
me: "That implies that drones are not war, or you're arguing simultaneously that it's hard for the US to wage war right now and that the US is waging war right now"
I guess reading your new bit here, you're saying that we're already waging war, but that it's unpopular, but that robots would make it more popular? I don't know that that makes a whole lot of sense, so I must be misinterpreting somewhere.
Which is better, A or B:
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 troops
and for a bonus, how about C?
C: 10 years later, the same two countries get into a war, and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 robots
The first two are equivalent. Not sure about C, though I'm pretty sure its impossible.
What. How are the first two equivalent? How are 20,000 deaths just as bad as 10,000 deaths? What kind of a moral system is that?
Lets take a counter hypothetical
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 0 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops from poison gas attacks
Which is better?
B, although there might a ratio somewhere in the middle where my answer would switch. I mean, what's worse, two "less awful for the victims" 9/11s or one 9/11? I gotta go with the 50% death count there. This doesn't account for conventions of war or whatever, and in the real world it's mostly impossible to say "if we just commit this atrocity the conflict will be half as bloody", but in a naked hypothetical, sure, B.
Is this a new argument that it's more awful to get killed by a robot than a person (or a person operating a robot for that matter)? If not, I'm not sure how this is actually countering my arguments.
I think the argument is more "now that there is no risk to soldiers for one side, there will be more fighting and more casualties overall" because there's no real negatives anymore for them. There is encouragement now to fight when they otherwise would not if there was a real cost
Edit: the real argument for robots is that robots can afford to be discriminate with their attacks. They can take the time to determine if a target is legitimate or not and if it's worth it to suffer the collateral. Humans can't, the risk of dying is too high. Risk of dying for a robot is nothing, it's a robot.
Can afford, but do you think they will really risk their no doubt expensive robots on firing slower? I doubt it
B, although there might a ratio somewhere in the middle where my answer would switch. I mean, what's worse, two "less awful for the victims" 9/11s or one 9/11? I gotta go with the 50% death count there. This doesn't account for conventions of war or whatever, and in the real world it's mostly impossible to say "if we just commit this atrocity the conflict will be half as bloody", but in a naked hypothetical, sure, B.
Hiroshima. And while, from a purely numbers game, "a million dead now instead of millions dead later" might seem tempting, making that a routine decision is horrifying.
It's an option of absolute last resort, in any society that values human life.
While I would definitely acknowledge that many technologies that were originally intended to make war less deadly have had the opposite effect, I think with modern weapons / warfare we've finally hit a tipping point. Nukes, chemical weapons, and MAD doctrine got us to the ceiling - we already have weapons that are as deadly as weapons can be.
Even with conventional weapons, a B52 or B2 can drop upwards of 25 tons of bombs essentially anywhere in the world, more than enough to kill anything that's politically acceptable to kill (and then some).
The modern world isn't really one where indiscriminate killing of civilian populations is tenable - certainly not by an industrialized nation that would unilaterally be able to employ robotic or automated weaponry in the field. The trend, instead has been towards more highly targeted and less lethal weapons - we went from carpet bombing areas in Vietnam to cruise missiles / guided bombs to targeted drone strikes. Each step has the potential to be an order of magnitude less lethal than the previous weapons.
The logical next step in weaponry will be weapons that can target an individual without collateral damage, and I'd imagine along with that we'll see weapons that can remotely incapacitate targets for capture - high value targets are arguably more valuable captured for intelligence rather than just killed.
I imagine we'll see the 'have not' forces employing more asymmetrical warfare, but that's something that rapidly becomes more difficult when the 'have' forces are able to field more drones or robots that can constantly monitor and immediately respond - at nominal risk - to insurgents.
Overall, one promising factor is that despite their flaws, first world forces that have the capacity to field those types of weapons generally are more accountable and more concerned about collateral damage (or at the very least, the complications that arise from it) than the forces they will be using them against. There's always the human factor at some point in the chain - the AI needs mission parameters at some point - but someone, somewhere is going to be responsible for setting those parameters and can be held accountable for where they are set. At that point, warfare basically becomes a matter of policy.
While it's only one data point, we've seen with MAD that when warfare becomes hopeless, people avoid fighting. That leads to stability, which is generally good all around.
Let's also look at the civilian benefits. Wouldn't you rather have had an unfeeling robot with strict rules of engagement on duty in Ferguson? Is a robot going to mistake a wallet or cell phone for a gun in the dark, and kill some kid before they get confirmation? If the robot's not a life at stake, maybe it waits and gets shot...so it just needs to be repaired or replaced.
We can talk about armies of jack-booted robots keeping down a civilian population, but let's be honest - human history has shown that we're perfectly capable of doing that without any robotic help.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't have a philosophical problem with drone soldiers. But I do I think it's equally silly to say they'll make war cleaner as it is to say they'll make it more ubiquitous. War, uh, never changes is I guess what I'm saying and finding ways to minimize casualties is a very good thing.
The only thing I would say is that I hesitate to completely remove the human aspect from strategic weapons, even Breshnev realized that was nuts. There have been too many radar failures at early warning stations for me to take the launch sequence out of human hands.
3) Robots make war politically cheap. With no need to draft or maintain fighting forces, and no worry of war-weariness from human casualties or disabled vets, war becomes something that can be entered into with less political risk at home. This is a major selling point to drones right now.
The (first) point three is what I like to call The Treize Khushrenada Argument Against Mobile Dolls. Those of you who get the reference pretty much know the argument as a whole. For those who don't:
More often than not (and in fact, in a large majority of cases--the exceptions are few and far between) the foremost victims of both historical and modern wartime are not the soldiers who participate them willingly or unwilling, but the civilian population that invariably, and almost certainly unwillingly, occupies the territory or serves the resources desired. Modern technology has, in some cases, reduced civilian collateral (or in other cases, dramatically increased it--see the American aerial campaign in the Vietnam War), but has never succeeded it in eliminating it, even if this was a primary desire (it's not--winning the war at the least military cost is).
The "cult of technocracy", for lack of a better term, has mostly served to convince the population of a democratic state (where opinion matters at least a little bit) that, since civilian collateral suffering is inevitable, high technology is automatically preferable to low technology: if the way to vanquish country A is either to obliterate their ability to resist by carpeting their lands with high-explosive bombs, or occupying them with uniformed soldiers physically present (as occupations have worked for thousands of years), the first option is almost always preferable, as it exposes the attack to less harm, at least in theory. "Innocents" are going to die anyway, whether from a bomb dropped from the sky or an unprepared soldier identifying them as a threat and killing them--at least we can expose our own to less risk. It ends up being treated as a binary choice of a "civilized" option and an uncivilized option. That leads to another attitude: protecting the human military from harm--which is obviously an admirable objective, and immediately treated as such--by as much technology as possible. Practically all countries at least attempt this, but the United States is a particularly good study since it is the only country that both 1) engages in regular warfare at long distances from its own territory and 2) accounts for almost half of the world's military expenditures, at thus, has access to unprecedented levels of technology.
But here's the thing: you know that case about too many soldiers leaving their limbs or their mental health behind in countries? Literally all of that can happen to the involved civilian population. Constantly. In the US case, we saw the civilian population of Iraq turned into the landscape, like rock formations or trees, as oppose to actual humans, as our soldiers are seen. An undeniable attempt was made to mask the catastrophic civilian suffering, a multiple of times greater than a very real but at least recognized military cost and suffering, from the country and the world. How many months or years was it before images of dead Iraqis were actually a thing that could be acknowledged and seen on television? Was it because there were no dead Iraqis before that point? In truth, while it's looked at political as a binary question, it frequently ends up not: a high-technology war is often followed by a comparatively crude, low-technology occupation as a matter of necessity (and thereby undoing some, though not all, of the risk mitigation). The political argument remains just as strong though, and along with it a devaluation or utter denial of the civilian life at the other end of the cannon.
What we're considering is a move to reduce military suffering, with very little (or no) acknowledgment of civilian suffering, raising the multiple even further. There's a case that, with the improvement of technology, civilian suffering is decreased--I would posit that this happens at a rate that just manages to keep pace with the increased lethality of war munitions, and also doesn't account for the fact that, as you remove the possibility of harm to their own forces, military commanders may have less motivation to minimize civilian death tolls, as they hardly face reprisals or risk their own, as much as they have more motivation to spare civilians from suffering. Drone combat is relatively new; we have seen that, at least for the drone operators themselves, the technology has further dehumanized the very concept of civilian suffering as we've moved from human pilots dropping bombs (already at high cost of collateral) to a trained human directing a drone in something tantamount to a video game.
For a country that engages in war exclusively on foreign soil, this presents some pretty goddamn serious issues. In just a half-century, we have seen the United States, through technology, both increase and decrease collateral suffering as it fights war on its desired terms (which is typically the case). It's not all bad news. But the notion of completely removing the already-diminished human element from warfare, because we need to support the troops, combined with the same or an even increasing disinterest in foreign civilian suffering is scary as hell. The US isn't alone--it just happens to be engaging in regular warfare with the availability of that technology in a manner that no other country does currently.
That's all just my opinion: war is cheap. But it could absolutely be made cheaper--hence the championing of drones--to the benefit of military personnel but the unfortunate cost to civilians. Maybe war shouldn't be so cheap, or at least, we should endeavor to not cheapen it further. There are not, after all, a great many other factors that keep us from resorting to war--political or economic cost, for example--already.
I think the psychological impact of modern warfare on the soldiers themselves gets downplayed.
Drone warfare, in particular, is frequently compared to playing a video game, but drone pilots suffer high levels of PTSD - much higher even than pilots and bomber crews who have a similar mission but face a real physical danger. Part of that has been attributed to the surveillance that the drone crews perform - not surprisingly, watching your target for hours or days humanizes the target in a way dropping a bomb on a set of coordinates doesn't.
I certainly don't want to trivialize the impact on the civilians that are caught in the war zones and their suffering, but soldiers sent to fight overseas bring demons back with them that impact civilians at home as well.
Killing real people is killing real people. Regardless of your feelings about the drone war itself, saying operating a drone is like 'playing a video game' is ignorant and disregards real psychological damage that can be as harmful as physical damage suffered on the battlefield.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Or you just send your robots to destroy or occupy their robot factories? Once you can produce robots and they can't the war is won.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Nah, you cut out the middleman and target the government leadership itself. It's cleaner, faster, and easier to go after the head of the snake (if you have the ability).
That being the case, leadership will be reluctant to engage in conflict where they are going to be the prime target and will potentially search for diplomatic solutions rather than military solutions.
As soon as it became practical to target leadership military doctrine has been heading that direction.
I think the psychological impact of modern warfare on the soldiers themselves gets downplayed.
Drone warfare, in particular, is frequently compared to playing a video game, but drone pilots suffer high levels of PTSD - much higher even than pilots and bomber crews who have a similar mission but face a real physical danger. Part of that has been attributed to the surveillance that the drone crews perform - not surprisingly, watching your target for hours or days humanizes the target in a way dropping a bomb on a set of coordinates doesn't.
I certainly don't want to trivialize the impact on the civilians that are caught in the war zones and their suffering, but soldiers sent to fight overseas bring demons back with them that impact civilians at home as well.
Killing real people is killing real people. Regardless of your feelings about the drone war itself, saying operating a drone is like 'playing a video game' is ignorant and disregards real psychological damage that can be as harmful as physical damage suffered on the battlefield.
I didn't mean to intend that drone automation and similar combat completely divorces its operators from psychological stresses (I mean, to be fair, you can find plenty of cases of military personnel who don't enjoy video games for exactly that reason). The fact that drone pilots, a relatively new military specialty, could be (or are) confronted by shellshock more often than, say, bomber or fighter-bomber pilots of the past and present is fascinating, and I'd like to see more information on that myself (though I have heard such suggested in the past).
But I would absolutely stand by the point that the automation of warfare has the effect on the perpetrating society as whole of equating warfare to an even more impersonal, technological endeavor (like cyber-warfare or setting up a national network) that only reduces the public concern for the affected foreign population even further. We've seen it even on a short-term scale from the first to second Gulf Wars, where civilian collateral in the same time frame went from an issue of limited to practically nonexistent concern in the public (even in the face of greater technological accessibility). The dichotomy of "civilized" versus "uncivilized" war, as a lot of this is framed, scares the hell out of me, in large part because that's is difficult to relate to in the United States. My grandparents watched Allied bombers level practically every two-story building in their country--they did this because sending soldiers to accomplish those same objectives would have come at too high of a cost, certainly to them if not the civilians in question. And it's very difficult to argue with that case.
Of course, then a different group of soldiers came anyway, but at least they weren't bombing city blocks when they did it. Even this current administration, which is popularly held to be concerned with civilian casualties at least more than its predecessor, has demonstrated that it's perfectly content to use drone warfare to wipe out a block of people for one (mostly) identified target--so the sensibilities and decision-making of the drone pilot aren't the issue at hand. Would the human factor--requiring a team of infantrymen blow up that block with rockets, instead of a drone with missiles--make that a more difficult decision to make? At least a little, I suspect, and I would much rather than be a hard decision that such an easy one.
But then it's the infantrymen who make that decision harder. Given that I only served as a conscripted man in a completely ineffectual military force that was never placed in any real threat, and that is the limit of my experience, it's probably not something to be treated so lightly either.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Or you just send your robots to destroy or occupy their robot factories? Once you can produce robots and they can't the war is won.
With the current state of technology, I imagine manufacturing will be highly distributed and armies in the field will be highly self-sufficient. Its not going to be a Terminator movie where all the robots are made in a big building that the heroes can blow up.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
I think the psychological impact of modern warfare on the soldiers themselves gets downplayed.
Drone warfare, in particular, is frequently compared to playing a video game, but drone pilots suffer high levels of PTSD - much higher even than pilots and bomber crews who have a similar mission but face a real physical danger. Part of that has been attributed to the surveillance that the drone crews perform - not surprisingly, watching your target for hours or days humanizes the target in a way dropping a bomb on a set of coordinates doesn't.
I certainly don't want to trivialize the impact on the civilians that are caught in the war zones and their suffering, but soldiers sent to fight overseas bring demons back with them that impact civilians at home as well.
Killing real people is killing real people. Regardless of your feelings about the drone war itself, saying operating a drone is like 'playing a video game' is ignorant and disregards real psychological damage that can be as harmful as physical damage suffered on the battlefield.
It's not just surveillance and humanizing the target, it is also having to loiter around afterwards and be witness to the event as it unfolds. Regret is immediate, grief is a lifetime.
If militarized-AI were to exist, I'd like it confined to non-combat roles. Things like communications, improving combat awareness, information gathering and analysis, scenario planning, logistics, etc. Basically everything that might help a human that doesn't involve killing them.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Or you just send your robots to destroy or occupy their robot factories? Once you can produce robots and they can't the war is won.
With the current state of technology, I imagine manufacturing will be highly distributed and armies in the field will be highly self-sufficient. Its not going to be a Terminator movie where all the robots are made in a big building that the heroes can blow up.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
Nanogoo replicators are like a completely different level of technology than what is on the table in the near future.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Or you just send your robots to destroy or occupy their robot factories? Once you can produce robots and they can't the war is won.
With the current state of technology, I imagine manufacturing will be highly distributed and armies in the field will be highly self-sufficient. Its not going to be a Terminator movie where all the robots are made in a big building that the heroes can blow up.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
Nanogoo replicators are like a completely different level of technology than what is on the table in the near future.
By the time industrial-grade nanopaste is widely available, though, the population will be nearly immortal and stop having children anyway. So our measurements will be accordingly adjusted.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Or you just send your robots to destroy or occupy their robot factories? Once you can produce robots and they can't the war is won.
With the current state of technology, I imagine manufacturing will be highly distributed and armies in the field will be highly self-sufficient. Its not going to be a Terminator movie where all the robots are made in a big building that the heroes can blow up.
Modern manufacturing is extremely vulnerable to disruptions anywhere in the supply chain.
Manufacturing something as complex as robotic soldiers will be highly distributed by necessity, but it will almost certainly have primary manufacturing sites that would be vulnerable and not easily replaced.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
If we could implant a chip in the head of every ISIS / Boko Haram / Al Qaeda member's head that let us turn them loose to live their lives as productive and not-dangerous members of society? Yes, I would absolutely be cheering.
Less misery and death is a good thing. That should go without saying.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Or you just send your robots to destroy or occupy their robot factories? Once you can produce robots and they can't the war is won.
With the current state of technology, I imagine manufacturing will be highly distributed and armies in the field will be highly self-sufficient. Its not going to be a Terminator movie where all the robots are made in a big building that the heroes can blow up.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
Nanogoo replicators are like a completely different level of technology than what is on the table in the near future.
I'm talking about small machine shops, distributed/hardened manufacturing facilities and field repair/assembly stations. You don't need nanogoo replicators to distribute manufacturing or allow for in-field replacement of machinery. We've had that capability since the 1900s.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
If we could implant a chip in the head of every ISIS / Boko Haram / Al Qaeda member's head that let us turn them loose to live their lives as productive and not-dangerous members of society? Yes, I would absolutely be cheering.
Less misery and death is a good thing. That should go without saying.
Before that, you would be implanting a chip in the head of every Iraqi government official, soldier, and commissioned officer of the armed forces.
And down the road, I suppose, there's a pretty good chance you'll be implanting chips in the head of every soldier, sailor pilot and officer in the Iranian Armed Forces.
In other words, invest in chips. My eldest brother in TSC (Taiwan Semi Conductor) is going to make a killing, literally.
I think the psychological impact of modern warfare on the soldiers themselves gets downplayed.
Drone warfare, in particular, is frequently compared to playing a video game, but drone pilots suffer high levels of PTSD - much higher even than pilots and bomber crews who have a similar mission but face a real physical danger. Part of that has been attributed to the surveillance that the drone crews perform - not surprisingly, watching your target for hours or days humanizes the target in a way dropping a bomb on a set of coordinates doesn't.
I certainly don't want to trivialize the impact on the civilians that are caught in the war zones and their suffering, but soldiers sent to fight overseas bring demons back with them that impact civilians at home as well.
Killing real people is killing real people. Regardless of your feelings about the drone war itself, saying operating a drone is like 'playing a video game' is ignorant and disregards real psychological damage that can be as harmful as physical damage suffered on the battlefield.
It's not just surveillance and humanizing the target, it is also having to loiter around afterwards and be witness to the event as it unfolds. Regret is immediate, grief is a lifetime.
If militarized-AI were to exist, I'd like it confined to non-combat roles. Things like communications, improving combat awareness, information gathering and analysis, scenario planning, logistics, etc. Basically everything that might help a human that doesn't involve killing them.
I don't see the point of using it so narrowly. Save the drone pilot the grief by replacing them with drone AI, especially in the types of missions air support provides now. Asking an AI to monitor human forces and only engage forces who engage friendly forces (disregarding blue on blue) would actually quite neatly reduce the engineering difficulty and chances of mistakes by a hundred fold vs. say, walker AIs being able to coordinate to do a cordon and search of a city without human intervention.
This would also help increase up time, because you can push out what is considered unsafe flying conditions by a lot. During my time in Afghanistan during the winter, every other day had red air conditions (meaning air support couldn't fly) for at least part of the day, but particularly once you establish a robust fleet, you can fly in any weather good enough to fight in, because the cost of a crash is vastly mitigated.
Though, I agree that using AI past that would be awesome. Intel in particular would be game changing, with the caveat that right now the best human analysts are leaps and bounds over algorithmically generated insights, but hopefully that will change.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
If we could implant a chip in the head of every ISIS / Boko Haram / Al Qaeda member's head that let us turn them loose to live their lives as productive and not-dangerous members of society? Yes, I would absolutely be cheering.
Less misery and death is a good thing. That should go without saying.
Before that, you would be implanting a chip in the head of every Iraqi government official, soldier, and commissioned officer of the armed forces.
And down the road, I suppose, there's a pretty good chance you'll be implanting chips in the head of every soldier, sailor pilot and officer in the Iranian Armed Forces.
In other words, invest in chips. My eldest brother in TSC (Taiwan Semi Conductor) is going to beak a killing, literally.
The pressure to use it to "reform" domestic criminals will also be unbearable once they've proven their worth overseas.
EDIT - Also, hahahahahahahahahaha.
Phillishere on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I think the psychological impact of modern warfare on the soldiers themselves gets downplayed.
Drone warfare, in particular, is frequently compared to playing a video game, but drone pilots suffer high levels of PTSD - much higher even than pilots and bomber crews who have a similar mission but face a real physical danger. Part of that has been attributed to the surveillance that the drone crews perform - not surprisingly, watching your target for hours or days humanizes the target in a way dropping a bomb on a set of coordinates doesn't.
I certainly don't want to trivialize the impact on the civilians that are caught in the war zones and their suffering, but soldiers sent to fight overseas bring demons back with them that impact civilians at home as well.
Killing real people is killing real people. Regardless of your feelings about the drone war itself, saying operating a drone is like 'playing a video game' is ignorant and disregards real psychological damage that can be as harmful as physical damage suffered on the battlefield.
I don't think the argument is about the psychological impact on the soldier, but rather about the psychological impact on our perceptions of warfare. Indeed, the psychological impact on soldiers might be greater precisely because drone warfare so utterly dehumanizes the whole thing. There is no shield, no fear for your life or need to make quick choices in a high adrenaline environment.
But in the perception of those not fighting it just seems clean, like it is somehow not really real. We don't see war, we see some people go into a cabin and then we are told our safety is guaranteed. In our perception (ignoring how it is for the pilots themselves for a minute) it seems unreal.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
If we could implant a chip in the head of every ISIS / Boko Haram / Al Qaeda member's head that let us turn them loose to live their lives as productive and not-dangerous members of society? Yes, I would absolutely be cheering.
Less misery and death is a good thing. That should go without saying.
Before that, you would be implanting a chip in the head of every Iraqi government official, soldier, and commissioned officer of the armed forces.
And down the road, I suppose, there's a pretty good chance you'll be implanting chips in the head of every soldier, sailor pilot and officer in the Iranian Armed Forces.
In other words, invest in chips. My eldest brother in TSC (Taiwan Semi Conductor) is going to beak a killing, literally.
The pressure to use it to "reform" domestic criminals will also be unbearable once they've proven their worth overseas.
I fail to see how the end game scenario of this is robots fighting robots.
Are we going to set out a nice field for them? Build our strategic resource and production facilities far away from population centers and fully automate them? Expect the losing side to just surrender, once it runs out of robots?
This is not even taking into account that the Nations currently at war, very few of them would have the capability to field robots.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Or you just send your robots to destroy or occupy their robot factories? Once you can produce robots and they can't the war is won.
With the current state of technology, I imagine manufacturing will be highly distributed and armies in the field will be highly self-sufficient. Its not going to be a Terminator movie where all the robots are made in a big building that the heroes can blow up.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
There is also the other half of this where people are saying that if some soldiers have to die to influence policy decisions well thems the breaks.
Posts
You can't generalize what a particular type of technological advance is going to do. I agree that the nature of arms races makes it impossible for technological advances in the effectiveness and power of killing to create peace by domination--the enemy will always eventually build their own cannons or whatever and you're right back where you started.
But the particular advance of automation has the potential to result in fewer deaths, certainly on the side of the aggressors, who no longer have to risk their own soldiers' lives, and possibly on the other side as well, for a number of reasons. Strikes can be more contained, robots can have less violent rules of engagement, robots don't go out and commit atrocities. As I said upthread, I think replacing piloted bomber planes with unmanned drones is a technological development that results in fewer deaths, both because the pilots are no longer at risk and because drones are better at not killing civilians.
I don't think the implication is that if we send robots to Iran, the Iranians will stop fighting and peace will reign. I think the implication is that if we need to send something to Iran, robots are definitely preferable for us and may be better for the Iranians, too.
War is already politically cheap, especially in America, where we have no draft.
Secondly, why is war a problem? Partly because engaging in war means having your soldiers killed or disabled. If war is more frequent in an AI-combat world, it is also less horrible. That balance may still end up being progress overall.
Countries surrender when they lose the will to continue fighting, not when they've run out of people and buildings. Robots fighting robots is expensive, and if a country runs out of both robots and the money to make new robots, they're likely to surrender before the country that still has robots decides to put a bunch of their citizens to the robo-sword.
Who knows what robots will be able to do in the future? Technology is increasing substantially in many areas, and what we have right now it'd be very easy for them to commit atrocities - since they're dependent on human operators.
There's always civilian casualties. Weapon technology will have to improve dramatically past what we have to limit to single targets with missiles, and decrease their explosive output.
Why would it be better for the Iranians? They'd be getting slaughtered by the robots, and they won't be able to hurt American casualties via soldiers.
Which is a big problem America has. It's rare when we aren't in a war.
That's not balance, casualties aren't limited to soldiers. Civilians die in large numbers in conflicts. This is partially why drone warfare is controversial - their missile strikes kill more than one person when they hit, innocent people die in the carnage.
War is a very distasteful practice that should be a last resort, and this increases the distance between us and the war on the ground. America's already struggling with being apathetic to the destruction in wars as it is, by letting robots take a hold it becomes even more like a video-game to the media, government and public. It won't be the country with robots with the blood, it'll be their enemies and civilian caught in the cross fire. War being more frequent than it is now is chilling. We'd have less resistance from the public with bad wars like Iraq, and less people on the ground trying to make connections with the natives who live in the war zones. War isn't a bloodless endeavor, or it wouldn't be war. It just won't be our's as much it used to be, which isn't always a good thing to personal investment for countries. I'd rather not let the next George W. Bush have that power when they get into office.
Or they'll fight to the death with what they have. Not every terrorist group or nation is going to surrender peacefully, Japan had to have two nuclear bombs dropped on it before it did.
Nah war would be less horrible for them too. The horror of war is the war itself not who wins or loses.
Your concern here seems to be more about who's able to easily win wars which is certainly a valid concern but also a different one.
There is no telling a robot that the war is over and they can go back to welding cars or whatever.
I fail to see a populated building being destroyed by a robot than a human makes the act less horrible.
Everyone suffering from PTSD after participating in such acts would disagree.
The problem I'm seeing, again, is your concern with who's wielding the power and what they're doing with it. Which is absolutely a valid concern. But that has nothing to do with the weapons and everything to do with the people directing them.
And the casualties and the American public? Because they care about that no matter who or what pulls the trigger.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/31/pakistan-report-saysonly3percentofdronedeathswerecivilians.html
It's a noble act to take the soldiers out of warfare to protect them from harm. I get where you;re coming from, however war isn't that bloodless. Someone always pays the price in blood, whether it's a terrorist, enemy soldier, civilian or all of the above. And there's the collateral damage. Taking America's soldiers out of wars won't change that, war will continue with or without their presence.
And whose pulling the trigger matters. Because that trigger will get pulled and someone will die.
Well I can and am trying to generalize. Copper smithing, siege weapons, the stirrup, longbows, gunpowder, gattling guns, artillery, strategic bombing, assault rifles- I can't think of any new weapon that has made war less deadly. Again the only possible exception I can think of is nukes, and the jury is still out on how well they keep the peace.
Robots don't necessarily make war more deadly, I'm just saying that advances in weapons technology haven't led to less deadly wars.
I hope you're joking, because the US is in a bout of war wearniess not seen since post-Vietnam. Afghanistan and Iraq have made "boots on the ground" almost an impossibility. Which is why we see drones and special forces being used. War, the kind of war that involves men shooting things in faraway lands is incredibly politically expensive right now.
...
You're right that its about the will to fight, usually amongst the leadership. Trouble is they often don't know when to quit, and are willing to sacrifice others to stay in the game. Even when there's a large discrepancy of power, say the US compared to any of its foes since WW2, there is at least token and often die-hard resistance, even if it means people being effectively put to the sword by bombing campaigns or whatever. More important is the industrial base, which is actually really difficult to destroy even with a fuck ton of bombs. This actually is more important in robo-war, since losing people doesn't mean losing soliders. All you need to do is repair your industrial base, pump out some more robo warriors and you're back in the game. Leaders often hold out way longer than they should, and I don't think autonomous robots will encourage them to throw in the towel sooner.
And, what the fuck, why is war a problem? Sure this is a fun wannabe-intellectual exercise but war is a horrific experience for everyone involved and I'm not going to say "oh yeah thats fine" if the killing side of war is pointed at someone other than myself. War, and the technology that supports it affects people, real people, and fuck no I won't give even tacit support to technology designed to increase its efficiency.
No one said war would be bloodless or cease to exist. They said it would be less awful. Cause fewer people would die. I, personally, consider fewer people dying to be better.
And you only addressed part of my statement with your last one. The problem with a theoretical killing robot isn't the killing robot part. The only problem is who controls it. Much like the concern has always been who controls every weapon ever. Completely one sided war is already the reality we live in. Robots aren't wouldn't make that any worse or better. Only people will.
As Quid notes, but I'd argue the lack of human factors makes the building being destroyed less likely. Robots can have their very raison d'etre to obey the laws of armed conflict. Humans simply can't get there.
Honestly, those wanting to minimize the suffering of war should be excited. Imagine a system where rules of engagement are pre-approved by a third party observer, and/or where command influence war crimes tribunals have black and white, unambiguous evidence to either condemn or verify accounts. You don't need to worry about who told who what, you have the signature of General XYZ, in black and white, approving bots to go into the area, who had clearly immorally and illegally broad engagement settings.
I think automated weapons would vastly undermine the capability to use lower ranked people or "bad apples" arguments to avoid culpability.
I'm a layperson when it comes to military history, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't advances in history that have made killing more precise, or changed the tactics such that part of warfare became less deadly. Jet fighting seems far less bloody than biplane dogfights, for instance. Once we invented cars we stopped killing so many horses. Etc.
I'm just saying that automation is an entirely new kind of technological advance. Increasing the autonomy of your weapons is something very different from increasing the size, speed, effectiveness, durability, maneuverability, etc of your weapons, and history is almost entirely a series of advances in the latter regard. You can't therefore use that history to predict or even suggest that will happen when we make advances of autonomy.
I hope you're joking, because the US is in a bout of war wearniess not seen since post-Vietnam. Afghanistan and Iraq have made "boots on the ground" almost an impossibility. Which is why we see drones and special forces being used. War, the kind of war that involves men shooting things in faraway lands is incredibly politically expensive right now.[/quote]
Wait, what kind of war are we talking about? If drones and special forces don't count as war, neither should robots, which are more likely in the "right now" you're focusing on to replace the special forces.
I meant that and the following sentence to mean, "War is a problem partly because it means soldiers in the field getting killed," not, "Let's go back and question the assumption that war is horrible." It was just a rhetorical question. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Which is better, A or B:
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 troops
and for a bonus, how about C?
C: 10 years later, the same two countries get into a war, and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 robots
War affects real people. The fewer real people who get killed, the better, no matter what side they're on. If technological advances can make that happen, I'm all for them.
Wait, what kind of war are we talking about? If drones and special forces don't count as war, neither should robots, which are more likely in the "right now" you're focusing on to replace the special forces.
I meant that and the following sentence to mean, "War is a problem partly because it means soldiers in the field getting killed," not, "Let's go back and question the assumption that war is horrible." It was just a rhetorical question. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Which is better, A or B:
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 troops
and for a bonus, how about C?
C: 10 years later, the same two countries get into a war, and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 robots and the second country loses 10,000 robots
War affects real people. The fewer real people who get killed, the better, no matter what side they're on. If technological advances can make that happen, I'm all for them.[/quote]
The first biplane dog fights involved pilots trying to shoot each other with pistols. It was remarkably un-deadly. You are right that technology has decreased horse mortality rates in war.
However aircraft were quickly adopted to roles in strategic bombing, notably the British used them to put down rebellions in then-Mesopotemia after WW1. Cars adapted to war, ie tanks, are pretty damn deadly.
Then on what basis are we making our predictions about the future?
Robots make war easier to wage, is what I mean. I'm not completely sure what you mean here, but yeah whats going on today is absolutely war, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere. Its kept quiet, most especially with US casualties, in order to keep it going. I don't want more of it.
For the past 100 years or so the number of innocents killed in war has dwarfed the number of soldiers killed. Civilians bear the brunt, not just in the immediate war but in the hardships and migrations and the wars that come about a generation later in response. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, had it been done with robots, probably would have resulted in fewer US casualties. This is not a net bonus to me, since it would still result in thousands of innocents dead as the country tears itself apart. Unless robots prove themselves as well to be more capable occupation administrators.
The first two are equivalent. Not sure about C, though I'm pretty sure its impossible.
Lets take a counter hypothetical
A: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 10,000 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops
B: Two countries get into a war and over the course of the year-long conflict, the first country loses 0 troops and the second country loses 10,000 troops from poison gas attacks
Which is better?
Hence why your hypothetical does not hold.
Edit: the real argument for robots is that robots can afford to be discriminate with their attacks. They can take the time to determine if a target is legitimate or not and if it's worth it to suffer the collateral. Humans can't, the risk of dying is too high. Risk of dying for a robot is nothing, it's a robot.
By looking at the thing itself and speculating on how that thing might affect the future. Automation is a different kind of innovation and will have different effects on warfare, just as the technological advance of dynamite (more explosive power, easier to handle safely) differed in nature from the technological advance of arrows (increased maximum combat range).
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but here's my impression of this little subthread:
you: "Robots will make war politically cheaper to engage in"
me: "War is already very easy to engage in politically, at least for America"
you: "No, war is very hard to engage in right now, because we're war-weary, so we have to rely on drones at present"
me: "That implies that drones are not war, or you're arguing simultaneously that it's hard for the US to wage war right now and that the US is waging war right now"
I guess reading your new bit here, you're saying that we're already waging war, but that it's unpopular, but that robots would make it more popular? I don't know that that makes a whole lot of sense, so I must be misinterpreting somewhere.
What. How are the first two equivalent? How are 20,000 deaths just as bad as 10,000 deaths? What kind of a moral system is that?
B, although there might a ratio somewhere in the middle where my answer would switch. I mean, what's worse, two "less awful for the victims" 9/11s or one 9/11? I gotta go with the 50% death count there. This doesn't account for conventions of war or whatever, and in the real world it's mostly impossible to say "if we just commit this atrocity the conflict will be half as bloody", but in a naked hypothetical, sure, B.
Is this a new argument that it's more awful to get killed by a robot than a person (or a person operating a robot for that matter)? If not, I'm not sure how this is actually countering my arguments.
Can afford, but do you think they will really risk their no doubt expensive robots on firing slower? I doubt it
Hiroshima. And while, from a purely numbers game, "a million dead now instead of millions dead later" might seem tempting, making that a routine decision is horrifying.
It's an option of absolute last resort, in any society that values human life.
Even with conventional weapons, a B52 or B2 can drop upwards of 25 tons of bombs essentially anywhere in the world, more than enough to kill anything that's politically acceptable to kill (and then some).
The modern world isn't really one where indiscriminate killing of civilian populations is tenable - certainly not by an industrialized nation that would unilaterally be able to employ robotic or automated weaponry in the field. The trend, instead has been towards more highly targeted and less lethal weapons - we went from carpet bombing areas in Vietnam to cruise missiles / guided bombs to targeted drone strikes. Each step has the potential to be an order of magnitude less lethal than the previous weapons.
The logical next step in weaponry will be weapons that can target an individual without collateral damage, and I'd imagine along with that we'll see weapons that can remotely incapacitate targets for capture - high value targets are arguably more valuable captured for intelligence rather than just killed.
I imagine we'll see the 'have not' forces employing more asymmetrical warfare, but that's something that rapidly becomes more difficult when the 'have' forces are able to field more drones or robots that can constantly monitor and immediately respond - at nominal risk - to insurgents.
Overall, one promising factor is that despite their flaws, first world forces that have the capacity to field those types of weapons generally are more accountable and more concerned about collateral damage (or at the very least, the complications that arise from it) than the forces they will be using them against. There's always the human factor at some point in the chain - the AI needs mission parameters at some point - but someone, somewhere is going to be responsible for setting those parameters and can be held accountable for where they are set. At that point, warfare basically becomes a matter of policy.
While it's only one data point, we've seen with MAD that when warfare becomes hopeless, people avoid fighting. That leads to stability, which is generally good all around.
Let's also look at the civilian benefits. Wouldn't you rather have had an unfeeling robot with strict rules of engagement on duty in Ferguson? Is a robot going to mistake a wallet or cell phone for a gun in the dark, and kill some kid before they get confirmation? If the robot's not a life at stake, maybe it waits and gets shot...so it just needs to be repaired or replaced.
We can talk about armies of jack-booted robots keeping down a civilian population, but let's be honest - human history has shown that we're perfectly capable of doing that without any robotic help.
All software (of any significant complexity) has bugs.
Asimov's three laws never really stopped robots from killing (I mean this mainly as another type of bug but...)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The only thing I would say is that I hesitate to completely remove the human aspect from strategic weapons, even Breshnev realized that was nuts. There have been too many radar failures at early warning stations for me to take the launch sequence out of human hands.
The (first) point three is what I like to call The Treize Khushrenada Argument Against Mobile Dolls. Those of you who get the reference pretty much know the argument as a whole. For those who don't:
More often than not (and in fact, in a large majority of cases--the exceptions are few and far between) the foremost victims of both historical and modern wartime are not the soldiers who participate them willingly or unwilling, but the civilian population that invariably, and almost certainly unwillingly, occupies the territory or serves the resources desired. Modern technology has, in some cases, reduced civilian collateral (or in other cases, dramatically increased it--see the American aerial campaign in the Vietnam War), but has never succeeded it in eliminating it, even if this was a primary desire (it's not--winning the war at the least military cost is).
The "cult of technocracy", for lack of a better term, has mostly served to convince the population of a democratic state (where opinion matters at least a little bit) that, since civilian collateral suffering is inevitable, high technology is automatically preferable to low technology: if the way to vanquish country A is either to obliterate their ability to resist by carpeting their lands with high-explosive bombs, or occupying them with uniformed soldiers physically present (as occupations have worked for thousands of years), the first option is almost always preferable, as it exposes the attack to less harm, at least in theory. "Innocents" are going to die anyway, whether from a bomb dropped from the sky or an unprepared soldier identifying them as a threat and killing them--at least we can expose our own to less risk. It ends up being treated as a binary choice of a "civilized" option and an uncivilized option. That leads to another attitude: protecting the human military from harm--which is obviously an admirable objective, and immediately treated as such--by as much technology as possible. Practically all countries at least attempt this, but the United States is a particularly good study since it is the only country that both 1) engages in regular warfare at long distances from its own territory and 2) accounts for almost half of the world's military expenditures, at thus, has access to unprecedented levels of technology.
But here's the thing: you know that case about too many soldiers leaving their limbs or their mental health behind in countries? Literally all of that can happen to the involved civilian population. Constantly. In the US case, we saw the civilian population of Iraq turned into the landscape, like rock formations or trees, as oppose to actual humans, as our soldiers are seen. An undeniable attempt was made to mask the catastrophic civilian suffering, a multiple of times greater than a very real but at least recognized military cost and suffering, from the country and the world. How many months or years was it before images of dead Iraqis were actually a thing that could be acknowledged and seen on television? Was it because there were no dead Iraqis before that point? In truth, while it's looked at political as a binary question, it frequently ends up not: a high-technology war is often followed by a comparatively crude, low-technology occupation as a matter of necessity (and thereby undoing some, though not all, of the risk mitigation). The political argument remains just as strong though, and along with it a devaluation or utter denial of the civilian life at the other end of the cannon.
What we're considering is a move to reduce military suffering, with very little (or no) acknowledgment of civilian suffering, raising the multiple even further. There's a case that, with the improvement of technology, civilian suffering is decreased--I would posit that this happens at a rate that just manages to keep pace with the increased lethality of war munitions, and also doesn't account for the fact that, as you remove the possibility of harm to their own forces, military commanders may have less motivation to minimize civilian death tolls, as they hardly face reprisals or risk their own, as much as they have more motivation to spare civilians from suffering. Drone combat is relatively new; we have seen that, at least for the drone operators themselves, the technology has further dehumanized the very concept of civilian suffering as we've moved from human pilots dropping bombs (already at high cost of collateral) to a trained human directing a drone in something tantamount to a video game.
For a country that engages in war exclusively on foreign soil, this presents some pretty goddamn serious issues. In just a half-century, we have seen the United States, through technology, both increase and decrease collateral suffering as it fights war on its desired terms (which is typically the case). It's not all bad news. But the notion of completely removing the already-diminished human element from warfare, because we need to support the troops, combined with the same or an even increasing disinterest in foreign civilian suffering is scary as hell. The US isn't alone--it just happens to be engaging in regular warfare with the availability of that technology in a manner that no other country does currently.
That's all just my opinion: war is cheap. But it could absolutely be made cheaper--hence the championing of drones--to the benefit of military personnel but the unfortunate cost to civilians. Maybe war shouldn't be so cheap, or at least, we should endeavor to not cheapen it further. There are not, after all, a great many other factors that keep us from resorting to war--political or economic cost, for example--already.
Drone warfare, in particular, is frequently compared to playing a video game, but drone pilots suffer high levels of PTSD - much higher even than pilots and bomber crews who have a similar mission but face a real physical danger. Part of that has been attributed to the surveillance that the drone crews perform - not surprisingly, watching your target for hours or days humanizes the target in a way dropping a bomb on a set of coordinates doesn't.
I certainly don't want to trivialize the impact on the civilians that are caught in the war zones and their suffering, but soldiers sent to fight overseas bring demons back with them that impact civilians at home as well.
Killing real people is killing real people. Regardless of your feelings about the drone war itself, saying operating a drone is like 'playing a video game' is ignorant and disregards real psychological damage that can be as harmful as physical damage suffered on the battlefield.
In a war where armies cannot be beaten mentally and forced to surrender (machines go until physically broken), the only viable strategy will be to make the population that supports them surrender. We'll need to scrap the war crimes conventions and focus on weaponry and strategy aimed at murdering and instilling fear into civilians until they make their government surrender.
Or you just send your robots to destroy or occupy their robot factories? Once you can produce robots and they can't the war is won.
Nah, you cut out the middleman and target the government leadership itself. It's cleaner, faster, and easier to go after the head of the snake (if you have the ability).
That being the case, leadership will be reluctant to engage in conflict where they are going to be the prime target and will potentially search for diplomatic solutions rather than military solutions.
As soon as it became practical to target leadership military doctrine has been heading that direction.
I didn't mean to intend that drone automation and similar combat completely divorces its operators from psychological stresses (I mean, to be fair, you can find plenty of cases of military personnel who don't enjoy video games for exactly that reason). The fact that drone pilots, a relatively new military specialty, could be (or are) confronted by shellshock more often than, say, bomber or fighter-bomber pilots of the past and present is fascinating, and I'd like to see more information on that myself (though I have heard such suggested in the past).
But I would absolutely stand by the point that the automation of warfare has the effect on the perpetrating society as whole of equating warfare to an even more impersonal, technological endeavor (like cyber-warfare or setting up a national network) that only reduces the public concern for the affected foreign population even further. We've seen it even on a short-term scale from the first to second Gulf Wars, where civilian collateral in the same time frame went from an issue of limited to practically nonexistent concern in the public (even in the face of greater technological accessibility). The dichotomy of "civilized" versus "uncivilized" war, as a lot of this is framed, scares the hell out of me, in large part because that's is difficult to relate to in the United States. My grandparents watched Allied bombers level practically every two-story building in their country--they did this because sending soldiers to accomplish those same objectives would have come at too high of a cost, certainly to them if not the civilians in question. And it's very difficult to argue with that case.
Of course, then a different group of soldiers came anyway, but at least they weren't bombing city blocks when they did it. Even this current administration, which is popularly held to be concerned with civilian casualties at least more than its predecessor, has demonstrated that it's perfectly content to use drone warfare to wipe out a block of people for one (mostly) identified target--so the sensibilities and decision-making of the drone pilot aren't the issue at hand. Would the human factor--requiring a team of infantrymen blow up that block with rockets, instead of a drone with missiles--make that a more difficult decision to make? At least a little, I suspect, and I would much rather than be a hard decision that such an easy one.
But then it's the infantrymen who make that decision harder. Given that I only served as a conscripted man in a completely ineffectual military force that was never placed in any real threat, and that is the limit of my experience, it's probably not something to be treated so lightly either.
With the current state of technology, I imagine manufacturing will be highly distributed and armies in the field will be highly self-sufficient. Its not going to be a Terminator movie where all the robots are made in a big building that the heroes can blow up.
Mostly, I just think its hilarious how many folks on this board serve as a cheerleading squad for all the horrifying developments 21st century technology has provided for governments to watch, control and kill their enemies. If the U.S. government announced tomorrow they'd produced a chip that could be surgically implanted in "enemies" to keep them from fighting us, I am 100 percent sure that I'd log on here to find posters cheering.
It's not just surveillance and humanizing the target, it is also having to loiter around afterwards and be witness to the event as it unfolds. Regret is immediate, grief is a lifetime.
If militarized-AI were to exist, I'd like it confined to non-combat roles. Things like communications, improving combat awareness, information gathering and analysis, scenario planning, logistics, etc. Basically everything that might help a human that doesn't involve killing them.
Nanogoo replicators are like a completely different level of technology than what is on the table in the near future.
By the time industrial-grade nanopaste is widely available, though, the population will be nearly immortal and stop having children anyway. So our measurements will be accordingly adjusted.
Modern manufacturing is extremely vulnerable to disruptions anywhere in the supply chain.
Manufacturing something as complex as robotic soldiers will be highly distributed by necessity, but it will almost certainly have primary manufacturing sites that would be vulnerable and not easily replaced.
If we could implant a chip in the head of every ISIS / Boko Haram / Al Qaeda member's head that let us turn them loose to live their lives as productive and not-dangerous members of society? Yes, I would absolutely be cheering.
Less misery and death is a good thing. That should go without saying.
I'm talking about small machine shops, distributed/hardened manufacturing facilities and field repair/assembly stations. You don't need nanogoo replicators to distribute manufacturing or allow for in-field replacement of machinery. We've had that capability since the 1900s.
Before that, you would be implanting a chip in the head of every Iraqi government official, soldier, and commissioned officer of the armed forces.
And down the road, I suppose, there's a pretty good chance you'll be implanting chips in the head of every soldier, sailor pilot and officer in the Iranian Armed Forces.
In other words, invest in chips. My eldest brother in TSC (Taiwan Semi Conductor) is going to make a killing, literally.
I don't see the point of using it so narrowly. Save the drone pilot the grief by replacing them with drone AI, especially in the types of missions air support provides now. Asking an AI to monitor human forces and only engage forces who engage friendly forces (disregarding blue on blue) would actually quite neatly reduce the engineering difficulty and chances of mistakes by a hundred fold vs. say, walker AIs being able to coordinate to do a cordon and search of a city without human intervention.
This would also help increase up time, because you can push out what is considered unsafe flying conditions by a lot. During my time in Afghanistan during the winter, every other day had red air conditions (meaning air support couldn't fly) for at least part of the day, but particularly once you establish a robust fleet, you can fly in any weather good enough to fight in, because the cost of a crash is vastly mitigated.
Though, I agree that using AI past that would be awesome. Intel in particular would be game changing, with the caveat that right now the best human analysts are leaps and bounds over algorithmically generated insights, but hopefully that will change.
The pressure to use it to "reform" domestic criminals will also be unbearable once they've proven their worth overseas.
EDIT - Also, hahahahahahahahahaha.
I don't think the argument is about the psychological impact on the soldier, but rather about the psychological impact on our perceptions of warfare. Indeed, the psychological impact on soldiers might be greater precisely because drone warfare so utterly dehumanizes the whole thing. There is no shield, no fear for your life or need to make quick choices in a high adrenaline environment.
But in the perception of those not fighting it just seems clean, like it is somehow not really real. We don't see war, we see some people go into a cabin and then we are told our safety is guaranteed. In our perception (ignoring how it is for the pilots themselves for a minute) it seems unreal.
Thanks, I'll be here all week!
There is also the other half of this where people are saying that if some soldiers have to die to influence policy decisions well thems the breaks.