

The future of warfare - rberger
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/20/the_future_of_warfare_why_we_should_all_be_very_afraid/

======
Mithaldu
> sentient robots

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

~~~
oldmanjay
Well they led the article with a picture of a terminator. You pretty much have
to expect an agenda with a cultural cue like that.

~~~
dm2
Is the real life version less scary?
[http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-
atlas...](http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/dec/images/640_darpa-atlas.jpg)

You wouldn't really be able to track a mobile robot with sophisticated evasion
skills. It could popup randomly, kill with unmatched precision, then
disappear. An army of these robots would be nearly unstoppable.

Several robots are being armed these days, with grenade launchers, sniper
rifles, and both light and heavy machine guns (as seen on the guard sentries
in the article) [https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-
systems/maars/](https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/maars/)

The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries.
Right now we have to either strap a gasoline engine on it, tether it, or
create it so that it's efficient enough to run off of existing batteries,
which greatly limits their abilities.

~~~
oldmanjay
Well you kinda already incorporated my reply into your post, yes, the real
life version is much less scary, because it doesn't actually exist yet.

Obviously it's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make for
a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely sure
they're doing the right thing.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Obviously it 's coming, I won't dispute that, but scare tactics don't make
> for a reasonable discussion, even when the person using them is absolutely
> sure they're doing the right thing._

Seems that if you can see all of that, then you might be able to ignore the
bits you don't like and discuss the topic on its merits.

It would be much more interesting to read your thoughts on, say, the
technology, morality, etc. This, rather than a critique of the author's
writing style.

------
JVIDEL
Sentient != autonomous, ie: the future are drones with that can receive orders
and act on them rather than needing commands in real-time from an operator far
away.

Of course talking about sentient machines with a terminator pic is much more
_clickbaity_...

------
richliss
The first nation to achieve accurate mobile laser defenses with rapid firing
that could shoot down ICBM's could take out the primary weapons of all of its
enemies (and even friends).

Chances are that its going to be the US.

Should the US decide that China is going to be too powerful eventually then
they could create some false flag events, possibly involving a regional ally
such as Japan, that would give the US this power:

1\. Nuke the entire country without reply. Not likely.

2\. Force the Chinese government to scrap all nuclear weapons. Likely.

3\. Force the Chinese government to not have a large standing army. Likely.

4\. Force elections. Likely.

Now rinse and repeat for Russia and anyone else.

Every other nation would be forced to sign a treaty to not pursue laser
weapons.

Many countries would have to force their local populations to disarm.

Now add in drones and you've got the US then able to continuously monitor and
fly weapons of war over other sovereign states to "keep the peace". No need
for land based robots when a drone in the sky could fire a laser instantly
killing someone as soon as they show a gun.

That's what I call complete dominance and control.

~~~
InclinedPlane
This is Tom Clancy-ish bullshit fantasy.

In the modern era it's not possible to be completely safe from attack, the
world is too interconnected. Our safety is partly dependent on the absence of
major power vs. major power popularly supported animosity. A modern version of
total war would not look like the WWII version of total war, or even the Cold
War hypothetical WW3 version of total war.

Instead it looks like economic war, trade war, sabotage, cyber war, espionage,
and guerrilla warfare/terrorism.

Want to hear a funny joke?

"How many lasers does it take to stop a nuclear bomb being exploded in a
shipping container in the port of a major population center?"

...

"Give up? Here's the ans.." _zzzzrt FLASH_

The punchline is you're dead.

Want to hear a funnier joke? How vulnerable is our critical power, fuel,
manufacturing, transportation, water, and emergency medical care
infrastructure to sabotage? Here the punchline is: we're fucked.

You can't use laser weapons to conquer the 21st century Earth, at best you can
use them as part of a deterrent. The moment you become a hegemonic asshole
then you end up being a major target for asymmetrical warfare. Look at what
happened with Russia vs. a teeny, tiny group of folks in Chechnya/Dagestan.
Not only were tens of thousands of Russian troops killed in brutal urban
warfare but hundreds of Russian civilians were killed by terrorist attacks
within Russia proper. Chechnya has a population one one thousandth of China.
Imagine turning China into a new Chechnya by attempting to conquer it with
violence. Anti-ballistic missile lasers don't help with car bombs, they don't
help with assassinations, or kidnappings, or sabotage.

Moreover, there is too much mutual self-interest against a major military
confrontation between any of the major economies of the world for anything of
the sort to be likely. The major conflicts of the 21st century are, as now,
likely to be of a much different nature.

~~~
richliss
I don't see the US wanting to conquer territories of any nation, or doing
anything severe.

I just see their desire being able to exert influence wherever needed, even
with actors that at the moment don't really need to take notice.

In addition don't see at point where the US will see its military capability
being challenged as an acceptable situation to its leaders, congress or
population at large.

The main reason that Reagan's SDI (Star Wars) was so significant was that the
US knew it couldn't be done at the time it was announced, but the USSR knew it
couldn't be achieved by them in the foreseeable future. This provided real
impetus to bring the USSR to the table.

Do you really think the US likes what is going on in Ukraine, or the Spratly
Islands? They don't really care if its right or wrong, just that want to be
able to suggest that no one goes against its wishes, and then no one does
without question.

If you can do this with a symbolic weapon then its easier.

------
beloch
Eventually, two forces with these military golems will turn them on each
other, either in a bid for supremacy or simply to evaluate their effectiveness
and inform the designers of the next generation of golems. What kind of
collateral damage will result from these automated clashes? Will both sides
agree to keep their golems confined to a predetermined and uninhabited area of
conflict, or will golem battles spill over into populated areas? Will weapons
currently considered off limits for use against humans (e.g. tactical nukes,
cluster bombs, and landmines) become palatable for use against golems? Will
invading golems use civilians and infrastructure as cover? How will defending
golems respond to this, or even determine that it has happened?

If a computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with
the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila, why give a computer an
automatic rifle and a rocket launcher?

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

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

~~~
richardw
ICBM's remain unused due to clear mutually-assured destruction. Autonomous
weapons are much easier to introduce to actual warfare and once introduced are
assured of continual improvement until...what?

Whatever we think the limits are, we're probably wrong.

------
btbuildem
Lem covered this a long time ago:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_\(novel\))

