You're describing network-centric warfare , which was formalized in US military theory in 1996 (22 years ago) and has guided US military doctrine since.
I'm going to put this delicately, but it'd be nice if we didn't assume everyone in the military was an idiot and hasn't thought of the things we have.
It's from an (at least somewhat) seminal paper about 10 years old from a leading defense think tank, and others discuss it too. The paper was about the future of warfare, particularly the influence of AI and robotics, and not past doctrine. It was highly respected in the defense community, AFAIK, so perhaps we shouldn't assume that HN posters are idiots who don't know what they are saying.
> it'd be nice if we didn't assume everyone in the military was an idiot and hasn't thought of the things we have.
It would be even nicer if we didn't attribute things to people that they didn't say.
As for the barb, I wouldn't have dropped it if you'd cited / summarized more concisely. Past some word count without citation or reference, I assume people assume that I believe my thoughts are novel (and by extension, that others haven't thought of them).
I again just want make it clear that I'm not the one who made the parent and GGP comments look idiotic.
I don't work for you, so to hell with your requirements and your reading comprehension problems.
> I assume people assume
I just had to repeat that part.
Until then, I'd say the Swiss, Israeli, and American models are the most moral realistic options we've come up with. (Each with their own terrible moral compromises and failures)
I'm as anti-war as they come but of course you have to recognize there are smart people who nevertheless decide to work with the military.