Member 1126
11 entries

Immortal since Dec 19, 2007
Uplinks: 0, Generation 2
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • bpwnes’ favorites
    3D Mandelbrot Set
    From eyeclipse
    Analizing nature (again)
    From Olena
    Beautiful Minds
    From David Carvalho
    三芝 Sanjhih
    From josh
    World without us - Lisbon...
    Recently commented on
    3D Mandelbrot Set
    From bpwnes
    Talk to Strangers
    From HackerLastPip
    Points on a new Internet
    From bpwnes
    "[Unmanned] War, what is...
    From alert
    IBM uses DNA to make...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From bpwnes's personal cargo

    "[Unmanned] War, what is it good for?"

    Looking far into the future, wars will probably be fought between unmanned robots and vehicles. So will there be any point at all? If nobody dies, is it still worth calling a war?

    As for the near future, the US is most likely going to start using more unmanned combat vehicles instead of risking the lives of its soldiers. This puts the US at an incredible advantage—the ability to kill an enemy and not lose any soldiers, making war virtually one sided. (Will this bring a rise in terrorism?)

    Fri, Sep 4, 2009  Permanent link
    Categories: War
      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse

    number28     Sun, Sep 6, 2009  Permanent link
    I don't know if this would create a rise in terrorism, but I wonder if the public would accept robots killing people. A machine lacks the morals and judgement of a human. How would it distinguish civilian from terrorist in an environment where the lines between the two are so blurred?
    Jason J. Gleeson     Sun, Sep 6, 2009  Permanent link
    YOUR ENEMIES NEED YOU! - JOIN THE ARMY - recruiting now in all the poorest areas...

    illuminatiscott     Sun, Sep 6, 2009  Permanent link
    I think it is still definitely a war. But as non-human combat becomes the standard around the world, there may be new conventions of warfare that mandate that humans are not to be killed in combat, such that humans deaths in war become a thing of the past and people no longer pay the cost of nations' exertions of economic and technological superiority. I think that since the dawn of civilization, warfare has been about contests of economy, technology, and strategy, and human soldiers have only been the unfortunate vehicles for such force.

    Nevertheless, humans will continue to fight to some extent, once their nations lose the ability to create and maintain artificial armies. But it is possible that humans engaging in combat will be viewed with as much disdain as suicide bombing today.
    bpwnes     Mon, Sep 7, 2009  Permanent link
    @number28 - How are we sure who the enemy is now? I saw a video of a British newscast where it showed footage of an American C-130 crew getting a kill order within seconds of just seeing a crowd of people running down the street. They didn't even try to confirm that these were enemy soldiers. They could have just as easily been civilians running away from something.

    @audiovisualwelding - Exactly, rich people don't need to go to war.

    @illuminatiscott - I see your point, however I think people will still be targets, at least for the nation with the economical and technological disadvantage. The playing field will never be leveled. When was the last time two nations had equal economic, technological, and military strength?
    illuminatiscott     Mon, Sep 7, 2009  Permanent link
    @bpwnes - Nations have never been of equal economic, technological, and military strength, and that is why there is always a victor at some level. I suppose I was completely hypothesizing without really examining that concept from a critical perspective.

    However, I think we see, in modern warfare, that the invading nation targets infrastructure, communications, government, intelligence and manufacturing centers before all else. Whereas in the past one would receive an enormous boon from killing as many enemy soldiers as possible in a strike, now such an act is viewed as horrendous on the world stage and the political clout that such and act would damage vastly outweighs the military advantage.

    I suppose I was taking that viewpoint to an extreme, and as nations make robotic combatants increasingly large parts of their militaries, humans will become even less valuable as targets than they already are.
    bpwnes     Tue, Sep 8, 2009  Permanent link
    How do you think wars of the future will be fought? We've gone from human targets to infrastructure, will we be attacking a nations' will to fight or their ideals? What is the next step?
    illuminatiscott     Tue, Sep 8, 2009  Permanent link
    @bpwnes - I think we cannot overlook the role that cyberwarfare will play in the future. Between industrialized nations, a cyber attack would be far more effective than any physical attack; one well-placed virus or DOS strike could cripple the internet linchpins of a country's economy.

    Nevertheless, I think undeveloped nations will increasingly resort to terrorist, guerrilla tactics while developed nations engaged in warfare with them will have to resort to diplomatic and economic means to end their sources of support. Just my opinion, though.
    edanet     Mon, Sep 14, 2009  Permanent link
    there is an extraordinary good article about it from the 20-ies or 30-ies by Oszkar Jaszy
    I try to find it and send you, maybe it is translated to English, but originally it was written in Hungarian