Drone vs. Drone

Jul 21 | Posted by: Fighter #1 | Tags: Crackpot Theories to save the world

This isn’t very timely, but there has been some discussion of the idea of banning automated warfare. i.e. There should be international treaties saying that all weapons have to have a human operator. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. Having robots that are allowed to kill people sounds like a terrible idea!

Here’s the trick tho: it’s only a good idea in the short term. Eventually, we want warfare to be automated. Here’s my reasoning.

Ultimately, war is a competition of economies. Usually, whoever has the stronger economy wins the war. Originally, this meant people. i.e. whichever side had the most surplus labor (healthy young people who weren’t needed to grow food, etc.) had the advantage.

As technology and strategy evolved, so did warfare. The old adage “an army marches on its stomach” really just means that the economy with better transport and logistics has the advantage.

R&D and manufacturing - another important part of a nation’s economy - affect the weapons and supplies available to its army.

Automated warfare will be an important evolution in this idea because it removes the human element. Ultimately, war as an economic waste isn’t a big deal per se, but the human toll is terrible. Real people really suffer and die in war.

In the short-term, automated warfare will make the human element much worse for the losing side. If you’re a poor nation being invaded by a rich nation, their automated war machine will ruin your economy and your people’s lives.

Eventually, though, everyone will have automated war. It will be entirely economy vs. economy with no human intervention. Eventually, the idea of people fighting each other over the disagreements of politicians will be considered ancient and barbaric.

When we reach that point, war will still be wasteful and pointless, but at least it won’t be terrifying and awful.

Syndicate content