[neonstatic]

> abstract it away and play video game?

What happens when one side wins? In the real world, they actually win. In the video game, nothing happens

> In the near future, war might be about who can build faster/better and hit the other economy more effectively

In other words, in the near future it might work the exact way it has always worked.

> they could easily kill the people, but other nations won't allow it, so it will stop at economical defeat.

Your ideas are based on the idea of winning in a closed-system game. War is waged by people. Some people actually want the other people to die.

[aogaili]

Yes, but it not like before.

We (as humans) are getting more strict about losing people's life. We don't allow genocide, we don't allow colonization and enslavement, at least the majority of nations agree that this is not acceptable.

So it is NOT like before. And the logical conclusion, as those drones get better and more widely adopted, is that war will be nothing more a video game with real economics and supply chain. So we basically made the cost of genocide or colonization too high to absorb. Previous wars, people got away with it.

[ncruces]

We don't allow? Who doesn't? And what are they going to do about it?

[aogaili]

The majority of nations? majority of people on earth? We are going to a multilateral world and to win a war you need secure the appeal of majority. If the majority think your war is illegal they can cut you off from the world economy.

It is a distributed consensus-based algorithm, and the young people who are writing those algorithms will shape the future of governance.

[ncruces]

The majority of the world thinks the Russia-Ukraine war is illegal.

The majority of the world thinks the Israeli/US-Iran war is illegal.

[aogaili]

You are arguing today. This is the first kind of wars we are seeing of this nature.

But Iran is hitting exactly where it hurts, global supply chain, and now the US will be pressured by the global economy to either retreat or commit a genocide.

And if all the war was drones and anti-drones today (which is not) we would have saved many lives. Look at UAE/Iran, UAE lost no live despite being hammered with drones/missiles, this is an example of drones/anti-drones future. The reason why we don't have this with the US, is because the US needs a defeat for the legacy system to die, and it seems they will get that defeat soon. Actually they are already defeated, Trump said he is retreating in 3 weeks while achieving nothing but destruction.

[RiverStone]

Your casual usage of the word “genocide” doesn’t apply to Iran.

Iranians are dramatically in favor of removing the theocratic Islamic regime. Iranian expats the world over celebrated Khamenei’s death.

My Iranian mother-in-law living in Tehran has literally been saying “get the mullahs out” every time we’ve spoken for the last year. Millions of Iranians inside Iran are thankful that the US (and even Israel despite the complicated relationship) is attacking the regime.

This is a regime, after all, that killed thousands of its own people. That requires girls to fully cover themselves. That doesn’t allow singing or dancing in the street.

Achieved nothing? Go talk to a real Iranian, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Iranians the world over have felt hope for the first time in over 40 years that they may get their country back. And we absolutely should not stop trying to help them.

[lazide]

Hoho ho. Hardly helped anyone in Bakmut eh?

And hardly how China or India are likely to work too.

That future you seem to think is inevitable is very far from it:

[aogaili]

What this had to with with my arguments regarding the nature of future warfare, the emerging world economical order?

There is no point in history where we had such connected economies and this kind of autonomous war technology. All previous wars were fought by human bodies. We are witnessing the first generation of wars that becoming completely autonomous.

[lazide]

There seems to be an assumption of ‘power to the people’, and ‘just world’, that just doesn’t seem to match reality at all.

That’s what I am responding too.

[Blackthorn]

> We don't allow genocide, we don't allow colonization and enslavement, at least the majority of nations agree that this is not acceptable

Literally all of these things are happening as we type this. What the majority of nations do or do not want is irrelevant.

[aogaili]

Think in the future, I speak about a future, and you repeat it is happening, yes of course it is happening today, this tech is just being adopted.

[lazide]

So…. Fantasy?

[aogaili]

So future = fantasy in your mind? you can not speculate anything beyond the present? well, that is limitation in your thinking.

[lazide]

More like the first two definitions of the word - literally. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fantasy

[aogaili]

So you want this system to stay? You are advocating for loss of life?

[aogaili]

It is interesting that people give downvoting, so either they enjoy having the current wars continue and people physically killed, or they basically gave up on seeing a better future.

Both cases, it is sad.

[watwut]

Ukrainian invasion was attempt at genocide and colonization. Israel did anoyher genocide last year. And then there is yemen which may not be genocide, I dunno, but has super high unchecked amount of victims. Saudi made sure no one is watching.

And they all get away with it.

[aogaili]

Today yes, unfortunately.

But my argument is for the future that we are starting to get a glimpses of. I'm not negating the currently genocides, I'm hoping for a future in which we don't have war at all due to the absurdly of it. And I'm arguing that there is a path forward and it is very realistic.

You missed my point, please read my other comments.