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.
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.
The only real limitation to current robots is the power-source / batteries
I doubt it, military standards demand a level of reliability most robots today can't keep up with. Faulty engines, backup systems that can't handle most situations, comms problems that end with crashed drones most of the time, etc...
A soldier can compensate for a faulty rifle doing repairs on the field, and pilots have gone as far as landing a plane with only one wing (F-15, google it) something robots can't do and wont be able for a long time.
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.
>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.
Besides that, the article makes a couple of pretty good points. If you label every writer that ever made an error in their writings (or quotations) as having 'literally zero integrity' and then you stop reading because further consumption is pointless you'll throw out a lot of good with the bad.
For instance, I wasn't aware of the Russian Robotic Warfare program mentioned in the link gleaned from the article.
It is not a quote. In fact it is almost the opposite. It is a sentence fragment the author tagged to the end of an actual quote; the result being, as you demonstrate, that there will be some people who believe that was actually discussed.
It is an embellishment which nobody who had done any diligent research on the matter could have come up with.
Thus the entirety of the article is suspect, and the flowery writing style does not help in extracting what might be the actual facts.
Current anti-aircraft/anti-missile/anti-mortar systems are already partially "sentient", they can see/heart/detect potential threats and respond appropriately (a human is usually required to press the "ok to fire" button but it's not necessary at all).
The article might not be very good, but this topic does need to be discussed publicly.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Of course that sort of thing will only happen if America loses. The truth is that during the worst part of slavery in the US, the US treated it's slaves better than most empires after the Roman Empire treated their own citizens. Problem is, America hasn't really lost any war for almost 2 generations now, we don't really hear from the places where domination exists (e.g. Sudan, Mali, southernmost Algeria) and people are starting to seriously lack imagination the way you do.
Dominance and control, historically, is NOT about spreading democracy and/or getting favorable resource deals. It is about complete dominance and control : things like the ability to commit ethnic cleansings ongoing for centuries, having the entire enemy population working as slaves, imposing ethnic/religious taxes of 90%+, "death or islam", ...
> You have a complete lack of imagination and perspective. Let me help you with some history
> people are starting to seriously lack imagination the way you do.
Great way to start a civilised discourse there! Not coming off as aggressive or arrogant at all...
Of course the US population won't accept ethnic cleansing, or the like, so it won't achieve that kind of dominance you're talking about, and why would it want to? Its not profitable.
Its goal with be that no one can take an opposing stance. There are multiple ways it will try to do this, but having laser weapons makes it easier against potentially competing military powers.
For smaller countries it will probably resort to its traditional proxy war/start revolution approach, picking sides as needed that align with its views.
One last thing... these things are points of view, not insults directed at you if you don't share those views. Life will be more enjoyable if you realise this.
Sorry about the tone of that reply. My point is that, when it comes to non-US conquests, ethnic/religious cleansing was the norm, not the exception. The muslim states are especially famous for doing that, but they're hardly alone in that.
I would argue that several parties, like, say ISIS, Iran, North Sudan or Hamas/PLA are trying to do exactly that, today. Americans by and large don't realize this is the case, assuming everyone behaves like Americans do, and then don't understand the reaction states/populations have to these "revolutions", or even more ridiculous "resistance". They don't understand that there can be no peace until these organisation have either died or abandoned their goals and most of their identity.
Europeans (and I'm one) act all high and moral, but the last times they did have the option to commit ethnic cleansing, most European states chose to do exactly that. And don't say the allies didn't do that, rather, read about the aftermath of WWII and the revenge killings (which targeted am. And no, at those times the US also had that opportunity and the US chose to not do it, and I do not have faith that they won't repeat those mistakes. Given that I grew up in an environment characterized by US military "dominance" I have to say, I'm extremely grateful for the result of said dominance.
Laser weapons on the US side may provide the option of having the military standoff that has characterized the 20th century last longer. That's a very, very good thing.
I've travelled around enough to know that what Europeans are really blaming the US for when it comes to Israel, for example, is that the US helps prevent the Palestinians do the ethnic cleansing they want to (and others), and prevent Europe from interfering (e.g. with the recent Lebanon war vs. (that was partly a proxy war with France and Iran)).
Frankly this is the reason I'm both a techie but sympathize strongly with the republicans. I don't care (at all) for their social agenda, but I don't really care about social stuff in the US at all, and the democrats have a distinct isolationist streak that the republicans never displayed. If the democrats had their way Europe and the middle east would be screwed. And not screwed in "oops we don't get the oil contract", but screwed in the "another 1000 dead today" sense.
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?
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.
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.
Many things. What matters is real world outcomes, not hypothetical potential for destruction. The US doesn't use ICBMs, so in the real world they are effectively harmless. The US public and the rest of the world will not allow their use. Autonomous mechanical soldiers, on the other hand, may very well be fair game.
Okay, compare the muslim/"Mughal" invasion of India to oh, say 100 Hiroshima's. Then tell me which is worse. I think you'll agree that the invasion was much, much worse.
ICBMs are not the world-enders their reputation seems to indicate. The real problem with ICBMs is that nothing can stop them. You know where someone is, an ICBM can kill them, with very, very few exceptions. No other technology will do that. That's why they're so feared. Not because they'll "end" a country, but because politicians fear for their own skin. Russia can destroy the white house, and there isn't a damn thing the US can do to stop them using ICBMs (one would not reliably do it).
By far the most scary weapon in the world is extremely humble : knives. Not even "scary" knives. Think blunt, 10cm long or less, knives. They are by a ridiculous margin, the weapon most people were killed with. The second place are short, curved swords.
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.