Re:Gremlins
by angry_octet on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @07:00PM
(#17863678)
You can definitely argue that drones are a proliferation risk, and also risk conflict escalation. Because there is no pilot on board, A is willing to action riskier/provocative missions against B. B knows it is a drone, so it can shoot it down without loss of human life, and possibly analyse the fragments. A knows B will do this, so uses disposables to probe air defence capabilities. B sends its own drones to probe A's launch site/platform. Et cetera.
So it allows idiot governments to seriously escalate conflicts. I can totally see this in regional conflicts.
The disposable nature with low local expertise requirements might increase sales to poor countries too. While they might not be willing to risk their air superiority totems (MiGs of F-16s) in a border dispute, drones are qualitatively different.
You don't need to argue hypotheticals. This has been the US pattern for decades. Even in Iraq, the US casualty rate was far lower than in Vietnam.
Re:Gremlins
by nickhalfasleep on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @06:52PM
(#17863634)
It's easy for politicians to dispatch robots, no danger of service members being killed. Look at the proliferation of questionable targets and results that cruise missiles have given politicians when they need to make empty threats.
On the other hand, it's the military who have the money. Jet fighters and bombers came before jet airliners. So, maybe DOD's involvement will bring the Singularity closer.
But it does suck, when you're the target. And low operator risk makes wars a lot easier to sell to frightened masses. So likely, there'll be more targets, for less justifiable reasons. Resource wars, for example.