NationStates Jolt Archive


War without killing?

Neu Leonstein
21-11-2005, 12:33
Imagine it's the year 2050, and it's war between...say NATO and some Rogue State. NATO forces are fully uplinked, networked and reinforced supersoldiers, satellites see and hear everything, and drones are flying overhead and driving through the streets of Rogue City.

Normal weaponry can no longer pose a threat to the NATO soldier of the future. He/she wears completely bullet-proof compound armoursuits, has immediate access to anti-missile systems swarming overhead and can spot people through walls kilometres away.

In other words: There is no longer a self-defense aspect to the soldier at war. And now comes the catch:

These future soldiers wield non-lethal weapons: Tranquiliser Darts, Taser- and Stun Guns, incapacitating foam sprays and EMP waves that can paralyse nerves necessary for movement. One could win a war and not kill a single person.

Is it possible? Is it desirable?
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?
Cabra West
21-11-2005, 12:35
Imagine it's the year 2050, and it's war between...say NATO and some Rogue State. NATO forces are fully uplinked, networked and reinforced supersoldiers, satellites see and hear everything, and drones are flying overhead and driving through the streets of Rogue City.

Normal weaponry can no longer pose a threat to the NATO soldier of the future. He/she wears completely bullet-proof compound armoursuits, has immediate access to anti-missile systems swarming overhead and can spot people through walls kilometres away.

In other words: There is no longer a self-defense aspect to the soldier at war. And now comes the catch:

These future soldiers wield non-lethal weapons: Tranquiliser Darts, Taser- and Stun Guns, incapacitating foam sprays and EMP waves that can paralyse nerves necessary for movement. One could win a war and not kill a single person.

Is it possible? Is it desirable?
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?


It is both possible and desireable. Take a look at the history of warfare, especially Prussia under Frederick I. He tended to go for strategies that would disable his adversary without a single shot being fired or a single person being harmed.

I'll have to google a few examples on that...
Pepe Dominguez
21-11-2005, 12:38
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?

So long as they're protecting someone who does..

Also, non-lethal weapons have limitations.. tranquilizers take several minutes to work, unlike in the movies, for example. I say we let our robots rip the enemy to shreds, but we'll always need humans to draw out the enemy.. I mean, the enemy will probably just stay inside if the streets are crawling with robots. Better yet, we need human-looking robots like in that movie, Screamers.. that was sweet.
Heron-Marked Warriors
21-11-2005, 12:40
It is both possible and desireable. Take a look at the history of warfare, especially Prussia under Frederick I. He tended to go for strategies that would disable his adversary without a single shot being fired or a single person being harmed.

I'll have to google a few examples on that...

Please do, that's fascinating.

As to the desireable aspect, I say no, it isn't. Partly just to generate discussion, but also partly because I have certain reservations about the prospect of bloodless war.

I know killing doesn't solve many problems, but it's also true that sometimes you have to force people to submit before they actually will. I don't think war without killing could accomplish that, because it seriously impedes the fear effect. The rebels/enemy/whoever are still going to try, because it's human nature, and they'll probably succeed in various small ways through human ingenuity. Without the fear of death, I believe it would be nearly impossible to cow such a group.
Neu Leonstein
21-11-2005, 12:42
Also, non-lethal weapons have limitations.. tranquilizers take several minutes to work, unlike in the movies, for example.
And that matters because...?

I say we let our robots rip the enemy to shreds...
But that's the point. Yes, war has always meant killing people - but to achieve the goals that generally mean victory in war, it's not a necessity, given the technology.

I believe it is possible to develop such technology, if only people would invest time and money into it, rather than sticking to the old "War is Hell"-Excuse.
Neu Leonstein
21-11-2005, 12:44
Without the fear of death, I believe it would be nearly impossible to cow such a group.
There are decidedly few cases in human history in which a resistance, underground or any other group has really been defeated by military force and the fear of death.
It was always a matter of incapacitating them, and then working people's minds (de-Nazification for example) to result in a lasting peace. And you could easily incapacitate them without killing anyone.
Pepe Dominguez
21-11-2005, 13:05
And that matters because...?


Because in 5-6 minutes, the guy hit with the dart can do a lot of damage, since our enemies won't be using non-lethal weapons.. a few CCs of Rompun isn't going to stop a guy from firing a mortar at your position, even if his pals have to carry him off afterward. Also, people don't all weigh the same or have the same metabolism.. 4 CCs of Ketamine might send me into a calm sleep, while some 90-pound Iraqi will be dead 3 times over from the same dose.. it's not practical.. you also can't use a taser or pepper spray from long range and, again, if the enemy's using a rifle, you're not going to be able to get to him with a taser.. that stuff's fine for crowd control, but not combat.
Neu Leonstein
21-11-2005, 13:09
Because in 5-6 minutes, the guy hit with the dart can do a lot of damage, since our enemies won't be using non-lethal weapons..
But you read my post, right? The technological development has been going so fast for the past few years that it is entirely possible that the soldier of 2050 cannot be wounded by mere rifle fire, or even mortar rounds.
And besides, there is always the possibility to simply send a drone to administer the dosis.
Heron-Marked Warriors
21-11-2005, 13:11
And besides, there is always the possibility to simply send a drone to administer the dosis.

This idea of sending drones is only perfect if you are going to them. What happens when they come to you?
Pepe Dominguez
21-11-2005, 13:16
But you read my post, right? The technological development has been going so fast for the past few years that it is entirely possible that the soldier of 2050 cannot be wounded by mere rifle fire, or even mortar rounds.
And besides, there is always the possibility to simply send a drone to administer the dosis.

I guess if soldiers were completely invincible, they could protect themselves without weapons.. but they couldn't protect civilian populations from terrorists, for example, without using lethal force. In some situations you might disarm a gunman shooting up a populated area, but it'd probably be difficult with most non-lethal weapons.
Cabra West
21-11-2005, 13:18
Please do, that's fascinating.

As to the desireable aspect, I say no, it isn't. Partly just to generate discussion, but also partly because I have certain reservations about the prospect of bloodless war.

I know killing doesn't solve many problems, but it's also true that sometimes you have to force people to submit before they actually will. I don't think war without killing could accomplish that, because it seriously impedes the fear effect. The rebels/enemy/whoever are still going to try, because it's human nature, and they'll probably succeed in various small ways through human ingenuity. Without the fear of death, I believe it would be nearly impossible to cow such a group.

Have you ever read Caleb Carr's The Lessons of Terror (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375760741/102-9487890-2567345?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance)?
If not, do. It does not only refer to terrorist acts comitted by a group of guerilla fighters, the way we define it today. It rather focuses on "terror" as "warfare against civilians" and tracks that back to ancient times.

The idea that the possibility of death serves as a deterrant is widespread, but flawed. On the contrary, it seems to be drawing individuals to military service and into combat.
The most effective wars ever fought were limited wars, in which the agressor had first formulated clear political objectives and was using war simply as a method to enforce them. Wars that were total in scope and resulted in high numbers of casualties almost always led to revenge actions on the side of the loser and if anything, hardened the conflict and dragged out the complete solution for years.
Neu Leonstein
21-11-2005, 13:19
This idea of sending drones is only perfect if you are going to them. What happens when they come to you?
You already know they're coming - you can still use the drones...or even if you couldn't, proper defensive positions and systems should help you weather the storm.
Volkodlak
21-11-2005, 13:20
I think that all wars should be taken to a giant dome, where you gather your best teams, and compete in one hell of a game of American Gladitors. The best team wins, and takes the agreed upon land/prize.

also, for minor arguements, I would suggest a good game of 007 golden eye from the N64.
Neu Leonstein
21-11-2005, 13:23
I guess if soldiers were completely invincible, they could protect themselves without weapons.. but they couldn't protect civilian populations from terrorists, for example, without using lethal force. In some situations you might disarm a gunman shooting up a populated area, but it'd probably be difficult with most non-lethal weapons.
That is the one best case to be made for lethal force, I think. But the question remains whether
a) one would call that "war"
b) whether one could develop some sort of electroshock weapon that could zap someone and paralyse them, like E-Eels do for example.
GMC Military Arms
21-11-2005, 13:45
In other words: There is no longer a self-defense aspect to the soldier at war. And now comes the catch:

Won't happen. Ever. These scenarios have been trotted out time and time again and have always been shown to be absolutely ludicrous; there's simply no way to build an armoured suit with flexible joints that could adequately resist small-arms fire with anything resembling the level of reliability you want, let alone shots from high-velocity rifles or anti-tank weapons.

More to the point, weapons develop with armour; in your scenario the enemy is likely to be weilding 2050-era guns that are more powerful to counter the new armour suits, like energy weapons or man-portable rocket guns or ramjet guns.

War without casualties is a myth. Guns are always going to evolve to counter new armour, that's how technology works.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?

Is there any difference between that and a smart missile that isn't even defending itself, or a landmine? And frankly, regarding a sufficiently intelligent autonomous robot as lacking rights is barbaric.
Kanabia
21-11-2005, 13:53
There's a better way...use robots!
GMC Military Arms
21-11-2005, 14:01
There's a better way...use robots!

Except that if I bomb the factories making your robots, you don't have any more robots. Or their command stations. Or the places they go for repairs and rearming. Or the trucks that supply them with spare parts, fuel and ammo. Or the depots that supply those trucks....

...Regardless, people are still going to die, and you'll end up having to revert to human soldiers because robots are massively more resource-intensive to build, put in the field and keep in the field. And they could potentially be hijacked by enemy communications guys or knocked out completely with ECM or magnetic-pulse weaponry, too.
Cabra West
21-11-2005, 14:07
E... and you'll end up having to revert to human soldiers because robots are massively more resource-intensive to build, put in the field and keep in the field. ...

Wow. I know it's true, but still. Do you know how cynical that is?
Grantioch
21-11-2005, 14:13
Please do, that's fascinating.

As to the desireable aspect, I say no, it isn't. Partly just to generate discussion, but also partly because I have certain reservations about the prospect of bloodless war.

I know killing doesn't solve many problems, but it's also true that sometimes you have to force people to submit before they actually will. I don't think war without killing could accomplish that, because it seriously impedes the fear effect. The rebels/enemy/whoever are still going to try, because it's human nature, and they'll probably succeed in various small ways through human ingenuity. Without the fear of death, I believe it would be nearly impossible to cow such a group.

I disagree. If we consider war is an action among states - and you've ruled out individuals, like terrorists, being the targets - then the objective is not just to destroy the enemy's armed forces, since the enemy could get more. The idea is to defeat the enemy, by making the enemy realize that victory is impossible and giving up is the best option.

There would obviously be a great many irrational people who intend to fight to the death - but an army, cut off from reinforcement, pinned in one spot, running low on supplies, how many people in that army do you think would opt for a glorious death rather than survival?

If war among non-state actors, well, technically it's not "war" (although civil war comes to mind). These forces are likely less-well equipped, lacking the resources of the state, and thus less likely to have access to the weapons that can hurt these future soldiers. Less likely, but by no means impossible.

I think another argument for keeping lethal weapons however is that, if your soldiers wade into the enemy with non-lethal weapons, they expose themselves to risk - this is part of the business. But if the enemy kills some of your soldiers (however they do) while you're just knocking them out, well, that's a bit of a propaganda coup for the enemy. Plus, knocked out troops can come back - dead ones can't. Using non-lethal weaponry would demand 100% success in any assault in order to ensure lasting results, and I just don't see generals opting for this plan.

In sum: Maneuver warfare can destroy an enemy without battle, as Sun Tzu hoped, but lethal weapons might stay with us forever.
Kanabia
21-11-2005, 14:15
Except that if I bomb the factories making your robots, you don't have any more robots. Or their command stations. Or the places they go for repairs and rearming. Or the trucks that supply them with spare parts, fuel and ammo. Or the depots that supply those trucks....

Of course, that's pretty much how you screw over any army. Look at Nazi Germany.

...Regardless, people are still going to die, and you'll end up having to revert to human soldiers because robots are massively more resource-intensive to build, put in the field and keep in the field. And they could potentially be hijacked by enemy communications guys or knocked out completely with ECM or magnetic-pulse weaponry, too.

Of course some people will still die in collateral damage. It would be immensely closer to a war without killing, however.

And with our current technology, yes, robots are far more expensive. However, in 50 years time, we might be approaching a point where mass produced military robots are cheaper and more effective to put in the field. As long as the factories are running, and the resources being delivered, you have a theoretically unlimited supply of soldiers. Not to mention a supply that doesn't need training to operate at full efficiency, or eat...and one that can withstand many more physical hazards than a human. Not to mention the lack of morale problems, and the fact that such a force can operate around the clock.
GMC Military Arms
21-11-2005, 14:31
Wow. I know it's true, but still. Do you know how cynical that is?

Yes. It's exactly as cynical as designing landmines to injure people horribly instead of killing them because an injured man occupies medical personnel treating him but a dead man doesn't.

The logic behind devising methods of killing people is seldom pleasant to consider, really.
Drake and Dragon Keeps
21-11-2005, 14:49
I thought i should point out that logistics in war is really really hard to do succesfully at the moment. This becomes even harder when you have POWs to deal with as you have to transport them safely to a holding centre and guard them and feed them etc. Now consider that you are wanting to capture all the enemy as POWs. This can quickly become unfeasable when the number of POWs goes above thousands into 100 of thousands and millions.

This is a very harsh way to view things but if an enemy is dead then you don't have to deal with logistics of him being a POW. POWs are normally captured when a division of troops become surrounded/ cut-off and are fully demoralised so that they surrender. Now if they know they will not be killed, just disabled then why should they ever surrender and not keep fighting untill the last man captured (i.e. no fear of death). This is very likely to lengthen the war and increase civilian casaulties and damage the country the fighting is taking place in even more (which you wish to minimise).

The objective usually in war is to win quickly as it is cheaper, logistically easier and reduces collateral damage to the civillian population and infrastructure.
Hata-alla
21-11-2005, 14:51
An interesting idea, but probably not feasable. When choosing between building million dollar mechsuits and giving grunts a $100 gun and some intesive training, the latter always comes first. OK, that didn't make sense, but you get what I mean.
Deviltrainee
21-11-2005, 15:47
not possible because if the darts can hit the enemy then bullets will definitely go through the armor, and many other easy points to have been missed
Ashmoria
21-11-2005, 16:01
what would this non lethal war look like? would you go to rogue state capital city and start rounding up massive numbers of people until you have locked up enough that they cant run their country anymore? what about when the rest decide to join the resistance in order to repell the foreign invader (nato)? what about when their kids start throwing sand into your robotic joints in order to stop your soldiers? do you lock them up too?

and when you let them go, as you will have to? they go back to their old ways or worse and you are back to square one. what do you do to persuade them that their rogue ways are wrong wrong wrong?

it just seems more suited to picking up isolatled alqaeda cells than the invasion of france.
New Historia
21-11-2005, 16:08
How about we all play Halo in a massive deathmatch and the winning country gets to propose terms of surrender. If we don't agree we must move to compulsory WORLD WAR 3, (and the XBOX and PC version will follow soon after).
Zorpbuggery
21-11-2005, 16:43
[Not referring to Halo etc.]

It is physicaly impossible to build truly bulletproof armour: it would weigh well over a tonne to resist Cold war SPs etc, and also... haven't we seen this before:

Man makes swords, so man makes armour to protect himself.
Man makes longbows to defeat armour.
Man makes metal armour to stop longbows.
Man makes handguns to defeat metal.
Man makes melded plastic armour to defeat HEAT, HESHs etc...

I'm sure mankind will find a new, more imaginative way of killing each other.
The South Islands
21-11-2005, 16:43
What's the fun of war if you can't kill people?
Nadkor
21-11-2005, 16:45
War should be decided on a game of poker. War without killing.
Cabra West
21-11-2005, 16:45
[Not referring to Halo etc.]

It is physicaly impossible to build truly bulletproof armour: it would weigh well over a tonne to resist Cold war SPs etc, and also... haven't we seen this before:

Man makes swords, so man makes armour to protect himself.
Man makes longbows to defeat armour.
Man makes metal armour to stop longbows.
Man makes handguns to defeat metal.
Man makes melded plastic armour to defeat HEAT, HESHs etc...

I'm sure mankind will find a new, more imaginative way of killing each other.

It's interesting to note that the protection always was invented AFTER the new weapon was developed.
If you take that into the calculation, it is highly unlikely that protective armour will be developed that has the potential to withstand anything more advanced than the weapons that are around at the time...
The South Islands
21-11-2005, 16:47
War should be decided on a game of poker. War without killing.



Would you like to play a game?
Zorpbuggery
21-11-2005, 16:51
"War involves death. If it didn't, it wouldn't be war. Just a rather nasty argument with lots of pushing and shoving"

A. J. Rimmer.

Humerous as it was, it's true. Without the twenty million Russian people killed in WWII, do you think Stalin would have just said, "Oh, OK, I won't invade Europe." The death, although not pretty, is by definition a part of war.
Letila
21-11-2005, 17:19
In that case, wouldn't we be better off just abolishing war alltogether?
QuentinTarantino
21-11-2005, 17:24
In that case, wouldn't we be better off just abolishing war alltogether?

Yes, if that was physically possible
Zorpbuggery
21-11-2005, 17:24
Have you ever read 1984? That sounds exactly like that.

If you have some war, It's evil and bad because people die. If you have no war, it's good, because no one dies... and If you have UTTER AND TOTAL war like that of 1984, then you get peace. It's far too complex to explain in a post, but if anyone's interested read the specific part of 1984 with this stuff in.
Revasser
21-11-2005, 18:06
Has anyone seen that 80s movie "Robot Jox"? Now THAT is how wars should be fought. One-on-one combat between skilled champions in giant, cool robots.

Of course, someone will always decide that they don't like the result of the match, give a bunch of their people rifles and force them to invade the other guy's country. Bah, humans suck. Cool movie, though. I loved the cheesy ending.
The South Islands
21-11-2005, 18:08
Was that the one where those main characters found the big giant robot buried underground or something?

And were the bad dude had a robot that fired it's fist?
Kanabia
21-11-2005, 18:08
It's interesting to note that the protection always was invented AFTER the new weapon was developed.
If you take that into the calculation, it is highly unlikely that protective armour will be developed that has the potential to withstand anything more advanced than the weapons that are around at the time...

Laser guns = Mirror suit

:p
Mooseica
21-11-2005, 18:09
Personally I think it would be a fantastic idea if we just built remote controlled robots, and gave control of them to all the kids (sufficiently aged and trained of course) and make sure that the controller is an Xbox controller - be honest, the skill that some Halo players have (myself included to some extent :)) is far superior to any flesh-restricted mere mortal.



Muahahaha etc.
Revasser
21-11-2005, 18:12
Was that the one where those main characters found the big giant robot buried underground or something?

And were the bad dude had a robot that fired it's fist?

That one with the buried robot was "Robo Warriors", I believe. Also a good, cheesy movie. "Robot Jox" was nations (Americans and Russians, of course!) settling disputes with one-on-one robot combat rather than all out wars. The protagonist was called "Achilles". But yeah, the Russian guy's robot did fire it's fist like a missile, I think.
Saudbany
21-11-2005, 18:24
If your case did happen, I have to agree with the guys who have said that it wouldn't be a true war at all. Such a case is no more intense than playing a video game. Can you imagine having your REAL life ruled by an imaginary and VIRTUAL game? There would be no seriousness of the considered matter anymore. People would fight for everything and anything knowing that the consequences would at best only harm their integrity, a concept none of them could care about in the 1st place.
Sonaj
21-11-2005, 18:35
"War involves death. If it didn't, it wouldn't be war. Just a rather nasty argument with lots of pushing and shoving"

A. J. Rimmer.
"To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
Sun Tzu

It would of course be diserable, but it does pose a whole lot of new questions: What to do with the stunned/incapacitated enemies (Jails? Camps?) How long to keep them in custody? The costs of keeping them alive, what will happen when they're free etc.
Lionstone
21-11-2005, 18:53
Is it possible? Is it desirable?

Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?

1) Yes and hell yes.

2) If it is intelligent it should have the right to defend itself.

But I really do not think that (Short of all powerful energy sheilding) that all weapon proof armour will be a reality.

It would also stop any cases of both civilian casualties and freindly fire.
Deep Kimchi
21-11-2005, 18:55
Imagine the usual tactics of insurgents:

1. Blowing up roadside bombs
While this may work against local civilians, if the entire occupying force is a bunch of robots, you will NEVER get the invading country's public opinion by killing a few robots every week - unlike the sad stories of soldiers being sent home dead and wounded, there's no story at all.

2. Taking soldiers hostage
Now that's funny. You manage to capture a robot (largely by wrecking it). You're not going to get any PR footage that gains any traction by threatening to execute the robot on al-Jazeera.

3. Fighting to the last man at "last stands". Rather ignominious to die at the hands of machines - they don't sleep, don't eat, and don't get tired. They also don't run away or hesitate.

4. Robots could be equipped with weapons that humans can't carry without risking harm to themselves - such as lasers that don't kill but permanently blind humans.
Eutrusca
21-11-2005, 18:57
"War without killing?"

Only paint-ball guns are not outlawed? :D
Ratgash Islands
21-11-2005, 19:24
...Regardless, people are still going to die, and you'll end up having to revert to human soldiers because robots are massively more resource-intensive to build, put in the field and keep in the field. And they could potentially be hijacked by enemy communications guys or knocked out completely with ECM or magnetic-pulse weaponry, too.


I disagree. Humans are far more expensive than Robots. A human requires 118 years of constant feeding and caring before it is can be used as a combatant, while a robot can be set up in weeks (once we increase our technology).

The difference is that almost all of our resources are devoted to maintaining humans, so we have a relative easier way of creating humans than robots.
Enixx Nest
21-11-2005, 19:31
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?

I don't think so- after all, use of robotic combatants lowers the number of human casualties, which can only be a good thing. Nobody (except maybe the beaurocrats) will mourn the destruction of a robot. Further, robots can be programmed always to accept surrenders, not to harm civilians, etc, which human soldiers can't always be relied upon to do.
Antikythera
21-11-2005, 20:04
If people did not die then how could it be called war?
death is what makes war a war:)
Potato jack
21-11-2005, 21:06
Why not use clones, but muck about with the DNA to remove fear and pain
FireAntz
21-11-2005, 21:11
NEVER underestimate humanities ability to kill each other.
Sonaj
21-11-2005, 21:20
"War without killing?"

Only paint-ball guns are not outlawed? :D
Yes! Owning anything else, and you get shot! Oh, wait...
The Parkus Empire
21-11-2005, 21:30
Imagine it's the year 2050, and it's war between...say NATO and some Rogue State. NATO forces are fully uplinked, networked and reinforced supersoldiers, satellites see and hear everything, and drones are flying overhead and driving through the streets of Rogue City.

Normal weaponry can no longer pose a threat to the NATO soldier of the future. He/she wears completely bullet-proof compound armoursuits, has immediate access to anti-missile systems swarming overhead and can spot people through walls kilometres away.

In other words: There is no longer a self-defense aspect to the soldier at war. And now comes the catch:

These future soldiers wield non-lethal weapons: Tranquiliser Darts, Taser- and Stun Guns, incapacitating foam sprays and EMP waves that can paralyse nerves necessary for movement. One could win a war and not kill a single person.

Is it possible? Is it desirable?
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?
It would be freggin dificult to get the enemy to surrender, but if you could...ahhhh how happy... I always thought it would would be nice if they could just play a game of "risk"...but I don't see how that would happen, not with all the sore-losers...
The Parkus Empire
21-11-2005, 21:32
Why not use clones, but muck about with the DNA to remove fear and pain
Clones = more effective soldiers, AND ONE FREAKIN EXPEEEEEEEENSIVE WAR, and ultimatly, still killing going on...
The Parkus Empire
21-11-2005, 21:37
Personally I think it would be a fantastic idea if we just built remote controlled robots, and gave control of them to all the kids (sufficiently aged and trained of course) and make sure that the controller is an Xbox controller - be honest, the skill that some Halo players have (myself included to some extent :)) is far superior to any flesh-restricted mere mortal.



Muahahaha etc. THAT WOULD ROCK!!!!!!!!
Sumamba Buwhan
21-11-2005, 21:37
Imagine it's the year 2050, and it's war between...say NATO and some Rogue State. NATO forces are fully uplinked, networked and reinforced supersoldiers, satellites see and hear everything, and drones are flying overhead and driving through the streets of Rogue City.

Normal weaponry can no longer pose a threat to the NATO soldier of the future. He/she wears completely bullet-proof compound armoursuits, has immediate access to anti-missile systems swarming overhead and can spot people through walls kilometres away.

In other words: There is no longer a self-defense aspect to the soldier at war. And now comes the catch:

These future soldiers wield non-lethal weapons: Tranquiliser Darts, Taser- and Stun Guns, incapacitating foam sprays and EMP waves that can paralyse nerves necessary for movement. One could win a war and not kill a single person.

Is it possible? Is it desirable?
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?


Trying to take all the fun out of it for the right-wingers are ya? :p
Sumamba Buwhan
21-11-2005, 21:41
I think wars would be awesome if instead of who could kill the greastest percentage of the other sides forces, that instead both sides just tried to pull off the best pranks of massive scale on the opposing side.

Imagine how funny it would be if we gassed all of north korea so that they would remain unconscious for a few days while the US forces wnet in and dressed everyone up in bondage/fetish outfits and installed cameras to broadcast their reaction upon awakening on live multinational tv.
Neu Leonstein
22-11-2005, 00:41
Just to clarify...when I talk about a war without killing, I'm not talking about a war between two equal powers.

I'm talking about an attack on a Rogue State, some Terrorist Camp or the like.
In the past 10 or 20 years the capabilities of Western militaries have developed massively. The US military of today could crush 1980's US military and barely break a sweat.

That kind of progress doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon, and so the gap between Western militaries and those of second- and third-rate powers is going to become larger.
GMC Military Arms
22-11-2005, 08:24
I disagree. Humans are far more expensive than Robots. A human requires 118 years of constant feeding and caring before it is can be used as a combatant

Kind of old to be a combatant by then, surely?

In the past 10 or 20 years the capabilities of Western militaries have developed massively. The US military of today could crush 1980's US military and barely break a sweat.

No, they haven't, and no, they wouldn't. Most of their current technology actually originates from the 80s or 70s not based on something at least 20 years old] and the US military has seen serious cutbacks since the end of the Cold War. The modern US military could well actually lose to the US military of 20 years ago.

And how much would these soldiers with their invulnerable armour cost? If each soldier costs as much as a battle tank, you can afford an anti-tank weapon per soldier, and you'd get your money back from stripping his gear and selling it on the black market. Further, how would an army built entirely for counter-insurgency scale against China as a superpower, which could well have happened by 2050?
Neu Leonstein
22-11-2005, 12:51
No, they haven't, and no, they wouldn't. Most of their current technology actually originates from the 80s or 70s not based on something at least 20 years old] and the US military has seen serious cutbacks since the end of the Cold War. The modern US military could well actually lose to the US military of 20 years ago.
It's the electronics that count. Germany still flies god-damned Phantoms - and yet they are acceptable because they are filled with fancy circuits to the brim.
Today's Abrams would pulverise yesterday's because it would pick it up, target it and destroy it before the old version would even have spotted it. And the same goes for planes, helicopters and soldiers.
Yes, the Tomahawk was introduced in 1983 - but back then it was little more than a ballistic missile. Today it's had so many upgrades that it would usually hit with a metre or so accuracy.
Modern tactics, modern communication and modern technology could take out the command structure of the old US Army just as quick as it could take out the head of the PLA today.

And how much would these soldiers with their invulnerable armour cost?
A lot - who said war was cheap?

If each soldier costs as much as a battle tank, you can afford an anti-tank weapon per soldier, and you'd get your money back from stripping his gear and selling it on the black market.
But how, I ask you, could you kill a guy who is protected against small arms fire, is 100% networked with everyone and everything in the entire army, can use satellites, heat sensors and other gimmicks to spot a guy in a building many kilometres away? RPG or not, if I already know where you are I can take you out - only that in this case that wouldn't require killing you.

Further, how would an army built entirely for counter-insurgency scale against China as a superpower, which could well have happened by 2050?
It probably wouldn't. It's part of modern transformation doctrine that the armies get smaller and smaller and get replaced by small special forces, overwhelming air power and lots of missiles.
If one did have to go to war against another superpower, one would probably get out the serious guns - the ones that kill.
That being said, there is nothing either side would have to gain from war, not now and probably not in 50 years either.
DELGRAD
22-11-2005, 13:08
Imagine it's the year 2050, and it's war between...say NATO and some Rogue State. NATO forces are fully uplinked, networked and reinforced supersoldiers, satellites see and hear everything, and drones are flying overhead and driving through the streets of Rogue City.

Normal weaponry can no longer pose a threat to the NATO soldier of the future. He/she wears completely bullet-proof compound armoursuits, has immediate access to anti-missile systems swarming overhead and can spot people through walls kilometres away.

In other words: There is no longer a self-defense aspect to the soldier at war. And now comes the catch:

These future soldiers wield non-lethal weapons: Tranquiliser Darts, Taser- and Stun Guns, incapacitating foam sprays and EMP waves that can paralyse nerves necessary for movement. One could win a war and not kill a single person.

Is it possible? Is it desirable?
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?

Possible by 2050? No.
Possible in the next 50 to 100 years? Maybe.
Possible in the next 100 to 200 years? Yes.
Desirable? Yes.
Mensia
22-11-2005, 13:23
Personally I think it would be a fantastic idea if we just built remote controlled robots, and gave control of them to all the kids (sufficiently aged and trained of course) and make sure that the controller is an Xbox controller - be honest, the skill that some Halo players have (myself included to some extent :)) is far superior to any flesh-restricted mere mortal.



Muahahaha etc.

Read Orson Scott Card - Ender's Game

Or

Joe Haldeman - Forever Peace

I think it is possible to have an enemy surrender without having to kill many of them. If one takes all the natural and economic resources and sufficiently damages the infrastructure, as well as use non-lethal weapons to incapacitate enemies.

One of the major problems with war (besides its inherent absurdity) is that a country being invaded will harbour a population intent on defending it by any means necessary. "People fight hardest on their own territory". If one, instead of turning people who fight the invading force into martyrs (by i.e. killing them), incapacitates them by non-lethal methods and have them imprisoned, they would certainly harm the martyrs cause.


"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"
GMC Military Arms
22-11-2005, 14:27
Modern tactics, modern communication and modern technology could take out the command structure of the old US Army just as quick as it could take out the head of the PLA today.

Right, like in Kosovo. Oh, wait, almost all the Serb tanks NATO airstrikes hit in Kosovo were decoys, weren't they?

But how, I ask you, could you kill a guy who is protected against small arms fire, is 100% networked with everyone and everything in the entire army, can use satellites, heat sensors and other gimmicks to spot a guy in a building many kilometres away?

You shoot in in the guts with an anti-tank rifle. Or a high-velocity rifle round to almost anywhere.

Whole-battlefield networking is stupid; it just equips each soldier with too much information to process and leads to confusion in the field. So great, your super-soldiers are going to be staggering around trying to process an entire taskforce's worth of mostly useless information that doesn't concern them. The sheer amount of information you want your super-soldiers to process and make decisions based on would actually make life more difficult for the grunts on the ground.

And again, small arms will continue to develop alongside armour. You'll never be able to build a lightweight suit of armour that's cheap to maintain, uncomplicated and offers any more than 'adequate' protection from the small arms of the era.

It probably wouldn't. It's part of modern transformation doctrine that the armies get smaller and smaller and get replaced by small special forces, overwhelming air power and lots of missiles.

Again, precisely the doctrine that absolutely failed in Kosovo, having already failed in Vietnam and been shown to be seriously faulty in WW2. You can't win a war with just air power.
Zarfland
22-11-2005, 15:00
Imagine it's the year 2050, and it's war between...say NATO and some Rogue State. NATO forces are fully uplinked, networked and reinforced supersoldiers, satellites see and hear everything, and drones are flying overhead and driving through the streets of Rogue City.

Normal weaponry can no longer pose a threat to the NATO soldier of the future. He/she wears completely bullet-proof compound armoursuits, has immediate access to anti-missile systems swarming overhead and can spot people through walls kilometres away.

In other words: There is no longer a self-defense aspect to the soldier at war. And now comes the catch:

These future soldiers wield non-lethal weapons: Tranquiliser Darts, Taser- and Stun Guns, incapacitating foam sprays and EMP waves that can paralyse nerves necessary for movement. One could win a war and not kill a single person.

Is it possible? Is it desirable?
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a robot using lethal force on a human by the way - when a robot clearly has no right to self-defense?
I do not believe that is fully possible. The ideal, paraphrasing Sun Tzu, was to limit damage as much as possible. As I have read from others postings, the idea is to have a speedy engagement and get out! As for using weaponry that is non-lethal, there will still be reprecussions from using them. Nothing states that the enemy will play by the same rules! We will just have to wait and see if that is what will eventually occur.