[ExI] future of warfare again, was: RE: Forking

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] future of warfare again, was: RE: Forking

On 2012-01-01 18:04, spike wrote:
>> Agreed, but the focus of the more sophisticated modern war machinery, 
> isn't aimed at the personnel, but rather the other machines of war... as
many guys as they want, for without the sophisticated 
> mechanisms of warfare, they are as harmless as an army of kittens.

>...Yes and no... Fredrik... countered with "You are always going to need a
guy on the ground with a rifle"...


I would point out to Fredrik that his contention depends on the continued
notion of occupation.  That whole idea is proving to be less viable as time
goes on.  I don't know the source, but I have heard that the cost of
occupying Iraq exceeds a million dollars per man year.  We have all this
money and all this treasure invested in that occupation.  What did we get
for all that?  The Iraq occupation may be used in the future as a historical
guide to why occupation is a bad idea. 

>... As shock and awe demonstrated, high-tech can wipe out a low-tech
military infrastructure. Drone warfare can hit enemy concentrations and
individuals with reasonable precision. But these tools cannot occupy a
country...

Ja, and my notion is that in the future, one country will not occupy another
country, for it causes more problems than it solves.  Drone warfare shapes
the kinds of warfare that is undertaken.  It moves warfare into more
defensive postures, so some extent analogous to the cold war, except with
mutual assured survival as opposed to mutual assured destruction.

Note the recent sale of the THAAD missile to the UAE:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/30/us-seals-348b-missiles-technology
-sale-to-uae/

THAAD is only good for firing at incoming missiles. 

>... maintaining civil order, gaining human intelligence, instilling trust
for whatever institutions you are trying to set up...

Future military conflict will abandon all hope of functions 1 and 3 above,
and will do function 2 by other means.

>... that requires personal interactions...

But not physical presence.

>... and those guys with rifles...

In this I disagree with Fredrik.  The notion of boots on the ground is now a
thing of the past.

>... Some of the more obvious failures in recent Middle East conflicts have
been due to the discrepancy between overwhelming projectable force and lack
of "social" interfacing...

In my mind, we have shown that nation-building is a faulty concept, long in
need of retirement.  I have no reason to think it can succeed in principle.

>...Poor Fredrik.  -- Anders Sandberg

Indeed.

spike