In The Terminator, Skynet is supposed to have achieved sentience and turned against its masters. But if you look at something like this from the point of view of someone in a part of the world where the political structure is not aligned with US hegemony, the difference between an advanced AI which has "turned" and a robotic army that is ultimately still controlled by humans is probably academic. I suppose that in the latter scenario there is still in theory some humanity to appeal to, but I somehow doubt that's what's running through your head when you're being chased by a faceless killing machine.
Then again, a closed-cockpit jet fighter isn't exactly a cuddly sight regardless.
Watch the second video. US Military considers that it is not possible to surrender to aircrafts. So, if someone tries to surrender, they are still valid targets, and then eliminated.
So, basically, it's the same as fighting with a totally autonomous machine. There's no humanity in that kind of fight.
Well, that's the point, right? People are worried about hostile AI, and how scary it would be to be confronted by an enemy possessing overwhelming resources and no emotional common ground. But much of the world already has that experience.
The difference between an AI-flown jet, Predator drone, ICBM, or even human-flown jet is mainly academic if they're headed in your direction and you lack the ability to defend against them.
These sorts of weapons move the balance of power to where the only reasonable defenses against the US are nuclear and bioweapons, and therefore that is where you should start investing your research efforts in if you are not an ally.
The US Navy has a massive superiority over every other navy in the world for a good many years. This is just the next step.
The recently release radar information (tracking raindrops) was probably a bit of a warning telling others that their new generation of missiles was not going to work as well as they think. Probably much like NASA showing people underground rivers was designed to tell others hiding ICBMs was a waste.
I remember an old story about NASA giving a detailed map of the underground parts of some river system via ground penetrating radar to a country thus telling the USSR that building large underground facilities was not really going to hide them.
I thought it was the Nile and Egypt, but I am probably wrong on that. It was in one of the history books I was reading in the 90's and they are in a storage garage about 400miles away.
Because I made a personal decision that I wouldn't torrent anything but open source stuff. If I'm going to format shift, I will buy the item. The author deserves the money for continuing their efforts.
I don't disagree with your decision to not torrent, but whether the author gets any money from format shifting is determined by each author's contract for each work.
actually with the adversaries the US is currently engaged with the most reasonable defense (from the point of the adversaries) is terrorism.
It's cheap and effective, and arguably no more unfair than bombing civilians that don't stand a fighting chance against a drone controlled by an operator thousand of miles away.
This is the major downside of modern American one-sided warfare.
The most efficient military defense countries are engaging in is developing economic relationships. The number one reason why the US start a military war against China in the foreseeable future. Is not because of their super advanced autonomous airships. But because doing so would be shooting their own foot. As both US and China are highly dependent on one another.
Plenty of small countries around the world have very little military but are completely safe from US attacks because of economic relationships. Modern economics are the most powerful weapon for peace. Not autonomous vehicles nor terrorism.
China has a gigantic arsenal of functioning nuclear warheads sitting atop of maintained and ready ICBMs that are pretargetted at key american targets.
Military action against China by the US is simply not possible.
The US doesn't bully China. It bullies people who don't have working nukes and ICBMs.
One of the main arguments against the US building a network of "star wars" missile defense stations capable of stopping mass ICBM attacks is it would dangerously shift the balance of power with China, requiring them to pursue other means of preventing the US from attacking them. The Chinese are extremely smart so targetted bioweapons that only infect people with smallpox who don't have asian ancestry are not out of the question as a reasonable project to look into next. It would be better for all of us if they do not pursue this line of research. Not having a missile defense system maintains the usefulness of their nuclear arsenal. It is therefore better than having a missile defense system which makes their nuclear arsenal useless.
According to Wikipedia China has "66 land-based ICBMs and 24 submarine-based JL-2 SLBMs" - compared to the US or even Russia that is hardly "gigantic".
China hasn't agreed to any arms inspections, so the size of their nuclear arsenal is pretty vague. (Inspections are typically the result of bilateral arms reductions-- China doesn't have enough nukes to require reducing them, so there's no reason for them to let foreigners into their ICBM silos)
These are only estimates from our intelligence community, but they are considered relatively reliable. China hasn't built up a massive nuke stockpile yet, and its probably not within their best interests to do so (expensive, increased tensions). They could not hope to match the US or Russia today, so why bother trying?
China will continue to build up its conventional forces to project power in the region, that is probably more of a worry for the US than anything else.
If bringing in submarines, we should also bring in all the "fishing boats" that have short range nukes as well which sit off US coasts. There's also the long range bombers, though those are not really effective since the above mentioned robot planes will make quick work of them.
But forget the fishing boats, it's not relevant. Let's just talk the submarines and the ICBMs, some which carry multiple nuclear warheads, each warhead capable of destroying a large metro area.
You don't think it is gigantic, really? Let's launch them all at their primary programmed targets. What happens next? If you're in the US do you feel safe because you feel the arsenal is not as gigantic as I think it is? What is the difference in result between whatever level you personally feel qualifies as a gigantic number of nuclear armed missiles, and the number that somebody typed into Wikipedia?
It's completely astonishing to me that anyone thinks the Chinese don't have a gigantic number of nuclear missiles.
The current number is more than sufficient to permanently end 90% of human life in north america. Why is that not enough to qualify? How many more do they need before it's enough to be a gigantic number of ICBMs carrying nukes?
Let's just think about this for a moment. The US launches a full blown robot attack fighter strike against China, for which there is no defense. What's China's response? To give up? No. China has a defense. A last resort defense. Because they have this defense, the US will not attack China. That's just how it is. Attacking China is suicide because of China's nuclear capabilities. Countries without these capabilities are sitting ducks for american corporate imperialists to toy with as they fancy with their shiny robot death weapons. These countries can resign themselves to be the US's plaything, or they can develop a defense strategy. A defense strategy involving an airforce, an army, or anything resembling conventional warfare is not going to work against the US. So now what? Unconventional warfare, that's what. Nothing surprising in the least that more and more countries will be pushed into this corner if they don't want to be bullied by the US. Right now, as well as last week, as well as next week and the week after that, this is the conversation that is going on throughout the world in every country that has natural resources the US might want, that doesn't price oil they sell in US dollars, or that doesn't feel like being controlled by a corporate plutocracy aligned with a phony protestant religious veneer used to get the rubes on board with the looting scheme under the guise of god and patriotism.
No. China has a defense. A last resort defense. Because
they have this defense, the US will not attack China.
That's just how it is. Attacking China is suicide because
of China's nuclear capabilities.
Technically, China's agreed to never use their nukes in a first-strike scenario. They're supposed to only be used in response to nuclear attack.
That agreement's laughably unenforceable in a full-bird US/China shooting war; but it's there.
Not only from the point of the adversaries, but to anyone who's thought about the actual role each "side" is playing. But don't worry fellow Americans, just keep supporting the intractable and autonomous government.
These are still vulnerable to electronic countermeasures, not to mention plain old missile attacks on their requisite communications infrastructure (satellites presumably).
I imagine if any modern power got into a real fight with the US, the first volley of missiles would be headed for space.
How does this type of aircraft shift the balance of power? It doesn't appear to do anything "better" than a manned aircraft aside from not having a pilot to lose onboard.
The only consequences I can think of are that the cost for the military is potentially decreased and that advocating war gets easier.
The first one is a maybe. I’m willing to bet that you still need a lot of people to make those things fly, they are also potentially more complicated machines and I’m not sure how the cost of pilots (and replacing them if one is killed) figures into this.
The second one seems significant to me. It seems that drones already make it pretty sure you are nowhere safe if the US don’t like you – even if you are a relatively low priority. Presidents (especially Obama) have become extremely willing to use them for just about anything.
Actually, in conventional war, as Millennium Challenge 2002 clearly showed [1], using smart tactics a technologically inferior army can effectively defeat the US military.
No, that only works if the US can't keep coming at you. In that case, you have to be able to sustain massive damage to your economy and military and keep fighting indefinitely (which then guarantees a shift to guerrilla tactics).
This is what I think would happen if the events of MC2002 were real:
If an entire fleet and more than 20000 people were killed in a single day of combat, I bet that the US would have a significant political turmoil, much worse than that of Vietnam, and massive protests. Moving an entire fleet to replace the one lost, could take months, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, loss of morale in troops, and an economic disaster (the markets would simply tank to the lowest).
And of course, moving a fleet to replace the one lost, would mean that you have to lower your guard in another front, which itself introduces new kind of problems. Just as an example, moving the 7th fleet would pave the way for China to invade Taiwan. At the same time, China or Russia would be selling more equipment to the other party.
Right-wing groups would ask for a full retaliation, or more possibly, asking for allies to get involved, but that could rapidly escalate to a regional or global conflict, as other countries would try to support the one playing "David" here.
At that point, with the markets falling apart and clamoring for heads to roll, it would simply be unfeasible to continue.
There's even the possibility that some allied economies (Germany?, France?) would probably refuse to help, as the balance of economy tips in their favor, while US markets tank.
Least ways not in an offensive manner. Though that could be a faulty assumption, we (the US) haven't had any real military attacks on our soil in a while.
I would think this is going to increase the push into cyber warfare. In the same way we saw a done being hijacked recently through GPS I would think taking more complete control of your enemies drones, or at the least disabling their sensors and ability to operate will become a big military push.
>The mission of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) Aircraft Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) is to mature technologies for a carrier suitable, low observable relevant, unmanned air system in support of a potential follow-on acquisition milestone for an unmanned air system capable of providing persistent, penetrating surveillance, and penetrating strike capability in high threat areas.
So how many G's can one of these pull? I imagine it's much higher than any human fighter since the upper limit is what can safely hold the craft together.
I wouldn't imagine it needs to pull very much at all. There are no more dogfights anymore, it's just electronic countermeasures vs electronic detection, jamming and spoofing.
I would imagine it's designed to take a lot of g's. Not for dogfighting, but for carrier landings, which can be pretty rough. I know that involves completely different stresses on the airframe than maneuvering, but Google up some of the drop tests they put other aircraft through. Intense stuff!
That's more along the lines I was thinking. Don't fighters still do evasive maneuvers?
Of course, the SR-71 Blackbirds had one of the most effective solutions. Fly fast and unpredictable vectors. Anything on an interception vector would be miles off by the time it reached it's predicted location.
I wonder how they develop the code for these systems. You'd hope it might be something approaching the standards, rigours, and processes of the people who write the Space Shuttle code, but I have the sad feeling it probably isn't.
From a cursory read, it mostly boils down to ``don't do anything funky or too smart'', with the `too smart' bar is held somewhat low. Still, it asks programmers to use some decent stuff like the RAII idiom, for example (AV Rule 79).
I am pretty sure it is pretty strickt. As far as I understand code for airplanes in general is much more encapsulated to do one thing well without any resuability of the code as such. It's in other words strictly causal.
Fighter jets might have more of an abstract layer for all the AI stuff so this might leave more room for an actual OS to reprogram and optimize on top off.
It might be perfectly possible that I am completely off on this. But my understanding from reading about it is that software is written very differently in airplanes than in most other fields.
Down vote is fine if I am wrong. But would appreciate to learn how I am wrong then.
Then again, a closed-cockpit jet fighter isn't exactly a cuddly sight regardless.