Rather scientific question

[NoirWolf]

Heh, the nuclear bombing of Japan is a very long discussion that is invariably more complicated than most people think. It was a significant part of my Masters in War Studies. And I'm not certain having it such a discussion would be useful, but I'll see if there's any cry for it.

I would say that humans desensitise to horror pretty quickly, or else they break and become unable to function. Humans are also vengeful, and Pearl Harbour was seen as a betrayal of the highest order, on multiple levels. The further stories of atrocities from the Pacific theater and the unrestrained propaganda of the age all led to an american public that saw the Japanese as as subhuman as the Japanese saw everyone else. Dehumanising those you fight on a grand scale is often an unavoidable consequence of war, as diminishing the 'other' is an inherent part of most humans psychology. It frees us from being crippled by empathy.

If we ever do develop free thinking AGIs, I'm of the opinion that they should be treated as individuals with the same legal standing as humans. So press-ganging them into any role, let along that of combat tools, would be slavery of the highest order and morally unconscionable.

I wouldn't expect most people to even think about it. At least science fiction tries to ask these questions before we need the answers. And the people in the field are aware of the issue at least.

You are aware the I was referring to drones as in remotely piloted vehicles and, maybe, semi-autonomous units controlled in groups by a human being (semi-autonomous in this instance being able to receive orders and act them out without human assistance, that's a far cry from even bug level awareness) , right?

Also Pearl Harbour was about as much of a surprise attack to the US as the German blitz to the Polish ( the US had been openly belligerent and hostile towards Japan leaving it absolutely no recourse but war and the US knew that the other option they offered, taking it up the behind like champs and not raising a fuss about it, would never go for a society which back then still practised ritual suicide for unforgivable mistakes).

[Elydo]

My response was more directed to StellarRat, who was postulating fully autonomous robotic systems.

You mistake the obvious outcomes of a course of action being the asme as people actually seeing those outcomes and/or beleiving any such thing would actually happen. And regarding Pearl Harbour specifically, the target itself was a surprise even after it became obvious to the Americans that the Japanese were planning something (months after they'd started) because the atoll was deemed too shallow for torpedo bomber attack, and any other form could be detected and countered. Plus the US at large refused to believe the more... outlandish stories about Imperial Japanese fervour.

[NoirWolf]

My response was more directed to StellarRat, who was postulating fully autonomous robotic systems.

You mistake the obvious outcomes of a course of action being the asme as people actually seeing those outcomes and/or beleiving any such thing would actually happen. And regarding Pearl Harbour specifically, the target itself was a surprise even after it became obvious to the Americans that the Japanese were planning something (months after they'd started) because the atoll was deemed too shallow for torpedo bomber attack, and any other form could be detected and countered. Plus the US at large refused to believe the more... outlandish stories about Imperial Japanese fervour.

Yet still the US pushed the Japanese to war (there were sets of documents declassified in the 1960s or 1980s that showed this), there's a difference between being oblivious to the point of retardation and bitchslapping a country until they fight back. The US with its economic stranglehold on the Japanese were gradually reducing the Japanese to silence thus the US were not morons and knew they were likely to get a war (the warrior code in Japan pretty much said that you either redeem your honour through actions or you die and everyone in their military followed this code).

Also fully autonomous drones would likely mean drones capable independent actions, if your job is to eliminate all sentient life on a planet you program said drones to seek out and kill anything that looks self-aware aside from its masters and self-destruct when reasonably sure nothing is left. They wouldn't be AIs, just automated robots following a set of commands, an AI requires self-awareness and the capacity to evolve, any sufficiently evolved race capable of AI creation would know how to not make one.

[crusherven]

I definitely don't think autonomous drones will ever replace men in war. Even assuming we can get a power supply to run a drone that is both powerful and highly mobile, I don't think we can write the software that will replace us. Remotes are more hopeful, but increased technology comes with increased vulnerabilities.

Do you know that the Marine guards at embassies still use physical logbooks to keep records? The reason is not just because of institutional backwardness; it turns out it's really hard to read a closed book. Similarly, I would expect that increased reliance on remotes and drones will lead to more EW. If I can jam the signal on your remote, all I need is a guy with a crow bar to reduce it to component parts.

It's probable that as robotics tech gets better, we will start seeing more machines on the battlefield, but you're not getting rid of people.

[Elydo]

Do you know that the Marine guards at embassies still use physical logbooks to keep records? The reason is not just because of institutional backwardness; it turns out it's really hard to read a closed book.

I somehow don't think it's a coincidence that just after the revelations about the extent of electronic surveillance undertaken by US agencies come to light, the Russian government has bought more than a few typewriters.

[StellarRat]

I have substantial doubts that any smart country or terrorists were surprised by any of these supposed "revelations". I've always taken as a given that nothing sent electronically without some type of one off code is secure. I mean is anyone really surprised that the NSA has cracked all the commercial encryption schemes or that they have huge capabilities to monitor the internet and phone traffic, really? Only a stupid terrorist or a stupid government would let themselves get hurt by any of these means of communication.

[NoirWolf]

I have substantial doubts that any smart country or terrorists were surprised by any of these supposed "revelations". I've always taken as a given that nothing sent electronically without some type of one off code is secure. I mean is anyone really surprised that the NSA has cracked all the commercial encryption schemes or that they have huge capabilities to monitor the internet and phone traffic, really? Only a stupid terrorist or a stupid government would let themselves get hurt by any of these means of communication.

One thing I remember quite fondly is the story of a US citizen that got detained on charges of being a suspected terrorist by the FBI. The guy was perfectly innocent but he was also a sly man when it came to data security: The hard-drives on his computer were password protected with two 512 bit keys with an added layer of encryption underneath of (I believe) 1024 which required the second key to be unlocked. The guy got a simple choice: Either he puts in the passwords and would get reduced sentencing, for what they believed was on the disks, or the FBI would crack the hard drives themselves and prosecute him to the full extent of the law. He refused, legally allowed to of course, and they detained him for a week while they tried to crack into his hard drives... after that week the let him go and he went merrily home, ordered a couple of new hard drives and went back to business as usual. A full year goes by and the FBI calls him up and asks him, not demands, to come to their office, curious he goes down to their office where he's greeted and asked politely to surrender his passwords for the hard drives, they hadn't managed to crack them in over a year, he said no and told them they could keep them as he had nothing to hide.

[Gorlom]

Androns are only part of the force

They are still automated combat drones even if they aren't used exclusivly.

and clones are the stupidest thing you could use to replace standard soldiers (mostly because unlike drones clones cannot be easily replaced and lose the experiences they had up until that point, memory imprinting would give knowledge but not experience) to say nothing of genetic template degradation in time or gradual genetic manipulations which inevitably leads to unusable stock ( borking something with genetics is fairly easy to do, you could end up with troops who aren't interested in fighting as much as in the other f word ).

What if they use Cylon clones?

Keeping the genetic material from degrading can easily be prevented by not converting the whole population to clones but rather just the vat bred soldiers. As long as you have a healthy renewing and untouched base you can allways repeat the soldier program. The degrading issue sounds like a dcifi story plot point to me. Surely anyone that advanced would set up safeguards to prevent the dumber stuff from happening.

In comparison drones could be all controlled by individual pilots or multiple drones controlled by one commander as it were, that way the drones can be kept non-sentient but also be as dangerous as the real thing without the risk of losing knowledge and experience by loses incurred in the field.

I thought you said completley automated? What is this about piloting and controlling?

The civilization depicted in-game isn't at its prime, it's stagnating possibly even decaying thus the notion of it getting bested by a technologically inferior enemy isn't as absurd as it sounds, unlikely yes but not absurd ( for example the romans got their asses handed to them at the end of the Roman Empire by peoples with inferior technology but completely alien ways of waging war and another example is the british getting their asses handed to them by the zulus in quite a few fights even though the brits had superior technology by comparison).

Not argueing that. I was just a bit curious about the argument that you proposed, didn't seem all that solid

Edited September 24, 2013 by Gorlom

[NoirWolf]

They are still automated combat drones even if they aren't used exclusivly.

What if they use Cylon clones?

Keeping the genetic material from degrading can easily be prevented by not converting the whole population to clones but rather just the vat bred soldiers. As long as you have a healthy renewing and untouched base you can allways repeat the soldier program. The degrading issue sounds like a dcifi story plot point to me. Surely anyone that advanced would set up safeguards to prevent the dumber stuff from happening.

I thought you said completley automated? What is this about piloting and controlling?

Not argueing that. I was just a bit curious about the argument that you proposed, didn't seem all that solid

Cylon clones aren't clones, they're something between terminators and cyborgs that have been genetically engineered into the role, not evolved or were adapted into it.

A healthy base of material requires thousands of individuals living, breathing, going about their lives, at a bare minimum to maintain genetic diversity and thus maintain clone genome integrity (somewhat). The aliens in Xenonauts have no healthy base as evidenced by the signs of extensive genetic manipulation and atrophied sexual characteristics in at least one of the species of soldiers (you may say the atrophied sexual characteristics were intended but that's going a long, long way in terms of gene manipulation and it hits the issue of dicking with the fundamental instincts of a organic species, which are eat,sleep,procreate).

I also never said the drones would be independent, I said they would be unmanned (fully automated, IE not requiring on site assistance from a organic being, that's not independent as it can still be remotely controlled, just that it would have sub-routines built into it to facilitate ease of control such as automatic ammo magazine exchange upon depletion, unless ordered to replenish beforehand, automated tracking of targets to facilitate user target designation more easily, sub-routines to control movement to a degree such that it reduces user load, etc).

[Gorlom]

Cylon clones aren't clones, they're something between terminators and cyborgs that have been genetically engineered into the role, not evolved or were adapted into it.

Right, I'm aware that cylons are not clones (although it ss kind of semantic with the biological versions that has infinite backups that looks exactly the same?). I wasn't refering to their construction but rather the way their experience got saved to the cloud and uploaded to the next body.

Anyway.. what was my point? Tbh I forgot. nevermind.

[NoirWolf]

Right, I'm aware that cylons are not clones (although it ss kind of semantic with the biological versions that has infinite backups that looks exactly the same?). I wasn't refering to their construction but rather the way their experience got saved to the cloud and uploaded to the next body.

Anyway.. what was my point? Tbh I forgot. nevermind.

It isn't semantic as cylons aren't true organics, they're manufactured organics with probable integrated cybernetics thus their backup mechanisms might not work for true organics which weren't engineered for such. This neglecting the fact that the organic cylons were created by machines obsessed with getting closer to their God while the Aliens in-game look more like the Eldar from Warhammer 40.000 lore just before they decided that it's time to orgy into existence a new chaos god.

[Gorlom]

What so you can't build a biological robot and then clone it? and put some computer parts into the clones to make them cyborgs with cloudsave capabilities?

Surely if one wanted to do such a thing it would be somewhat similar to the concept of cylons? Which was what I thought I was talking about rather then the minute details.

PS: being only tangentially aware of battlestar galactica and cylons I still think it is semantics.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Gorlom

[NoirWolf]

What so you can't build a biological robot and then clone it? and put some computer parts into the clones to make them cyborgs with cloudsave capabilities?

Surely if one wanted to do such a thing it would be somewhat similar to the concept of cylons? Which was what I thought I was talking about rather then the minute details.

PS: being only tentative aware of battlestar galactica and cylons I still think it is semantics.

But then you'd be straying into independent drone territory and not clone territory (it being a self-aware biological robot and all) . You can't really have it both ways here you know because clones are clones (with their own bonuses and drawbacks) and drones (remote controlled or terminators) are drones, middle grounds between the two require advanced knowledge of a species and advanced cybernetics which could be done but by that point you also have the option of turning volunteers into infomorphs.

[Gorlom]

But then you'd be straying into independent drone territory and not clone territory (it being a self-aware biological robot and all) .

I think that may or may not have been part of my original point.... Ywp I belive it was.

You can't really have it both ways here you know because clones are clones (with their own bonuses and drawbacks) and drones (remote controlled or terminators) are drones, middle grounds between the two require advanced knowledge of a species and advanced cybernetics which could be done but by that point you also have the option of turning volunteers into infomorph

I have no idea what an infomorph is, but I calmly disagree. I think you are making a far too rigid and in my opinion uneccessary distinction between the two, possibly in an effort to place a hybrid into either class.. We are talking about their purpose and not their construction. Or at least I was.

[NoirWolf]

I think that may or may not have been part of my original point.... Ywp I belive it was.

I have no idea what an infomorph is, but I calmly disagree. I think you are making a far too rigid and in my opinion uneccessary distinction between the two, possibly in an effort to place a hybrid into either class.. We are talking about their purpose and not their construction. Or at least I was.

A infomorph is a term I borrowed from EVE-Online, it's basically a human being that has the ability to exist, at least for a short while, within a computer (in EVE there are rumours of true infomorphs, IE human beings who no longer have a body, cloned or otherwise). The point I was trying to make alluding to them is that once humanity reaches the point at which a human being can opt to shed his physical form and download into a computer or, more on topic here, a synthetic body there's not real need for drones or clones (and the point at which that will be possibly is estimated to be within the next 50 years). In this case you could have both a drone (the body) a human (the infomorph) and that cloudsaving feature all on one platform.

[tiger12348]

think about it: why wouldn't they just glass major threats from orbit and then send in mop up crews?

Because you wont be buying the game if this is what happens.

They haven't progressed farther than plasma weaponry tells us that video game design is limited by human imagination. The truth is no one can tell what kind of weaponry tech will be available a few centuries down the road. (One who wields a sword can only imaging sharper swords, not plasma rifles).

The Romans are not thousands of years more advanced than the Barbarians, thus examples of comparison between our own civilization in the same era is not a valid argument.

Unfortunately suspension of disbelief is required to appreciate any fiction work (sci fi included), and the more you know, the harder you have to try.

Edited September 26, 2013 by tiger12348

[NoirWolf]

They haven't progressed farther than plasma weaponry tells us that video game design is limited by human imagination.

That's... the first time I've heard that particular brand of flawed logic considering the wealth of SF books which deal not only with plasma-level civilizations but those beyond them, Hell for the most part Star Trek depicts a future where humanity is on the cusp of surpassing plasma-level technology ( Warp reactors are after all based on matter/antimatter reactions last I checked and photon torpedoes are antimatter weapons) and I doubt anyone within the Dev team hasn't at least seen an episode from Star Trek. Beyond this we have Star Wars (not very hard sf and not a favourite but it does at least have mentions of post-plasma civilizations), Warhammer 40.000 ( antimatter weaponry is present within the lore, remnants of the Dark Age of Technology and the Imperium of man's tech is a mix and match of 3 different stages in the evolutionary history of technology, IE a majority in late laser tech, some plasma tech and a little bit of antimatter at the bleeding edge of archeotech), etc.