Hacker News Reader

Prior to the invention of reliable, accurate firearms, for much of history a relatively small number of dedicated warriors (e.g. armored knights on warhorses, samurai, cavalry, archers, etc) could dominate a much larger population of commoners (and conscript them into lesser forces such as infantry to increase their strength). To a degree, heavy weapons such as tanks, artillery, and armored helicopters allow dictators to exercise control over their people by employing a moderate sized army. Anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles appear to have cut into this advantage, but you still need pretty serious support from state actors to acquire those.

Different technological innovations in warfare have sometimes been leveling (eg guns as “the great equalizer”, anti-tank missiles) and sometimes had the opposite effect (e.g. attack helicopters and fighter jets). It does seem plausible that robotic weapons will favor those with vast resources, even when they lack manpower. It’s not impossible that it could go the other way, though. Actually, I can see drones going both ways.

Feudalism is fractal, and at least you know the face of your overlord.

Isn’t the situation in Russia right now an example of a single individual dominating millions? And all back through history from the advent of armies, isn’t it the same thing?

It is, but you are flipping the direction of causality here.

I said: Certain technologies make it easier for the few to force the many. I did not say that certain technologies are the only way to do so.

Also: this is about numbers. The vast majority of Russians are in support of their president. Now imagine it would be less, lets say 30% or 10%. Or maybe 1%? At some point a threshold is crossed at which those in power cannot sustain themselves anymore.

And there are technologies that move that threshold down, because less people can control more people. Imagine e.g. how guns helped to sustain control of huge populations of colonized or enslaved people by relatively few oppressors. At this point in times guns pushed down the percentage of people needed to yield power over others.

At some point more people got guns and things leveled out a bit. Because ot was something multiple parties of a conflict could eventually use. But here comes the point: you still need people to wield those guns and willing to put their lives at risk. Sure you can trick them into doing that — but if you push your luck too much they can turn on you at any moment. For a swarm of killer drones you need less people and they don't need to risk anything.

I hear you, it's a valid point. Social media, facial recognition and perhaps other techs do fascilitate that, BUT weapons we haven't really seen that. I can't think of any examples -- with guns, one could argue that Texas for example would be harder to dominate than a meeker state. I guess perhaps your point is as much that this is tech that doesn't require humans, and I agree that's a step more dangerous, because the individual morality of the soldier is absent.

> Many of us create technology as if our democracies are built forever. And they are — until they are not.

I agree 100%, this is why we need more people working on getting 3D printing and other fabrication techniques into the hands of as many people as we can. The right to bear arms holds no water in the US as the DoD so massively outweighs any possible resistance the populace could offer; the only way to safeguard our democracies is to bring the scales back to level.

The trouble is, there are undemocratic societies where this is being built as well. This drone swarm is actually from China. The reasons why we build these systems is to prevent the undemocratic societies gaining power over us. The threat of our own societies becoming undemocratic doesn't feel as pressing as the threat of undemocratic societies that exist today.

The atomic bomb is a good example, a lot of the scientist working on it wouldn't have if there weren't fears that Nazi Germany was going to build it first.

This also reminds of the prisoners dilemma. If both parties choose not to build these systems we would be all fine, if one builds it and the others doesn't the other is screwed. If both build it they are both screwed but not as much.

These slaughterbots will completely shift military strategies, just like atomic bombs.

In the last 100 years (and probalbly even further back) it has been incredibly difficult to fight an opponent who was fortified in a (bombed) city. Ukraine is a great example of what a few organized soldiers with anti-tank weapons can hold off.

Swarms of jamming resistant drones would completely trivialize urban fighting for the attacker. I'm worried about the future if attacking becomes easier than defending.

Swarm of drones could probably be countered by an opposing swarm of drones that search and destroy enemy bots. But yes, this does raise the stakes, and those without tools to combat these weapons are absolutely screwed.

But you mentioned the anti-tank weapons. These didn't exist and before and a column of tanks would have an easy time with even a large and organized force of infantry soldiers. This is what happened in Poland during WW2.

So I'm hopeful that we will have a counter for these new systems like we now have counters to tanks.

Ukraine is an example of what you can hold off… if and only if your enemy refuses to use chemical weapons developed in 1910. Like Chechnya, like the Iraqi holdouts who went against Saddam, they are going to lose the moment international eyes turn away or their enemy no longer views international disappointment as a threat.

Do you fundamentally disagree with this writeup?

https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

It’s a bit of a lot read, so I can’t respond substantially right now. However, the write up doesn’t seem to apply in this situation. The article states it applies to a select group of counties only. Quote:

> why ‘we’ – and by ‘we’ here, I mean the top-tier of modern militaries…

I don’t think either of my examples were top tier militaries, which is presumably why they resorted to chemical weapons to both win and subjugate the civilian population.

Edit:

I read the article you posted now. I don’t think I and the article disagree. I think chemical weapons are of use against civilian holdouts / paramilitary. This is especially the examples I used. The goal of this last phase of the war is not to kill everyone, but to make them lose hope and surrender.

Fighting them upright is a bad deal. You can overwhelm civilians but every tank they destroy boosts morale to the point you have to just destroy the city and kill hundreds of thousands to get them to give in. Chemical weapons disrupt life, injure civilians, and give them no proper enemy to fight back against for morale boosts. That they are ineffective is a positive in this scenario as from your POV, this is just a “police action” against “rebels”. You don’t want more effective weapons, since you believe you already won, and doing more is just wasting the population and resources you came here to conquer anyways.

Yeah, what if we increase the capability of our weapon? Oh right, it will be expensive again.

We are building ever more precise weapons with less and less collateral damage and you are worried about evil people using the precise ones?

It sounds like you are making the argument that collateral damage will make people more likely to rebel against an authoritarian regimes. Is that actually true?

democrazy and free will / human rights is already dead when they vaccine mandated us to carry on with our lives. or else.