Fortunately, this is a case where the least convenient possible world is quite unlike the real world, because modern wars are fought less with infantry and more with money and technology. As technology advances, military robots get cheaper, and larger portions of the military move to greater distances from the battlefield. If current trends continue, wars will be fought entirely between machines, until one side runs out of robots and is forced to surrender (or else fight man-vs-machine, which, in spite of what happens in movies, is probably fruitless suicide).
The problem with this theory is that people in a poor country are a lot cheaper than cutting edge military robots. In a serious war, the U.S. would quickly run out of “smart bombs” and such. Military equipment is a pure consumption item, it produces nothing at all, so there is only going to be limited investment in it in peacetime. And modern high-tech military equipment requires long lead times for building up (unlike the situation in WWII).
exactly. i guess the rationalist writing this post didn’t do his research on US military. The landscape is changing. Now you can go to a cube in California and bomb targets all day long and then go have dinner with your wife and kids at 5pm, not that it is any less traumatic to the psyche, but a lot less traumatic than losing a war, right? enjoy: http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/03/military-industrial-complex-redux/
Fortunately, this is a case where the least convenient possible world is quite unlike the real world, because modern wars are fought less with infantry and more with money and technology. As technology advances, military robots get cheaper, and larger portions of the military move to greater distances from the battlefield. If current trends continue, wars will be fought entirely between machines, until one side runs out of robots and is forced to surrender (or else fight man-vs-machine, which, in spite of what happens in movies, is probably fruitless suicide).
The problem with this theory is that people in a poor country are a lot cheaper than cutting edge military robots. In a serious war, the U.S. would quickly run out of “smart bombs” and such. Military equipment is a pure consumption item, it produces nothing at all, so there is only going to be limited investment in it in peacetime. And modern high-tech military equipment requires long lead times for building up (unlike the situation in WWII).
Robots get cheaper and stronger over time, while people are a fixed parameter.
exactly. i guess the rationalist writing this post didn’t do his research on US military. The landscape is changing. Now you can go to a cube in California and bomb targets all day long and then go have dinner with your wife and kids at 5pm, not that it is any less traumatic to the psyche, but a lot less traumatic than losing a war, right? enjoy: http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/03/military-industrial-complex-redux/
Uh huh. Say, did it ever occur to you that the US military itself isn’t always commanded by sane Presidents?