>The “important” bits of automation will happen in both. Germany and the US will both want their bombardier drone swarms. It’s just that the latter will have the engineers projecting them be driven to his co-working space by a self-driving car, getting their “Mediterranean wrap” from the claws of a drone; While the former will have said engineers take a subway to the office, then get this shawarma delivered by a guy on a bike
But the vast majority of automation doesn’t seem to be militarily relevant. Even if you assume some sort of feedback loop where military insubstantial automation leads to better military automation, world powers already have the trump card in terms of nukes for wars of aggression against them.
But the vast majority of automation doesn’t seem to be militarily relevant. Even if you assume some sort of feedback loop where military insubstantial automation leads to better military automation, world powers already have the trump card in terms of nukes for wars of aggression against them.
I think your underestimating the use of non-military tech for military purposes. As a point of comparison, the US pre-WWII had a massive economy (and very little of it dedicated to the military). But this still proved to be a decisive advantage.
Or, as admiral Yamomoto said
Anyone who has seen the auto factories in Detroit and the oil fields in Texas knows that Japan lacks the national power for a naval race with America.
A country that has 100 million drones delivering “Mediterranean wraps” is also going to have a huge advantage when it comes to building drones for other purposes.
Nuclear weapons are also only a trump card as long as their use remains unthinkable. In a war with actual use of tactical nuclear weapons, you’re going to want to be on the side that has the advantage in terms of missile defense, precision strikes, dominating the infosphere, etc.
This claim has been empirically refuted in Armenia and Ukraine. Missing out on drones DOES mean getting conquered.
Hence why I make mention of it in the article:
>The “important” bits of automation will happen in both. Germany and the US will both want their bombardier drone swarms. It’s just that the latter will have the engineers projecting them be driven to his co-working space by a self-driving car, getting their “Mediterranean wrap” from the claws of a drone; While the former will have said engineers take a subway to the office, then get this shawarma delivered by a guy on a bike
But the vast majority of automation doesn’t seem to be militarily relevant. Even if you assume some sort of feedback loop where military insubstantial automation leads to better military automation, world powers already have the trump card in terms of nukes for wars of aggression against them.
I think your underestimating the use of non-military tech for military purposes. As a point of comparison, the US pre-WWII had a massive economy (and very little of it dedicated to the military). But this still proved to be a decisive advantage.
Or, as admiral Yamomoto said
A country that has 100 million drones delivering “Mediterranean wraps” is also going to have a huge advantage when it comes to building drones for other purposes.
Nuclear weapons are also only a trump card as long as their use remains unthinkable. In a war with actual use of tactical nuclear weapons, you’re going to want to be on the side that has the advantage in terms of missile defense, precision strikes, dominating the infosphere, etc.