Treize was wrong, drones are a good thing. This is a thread

File: 1441850508039.jpg (66KB, 512x420px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 512x420px

Making war into a video game is not a good thing. Drone operators do not feel pain or fear when they enter the battlefield. The only thing they may feel is adrenaline and the dopamine in their brains when they score a kill. This means they enjoy killing.

It is terror.

>>14202651
Just hook up the drone users to something like IBOs Alaya Vijnana or whatever it's called. Boom, instant simulation of being the drone.

>>14202651
Isn't it reported that the sheer disconnect between killing a person and being so goddamn fair away in safe control rooms actually really fucks them up?

i heard drone operators have a lot more ptsd since they get such a clear view of the people die and the destruction they cause and there's no opportunity to gear down from the war back into the normal world

>>14202704
Similar to snipers, apparently, since snipers can clearly see the melon they pop into red mist.

>>14202651
Reminds me of a flash game made on similar subject matter.
http://unmanned.molleindustria.org/

>>14202702
>>14202704
It really does. It's a terrible problem, people weren't expecting this but it seems drone warfare exacts a psychological toll of its own. The NY Times did an article on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html?_r=0

>>14202702
>>14202704

>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html?_r=0

there's a lot of assumption when it comes to drone pilots, one of the more prevalent one is this >>14202651, which by far have been proven wrong in most cases

>>14202634
What am I looking at in those pictures?

>>14204281
Top pic is Citadel cadets wearing KKK-style robes. Second is West Point grads, they're being investigated because some people think it looks like they're doing the black power salute thing.

People are shit and biased and shouldn't be allowed to fight wars.

>>14202634
>Treize was wrong

>>>/trash/

Word is drones REALLY fuck up their operators

>>14204605
>they're doing the black power salute thing.
They are. And the Black Panthers were founded as an anti-US government group that advocated terrorism to overthrow the government. The KKK promoted societal violence, not a coup. It's easy to see why they'd be investigated when they're West Point grads.

>>14202778
>>14202794
>>14204817

So clearly the solution is to make them fully automated

>inb4 hurr what if they turn against us

That's literally not how AI works

>>14204860
The threat isn't rogue AI, it's the danger of your drones then being hacked. Though I suppose that that can happen now..

What Treize feared was the worst-case scenario for drones. The possibility where if you make an all-machine AI army, it causes the existence of a massive fighting force that possesses no capability for guilt or conciousness and follows all orders given unquestioningly, which was OZ's goal the whole time. If that army's big enough there's literally nothing stopping someone that's power-hungry behind the control to say "I want to conquer half the world"

>>14204879
So how does one counter it?

>>14204843
yeah, we wouldn't want them to just go around the world and kill brown people or- oh wait that's their entire fucking job

>>14204879
Pretty much. If all anyone has to do is push a button and a country disappears, there's not enough people involved for it to be stopped or questioned. There's no rank-and-file soldier behind the trigger to second-guess his orders or show mercy or survive and be a whistleblower. There's also little emotional investment by the civilians, they just read in the newspapers that we blew away some country because reasons and ra ra we are number 1. Moreover, if you have multiple powers in push-button warfare blowing away each other's tin soldiers it makes wars somewhat pointless.

It's basically just parroting a bunch of the 20th century anxieties about ever-advancing war tech, all at once. Kind of right up there with stuff like Trek's 'A Taste of Armageddon'.

>>14204843
>And the Black Panthers were founded as an anti-US government group that advocated terrorism to overthrow the government.
They were actually founded as a community service initiative to protect, feed, and educate black citizens in lieu of apathetic if not outright hostile police.

And the KKK was founded to harass and agitate the occupying federal forces during Reconstruction. Their closest modern analog is the Taliban remnants in Afghanistan.

So you've actually got it backwards.

>>14204879
>>14204950
But none of that matters if every country has them. You enter a stalemate where physical force is a deterrent that almost never gets used. You're most at danger from targeted attacks that come from out of the blue, and as long as everyone agrees to punish anyone who dares to go that far, everything is hunky dory.

>>14204860
>fully automated
>onboard drone systems can't tell the difference between a friendly and a combatant and a civvie
>removing the already ALMOST useless human judgement that can only operate off these systems

congrats, all you did was make it cheaper to operate by removing the pilot salary

>>14205023
>onboard drone systems can't tell the difference between a friendly and a combatant and a civvie
le fog of war

>>14205019
That's why it's bullshit war anxiety, and it's an example of the pseudo-philosophizing Wing doles out. As was said elsewhere, it's allegorically powerful, but common sense implausible, with too many holes in its logic to sustain its attempts at profundity. And a big reason for that is because it's just a poorly-conceived hybrid of past politics and older series, which themselves traded in angsts over nuclear weapons, angsts over push-button warfare, angsts over the treatment veterans tend to get. It left out the part about balances of power and mutually-assured destruction in order to try to wax poetic about how war is bad.

>>14205010
They were self proclaimed revolutionaries that used anti-government rhetoric to garner followers. You're trying to white wash their existence.

The first KKK was founded to terrorize Republicans and oppose the federal government. The modern Klan was founded to terrorize Civil Rights Movement activists. They're different entities and there's a big difference in who they're targeting and it's why the federal government doesn't pay attention to the modern klan.

>>14205070
>It left out the part about balances of power and mutually-assured destruction in order to try to wax poetic about how war is bad.

Correction - how MODERN war is bad.
The show does a weird two-step where peace is treated as an end goal but there's also a whole lot of romanticizing about the way war used to be that is strangely just accepted as normal rather than a '...wait. Seriously?'

>>14205010
>And the KKK was founded to harass and agitate the occupying federal forces during Reconstruction. Their closest modern analog is the Taliban remnants in Afghanistan.

The original KKK was destroyed by the US army not long after it was created. The Klan we have now was created by Birth of a Nation.

>>14205019
>But none of that matters if every country has them.

But that's the problem, only OZ had mobile dolls. And for that matter, no other country makes as many drones as the US does.

And the idea of MAD only works if the other side is afraid to die.

>>14205138
>but there's also a whole lot of romanticizing about the way war used to be that is strangely just accepted as normal rather than a '...wait. Seriously?'

Because back in the old days people didn't die en masse from war.

Look at Alexander the Great. He conquered almost all of the known world and a good chunk of the unknown world, with 80,000 soldiers. That isn't much, but it's a big deal because until the French Revolution, armies didn't get big. It's why wars that had that one big battle was generally THE battle that decided the whole war. Nations in the old days could dish out a punch, but they couldn't really take a punch (ie lose all their men in a big battle). There were exceptions. The mongols could take a punch, the russians could take a punch, the british and roman empires could take a punch, and that's generally why they were as famous in history as they were.

The Revolution changed everything because when France had its coup, the rest of europe tried to pounce on it, and France did the unthinkable and turned their people into an army, a massive army. Kings wouldn't arm their people, they used mercenary armies that a lot of the time were putting down rebellions made by the people. The idea of giving your peasants guns and teaching them how to use them well in a war was scary to them, but France was now a republic so the people were the nation. This is why Napoleon was so dangerous, because he had this gigantic massive army that could fight across Europe unhindered. As he once famously said, "You cannot stop me, I spend 30,000 lives a month", which showed how many lives he was able to throw away and keep fighting. Any other country at the time, 30,000 dead in a month means you are DONE, the war is over.

So every other country got scared and generals said "I need a national army, give me what Napoleon has so I can fight back!" And suddenly everyone had giant armies, and now life on the battlefield had become cheap.

>>14205124
>They were self proclaimed revolutionaries that used anti-government rhetoric to garner followers.
Yes, after the FBI infiltrated their ranks, on an explicit mission to radicalize and therefore delegitimatize them. Before that, they mostly carried guns around (which sparked the beginning of gun control efforts, btw) and mouthed off to cops who tried to harass them and fed breakfast to children. Look up COINTELPRO.

>The modern Klan was founded to terrorize Civil Rights Movement activists.
You're off by almost half a century. The first resurgence of the KKK was as >>14205181 said, after Birth of a Nation was released. They were most active in the Depression era. The modern Klan is actually a separate entity from both. What links them all is their professed intent to fight or overthrow anti-segregationist institutions, up to and including the federal government (hence the overlap with the survivalist/doomsday planning communities).

Oh, also, the KKK targeted civilians while the BPP mostly targeted law enforcement. Suffice it to say, the only way that they're really comparable is that the other side of the fence is absolutely convinced that they exist to kill them.

>>14205124
Also, the federal government doesn't pay attention to the modern Klan because 1) they're largely ineffectual, and 2) the parts that aren't have a sympathetic ear in LE.

>>14205181
The KKK that exists now didn't just have chapters in the South iirc.

>>14205185
Good point. The other thing to remember is that Mutually Assured Destruction is a reference to nuclear war; while fears of turning the whole planet into a wasteland might have been overblown, most political and military experts acknowledged it would have grave environmental impact that made it particularly undesirable for both sides. Drones, on the other hand, are for obvious reasons a great deal cleaner. I think there's something to be said for drones as a deterrent, but I also think it's fair to acknowledge that MAD doesn't apply in quite the same fashion to drones.

>>14205270
And black panthers were funded by enemies of America, mostly communists.

treize speech and particulary GW is a soldier's tribute against AI

the difference with drones its the way these are being used in war

>>14205023
We do have systems like Blue Force Tracker in place for IFF. You're sorta right about the human judgement thing though, that'll probably never go away. Fully automated fighter jets seem more likely than fully automated drones

I don't think some people in this thread realize what MAD was. It's about both sides possessing weapons that can't be countered, will completely obliterate both sides if they're deployed and the psychological effect of them. The big thing is if every country had access to AI controlled weapons that could way waste to a country, it would create an arms race for creating means of building counters to disable or destroy the drones as opposed to just making the weapons better and harder to counter.

The reason why nukes were so effective as a deterrent was the visual representation of their effectiveness and there was no way to counter a massive strike against your country, so the only option was to launch your entire stockpile at who attacked you. You also have to remember the American military stance on using nukes before the Soviets got them was much morel liberal. (Watch the Atomic Cafe.)

>>14204879
>>14204950
These are the reasons why having an automated army is a mistake. To add to that, what's more damning look at society that is asked to go to war to not make any sacrifices. Look at the Iraqi War which, while started under false pretenses and was going to happen because the Republican leadership was dead set on it, were able to isolate those who were serving from the rest of the society since it was an all volunteer army. Sure there were all these things to 'support the troops' But a vast majority of people just paid lip service and didn't actually do anything to help in the war effort or support veterans when they came home. The American people weren't asked to sacrifice at all. No draft, no rationing, no connections made. So they had no vested interest in seeing things be successful more than reading the reports and approving of success. So it's not just having people on the ground that can second guess orders, it's also about having society as a whole feel the effects of the war to judge if what their leaders are doing is righteous.

>>14205218
This is an interesting post. Know any place where I can read up on how warfare changed like this? I'd like to verify this stuff for myself (not that I'm automatically assuming you're making stuff up).

>>14205552
I copied that mostly word for word from a podcast called Hardcore History by Dan Carlin. It's from the first episode in his series on WW1, Blueprint For Armageddon. I heard about

>>14205564
Shit hit submit. Was gonna say I heard about him from /his/. I listen to the episodes that are free now.

>>14205531
>Watch the Atomic Cafe.
this is good advice
also Threads

>>14205482
And? Its not like you americans didn't fund 75% of all terrorist cells currently running around and fucking shit up

>>14205218
To follow up on this, the next major leap forward in the consequences of war was the shift towards Total Warfare. Because even during the French Revolution the battle field was still orderly and there were certain rules of engagement (Like, to shoot an enemy commanding officer while his back was turned was considered ungentlemanly.) And even though the French were the first to use mass conscription, they still followed the general rules of war at the time. The only difference was the Russians using scorched earth to keep their resources from falling into French hands.

It was the American Civil War that really made warfare change since before then. The worst civilians had to deal with were 'forging' parties sent out by armies where they would ransack your place for food. But they didn't go out of their way to kill your family and burn your house down. When the Union decided conduct a prototype of total war against the Confederacy with Sherman's March to the Sea where they intentionally targeted civilian settlements during their march. (However they made sure not to intentionally target the local populations.) However the Union turning everything in their path into flaming wreckage had a major impact on civilian morale in the Confederacy since it sent the message their leaders and armies could not protect them.

World War I was the next step because it was when you saw society as a whole mobilizing for the war effort and converting domestic industry to support it. It wasn't that young men were conscripted, they their families were also asked to make sacrifices and work in the name of the country.

It was World War II that brought all these different factors together to create the most devastating war known to man where you had entire countries mobilize for war, but civilian populations were considered fair game to target and the destruction of them was considered necessary for victory.

>>14205666
You speak the truth with a forked tongue Satan.

>>14205706

The only reason WWII targetted the civilian population when WWI didn't is because trench warfare meant neither side could get near the civilians. Still, when the Germans hauled out that giant gun that could hit (in the broadest sense of the concept of accuracy) targets 70 miles away in 1918, they shelled Paris with it to try and break French morale.

>>14202634

I think drones are a good thing, mostly because you can kill those people without them ever getting a chance to kill you back.

Look, the standard paradigm of war went out of the window with 9/11. The enemy wants to take you down with them. Having drones means that they cannot accomplish that, which frustrates them enormously.

I'm all for en masse deployment of drones. I look forward to the day we have drone soldiers, so we can engage the enemy in combat without ever having to put civilized lives at risk.

Dirty brown people fight with AK-47s. The civilized man destroys them with superior technology.

>>14206242
From the what i remember of my history of World War 1, civilian population centers weren't specifically targeted for the most part. But because of how destructive trench warfare was to the surrounding land and how the war just devolved into a battle of attrition. Towns ended up being destroyed because of the fighting between both sides, and not by being the target itself. Like Soupir was in the Second Battle of the Aisne. Or Verdune, which was a good example of the land just being turned into a picture form hell as a result of almost a year of fighting between the French and Germans.

Paris at least had strategic importance because it was the capital of France. So It was more likely targeted because of that and not to indiscriminately kill civilians. Although it might have played roll.

>>14206424
>Having drones means that they cannot accomplish that, which frustrates them enormously
Thing is, the people that are being fought with drones are insurgent groups. And you can kill as many insurgents as you want, but more will always pop up out of the woodwork to cause trouble as long as the underlying causes are not resolved. And these groups thrive on propaganda opportunities to recruit new members, and the foreign devils killing people with killer robots while remaining safe from harm themselves has always been kind of a propaganda coup. That's not even getting into the imprecision of drones. Collateral damage out the wazoo, and even if you are dickhead that doesn't care about civilians if they're dirty foreigners, it's still another lucrative angel for recruitment.

>>14207038
>So It was more likely targeted because of that and not to indiscriminately kill civilians

That gun had no aiming capability, that's why it was designed to shell cities, because no matter what, it's gonna hit SOMETHING. So it was definitely designed as a demoralizing weapon.

>>14202634
>that top picture
Isn't that way too fucking modern of a KKK showing? I mean, I know they still exist, but I didn't think they were that open about it.

>>14206424
>Look, the standard paradigm of war went out of the window with 9/11. The enemy wants to take you down with them. Having drones means that they cannot accomplish that, which frustrates them enormously.
What happens when you fight people who can also send drones?

>>14207455
Then you go full Macross and have your drones fighting their drones with impossibly high-G maneuvers.

>>14207452
They're not actual Klansmen, just dumb college kids who apparently made an astonishingly poor choice of costumes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/26/citadel-cadets-punished-for-ghosts-of-christmas-past-costumes-resembling-k-k-k-hoods/

File: capirotes2-420x279.jpg (43KB, 420x279px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 420x279px

>>14207463
I'm waiting for the day some american will complain about Semana Santa.

>>14207463
You know I'm not an SJW but those costumes are stupid. Did noone have any common sense?

>>14207455
It's possible that one day wars will be fully automated between robot armies.

>>14207463
Looks more like condoms then KKK.

>>14207471
https://youtu.be/1cCiuZanl_4?

>>14207474

"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."

>>14204843
This entire post is so wrong it's adorable.

>>14207448
You mean the Paris Gun? I'd classify that as a siege weapon to force Paris and the French military in the area to capitulate as opposed to the primary objective just being the destruction of the city.

Total Warfare would be like if the German's got all their Zeppelins together and tried to go Red Alert 2 Kirov on the French.

>>14205039
How the fuck would it, retard? Our most advanced technology can't tell what a fucking street sign is.

There's only two decent ways to wage war: full-on nuclear annihilation, and just beating each other with sticks. Everything in between is all sorts of hypocritical and fucked-up.

>>14208462
Hopefully it stays that way.

>>14207463
America really coddles their blacks. Reminds me of that one story of college kids freaking the fuck out and calling for police because they thought a monk with roasry beads was a KKK member with a whip.

>>14204860
So, a Ghost.
>>14204879
What he said, nope.
>>14204913
Local control and superior electronic warfare suite.
>>14205019
So, Heavy Object?

>>14208565
>So, Heavy Object?
But then the point of that series was that the theory only works on paper, and that in practice people just constantly undermine it whenever they get an opportunity.

>>14208580
My point exactly. It won't work. Hell, nuclear deterent strategy doesn't work irl and nukes are worst than any drones.

>>14202634
Given real examples of drones in modern combat today: they bleed out operators, because gamers are not as sociopathic as the military may have been hoping for. There are a lot of people who have left the drone program due to stories of seeing child with dog that they just bombed. Battle ships are one thing, but civie centers are a can of worms as a bombing target.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-drone-pilots-denounce-morally-outrageous-program-n472496

However, if all militaries switch to using them: It becomes a video game that people participating in it may end in a real tragedy leading to the sociopaths our military may have wanted in the first place.

But for uses on the battlefield, and outside of combat situations: there is a lot of use for automated units.