The future of warfare is in robots making war time strategic decisions, guys, can't we just take this to its logical conclusion and settle matters over a nice game of chess.... Best 2 out of 3?
Ultimately war will exist entirely online, because all of the most important things will be in cyberspace. Once reality as we know it has been reduced to simply hosting the processors that host our made up worlds, then maybe we can permanently keep war where it should be, inside video games.
"The future of warfare is in robots making war time strategic decisions, guys, can't we just take this to its logical conclusion and settle matters over a nice game of chess.... Best 2 out of 3?"
This was the plot of a Star Trek episode, where the losers had to docilely line up to be incinerated when the computer determined that they had been "killed" in the simulated battles. It was all much less messy that way.
Of course, when Kirk destroyed the incinerators (or was it the master computer?) they had to decide whether to fight the messy way, or maybe just not fight at all.
> The future of warfare is in robots making war time strategic decisions, guys, can't we just take this to its logical conclusion and settle matters over a nice game of chess.... Best 2 out of 3?
Why would the other side agree to use chess to determine the outcome? More to the point - if they would, why would you?
War is a decision-making process, but one of the constraints is that both sides aren't willing to give in absent significant costs.
No... war will now be over the processors and whatever keeps them running. If all of humanity lived their lives in virtuality, whoever controls the hardware is king.
Comments
The future of warfare is in robots making war time strategic decisions, guys, can't we just take this to its logical conclusion and settle matters over a nice game of chess.... Best 2 out of 3?
Ultimately war will exist entirely online, because all of the most important things will be in cyberspace. Once reality as we know it has been reduced to simply hosting the processors that host our made up worlds, then maybe we can permanently keep war where it should be, inside video games.
"The future of warfare is in robots making war time strategic decisions, guys, can't we just take this to its logical conclusion and settle matters over a nice game of chess.... Best 2 out of 3?"
This was the plot of a Star Trek episode, where the losers had to docilely line up to be incinerated when the computer determined that they had been "killed" in the simulated battles. It was all much less messy that way.
Of course, when Kirk destroyed the incinerators (or was it the master computer?) they had to decide whether to fight the messy way, or maybe just not fight at all.
> The future of warfare is in robots making war time strategic decisions, guys, can't we just take this to its logical conclusion and settle matters over a nice game of chess.... Best 2 out of 3?
Why would the other side agree to use chess to determine the outcome? More to the point - if they would, why would you?
War is a decision-making process, but one of the constraints is that both sides aren't willing to give in absent significant costs.
No... war will now be over the processors and whatever keeps them running. If all of humanity lived their lives in virtuality, whoever controls the hardware is king.