From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Fri Mar 21 2003 - 03:53:12 MST
In general sufficiently advanced weaponry can defeat less advanced
weaponry quite efficiently, at least in a "fair fight". Things
change when the enemy is doing guerilla warfare. It might simply be
that the other side in that case must have an even greater tech
advantage to deal with the guerilla. Maybe the rule of thumb is
that one techlevel (whatever that is) gives the decisive advantage
in a conventional fight and two or more are needed to win an
unconventional fight.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 10:03:15AM +0100, Max M wrote:
> Then it could be a glimmer of what the singularity could be like.
It reminds me of when I am playing Alpha Centauri, and finally get
tired of my neighbors and roar in with supertechnological weapons.
"You won't leave us to transcend in peace? You think our research
is misguided? Well, how do you all like my tachyon marines and
string disruptor choppers?" :-)
> Ie. with laser guided precision bombs, it would seem obvious for the
> Iraqis to put up powerfull lasers pointing anywhere else than on
> important infrastructure, so as to confuse the guided bombs.
I guess there is a high-tech counter-counter-measure: make the
lasers flicker psuedorandom identification codes like GPS or even
public-key based authentification (for the truly paranoid); the
missile will only follow the right code laser.
> It is also a clear example on why it is important that these
> technologies belong to "benign" countries. But perhaps there is some
> kind of aoutomation in this, in that the free and rich countries are
> better able to develop advanced technology?
I think there is some truth in this, but they can of course always
sell their technology. But I think there is a problem in
*maintaining* high-tech in non-free and poorer countries. Most
high-tech requires plenty of high-tech support, and that usually
requires freedom of communication. Keeping the engineers and
technocrats within the cadre partially ameliorates this, but as
Soviet and Iraq demonstrated, the need to keep this group small and
contained limits the ability to deploy it.
> The joker in this, is the rising power of the individual/small state
> due to even more advanced technologies (NABC - Nano, Atomic, Bio,
> Chem). But the best way to avoid individuals/small states being angry
> enough to use NABC's as a tool of terror, is to ensure wealth, freedom
> and democracy for as many people as possible.
This is true. The problem is that a happy, rich democratic world
only decreases the risk, it cannot remove it. But that is of course
no excuse for not doing it anyway.
> Should this lead to more preemptive strikes, to ensure freedom and
> democracy?
In many ways the aftermath of the current conflict will likely
convince people about one or another policy. If it actually goes
well, people will start to consider preemtive strikes a reasonable
tool. If things turn ugly, they will be less acceptable.
> Should we work even harder, and take more chances, to make shure that
> it is a rich and peacefull world before the technology get's to
> advanced?
What kind of chances do you think of?
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 21 2003 - 03:56:29 MST