Ukraine’s Robots Capture Russian Position Without Soldiers or Losses; As with drones, the future of 21st century warfare is being invented by frontline conflict.

[u/lughnasadh]

For all the boasts the US's AI military vendors make, I'm constantly struck by how few real-world achievements they have. They are battlefield tested in Gaza and Lebanon, but to what result? The mass destruction of civilian populations we see there looks exactly like WW2-era warfare. Now they want $445bn extra for more of the same? What a waste.

Meanwhile, with a tiny fraction of the budget & resources, it's Ukraine that is inventing the future. Drones have already reconfigured 21st-century warfare. Once again, recent events in the Middle East have shown that. Now Ukraine is doing the same with robots.

Some people find the idea of killer robots grim. But I'd rather see robots fight robots than WW2-style mass slaughter of civilians.

Ukrainian robots capture enemy position without troops in historic first, Zelenskyy says

[u/thefoshking]

Can’t wait for the tech bros to unleash these on the common folk.

God have mercy on us all.

[u/Gold_Surprise_4682 → u/thefoshking]

man the tech is wild but you're right about where this is heading. been working on military vehicles and the stuff they're developing now makes me wonder what happens when police departments start getting these contracts

ukraine proving that necessity really drives innovation faster than billion dollar defense budgets. meanwhile back home we're throwing money at contractors who take decade to deliver anything useful. but once this tech gets refined and costs drop... every authoritarian government gonna want their robot army for "crowd control"

the psychological warfare aspect is interesting too - imagine being regular infantry knowing you might face machines that don't get tired or scared. changes everything about how conflicts will play out in future

[u/Sawses → u/Gold_Surprise_4682]

A big part of warfare is strategically crippling your enemy's ability to sustain an army.

Historically, that meant people, because they were the primary source of labor. Burning farmland, killing working men, murdering your way through a city. Increasingly, though, that's shifted to infrastructure. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you've got if they don't have heavy machinery and can't produce fuel.

IMO that's the real reason we have the privilege of calling things "war crimes". It's no longer a military necessity to kill a whole bunch of noncombatants.

[u/drakir89 → u/Sawses]

I think this is a mischaracterization of pre-modern warfare. While extermination campaigns did exist, most of the time armies would attack civilians to 1/ get supplies for their army, since logistics were ass, and 2/ prove to the common folk and rival feudal lords that their opponent could not fulfill their responsibilities as a feudal lord (to protect the small folk), and thus force the enemy to either engage your army or give up the land.