Here’s something for your Blog page:
A New Model Army Soldier Rolls Closer to Battle
“The history of warfare suggests that every new technological leap – the longbow, the tank, the atomic bomb – outraces the strategy and doctrine to control it… There is a lag between technology and doctrine. If you could invade other countries bloodlessly, would this lead to a greater temptation to invade?”
I believe a similar argument was made about the A-Bomb back in the day. Alas with the quick advent of MAD we never truly found out, though I believe ‘no’ in the case of free (US) or even stable countries (such as the USSR or Cuba). In the modern world they have more to lose than gain.
What does history tell us about the Longbow and the Tank when possessed by one power?
-Kevin
I think it told us that they won against a known enemy and made their potential enemies think twice about causing a ruckus. But that was then.
I agree that in todays world most countries have much more to lose by invading another state. The world dynamic is not the same as it was in the 80’s or the 50’s. No one is wearing the customary white and black hats these days.
However, I don’t think that this would hold true for small countries like the kinds that South Africa has in abundance. If a company offered a government (or even a corporation) not only trained mercenaries to do their bidding, but robot fighting platforms as well, you would see quite a few takers.
Unfortunately, I see the robot combat force as an easy way for politicians to make an excuse for keeping the peace and playing world cop. I don’t know if that is a good thing or not. In light of current events, that isn’t as easy as everyone thinks. As appealing as kicking ass my seem to be, one should take a long view on things and try to come up with a strategy that is effective for a long term, not just the four to eight years of an officials office.
I find the idea of robotic warfare one of those things that you can’t be stopped. Just like stem cell research may be on our governments no fund list, other countries don’t think so and are actively pursuing technology in that area ( China surges ahead in stem cell science ). Same with robotic combat systems. If we don’t become the leader in the production of them some other power will. We don’t want a ‘robot gap’, now do we?
Cruse missiles can discriminate between a truck and a tank and blow the crap out of it’s intended target with a low degree of human input, some of the UAVs that are patrolling the skies of Iraq have been fitted with air to surface missiles. The bomb disposal robots are doing a good job of keeping the GI safe for now so its only natural to want to armor up a ‘bot and let it haul 100Kg of HE into a house that is lighting up a convoy.
However, I think that in the future you would have more world power if you could say that your not going let a country trade with an economic block rather than saying that you will storm their frontier with scores of robotic myrmidons. That’s so 80’s, its like saying that you have nukes. So what? If you use them your just going to piss off whoever is left after the swift and final exchange.
The robot GI is a good idea that if used in conjunction with wise diplomatic wisdom can be a force for good, but if it is used in a ham-fisted way the world will be in for quite a show.
-John
The robot army of the future
(robotics, warfare, combat)
