336
Can anyone explain what they're actually thinking? (europe.pub)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -9 points 4 months ago (9 children)

So many people seem to have sorely missed the point. A bigger stick is useless when your neighbour can and will use a bigger stick in response. You want autonomous drones? I really do sympathise with your situation, but that would legitimise Russia in using autonomous drones against you!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    And there's the point, we need an even bigger stick to deter them from using their big stick, which will result in them creating an even bigger stick to counter our big stick, which will result in us creating an even bigger stick to deter them.

    Drone warfare is just a next step of that old pattern that can be traced back to the beginning of human civilization.

    Now if russia already has autonomous drones, then we most definitely need those and better ones and more to deter russia from using their drones or at least to counter russian drones.

    Other option would be to just trust someone who for the last few hundred years hasn't been really keeping their word on not attacking us or any of their neighbors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    There are limits to that kind of escalation. Like nukes. Or that in WWII both Germans and British could've dumped poison gas on a city, but then of course the enemy would do the same. There's nothing technologically impressive about autonomous drones, anyone could make them, so to make them first is saying 'we accept a world where this is normal', and that crosses a big line. If it's ok for Ukraine to use them, then it's ok for Russia and Israel. Then it's only a matter of time before every military and police force use them. I think everyone can imagine how bad that would be on their own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago
    1. If Russia could have pulled that one before, they would have. They've already broken every and any international laws, conventions, etc. that were in their way. The only reason they've not used nukes is most likely because China would instantly turn their back on them, and they can't afford that.
    2. Ukraine is under threat of annihilation and they never got half the support they needed from their allies. Everything you point about "long term issue" is secondary to them because if they don't keep that technological advance on Russia, they won't exist to see that "long term issue" anyway. You want them to keep some reasonable limit? Write to whatever representative you have in your country and ask for a massive and immediate support to Ukraine. Had they done that on day1, the war would have been over for years and we wouldn't have seen that massive technological "progress" in military equipment.
    3. Nukes were invented during a high intensity war, used, and then countries got reasonable enough to not use them again (so far…). Chemical weapons were invented then banned. Problematic weapons do get banned, though the rules are not always followed. That's why we need international laws, conventions, etc. These past years they were all but thrown away by a few countries without any consequences, therefore, don't expect any kind of holding back on terminator drones. They were to happen no matter what, and Ukraine just had the right conditions to be the first to get them. I would be very surprised if Israel was not already working on it.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    And nukes have been rather good peacekeepers after the invention of those, so you cant really say that inventing new weapons doesn't make one safer.

    The other person explained it rather well.

    But in the face of annihilation, every possible advantage will be used. It's that simple. Long term and moral consequences are irrelevant, those can be dealt with later, but first one has to get to that later.

    If you want to get really personal aka hammer in the point. You can imagine someone who already has broken into your neighbors home and done horrific things and is now breaking into your home and already starting to abuse/hurt/rape your loved ones. There is no police. Would you not use every single possible method to protect yourself and your loved ones? Or would you have philosophical discussion with the invader while they're raping your wife/daughter/sister or cutting off the balls with a box cutter of your husband/son/brother. Those aren't even made up examples, those are real examples with videos.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent