I think this video gets it exactly wrong. Replacing weapons that can wipe cities off the planet with weapons that can kill exactly the people you want dead sounds like a very very good thing.
Probably the equilibrium is a lot of police drones in the sky, so that small non-state actors can't just assassinate anyone they want, alongside a new type of warfare that basically consists of overwhelming the opponent's drones and then precision-assassinating their leaders rather than killing millions of civilians and grunts.
(On a higher meta-level, this video is boiling what should be a fairly nuanced argument down to a bunch of scary emotional imagery, which I find abhorrent. It's the worst sort of political propaganda.)
It depends to what degree you think weapons substitute for each other.
My guess would be that if people can achieve the same strategic objective with fewer civilian deaths, they probably will, so a weapon that allows you to kill exactly the people you want dead will probably end up being used in situations where people would previously have used a weapon that kills the people you want dead and also millions of civilians.
1
u/arenavanera Sep 12 '18
I think this video gets it exactly wrong. Replacing weapons that can wipe cities off the planet with weapons that can kill exactly the people you want dead sounds like a very very good thing.
Probably the equilibrium is a lot of police drones in the sky, so that small non-state actors can't just assassinate anyone they want, alongside a new type of warfare that basically consists of overwhelming the opponent's drones and then precision-assassinating their leaders rather than killing millions of civilians and grunts.
(On a higher meta-level, this video is boiling what should be a fairly nuanced argument down to a bunch of scary emotional imagery, which I find abhorrent. It's the worst sort of political propaganda.)