What do you mean by holding a position? Entrenched infantry slows down the enemy, inflicts losses, funnels them where you want them. The primary difference is that infantry is mobile, yet drones can also be mobile. Engineering vehicles can dig earthworks suitable for tanks. A mini-tank could presumably go hull-down, though it seems most threats come from above these days.
What good are entrenched infantry going to be when a swarm of kamikaze drones fly down into their trenches at 3 in the morning?
Assuming we've got them all linked up to an AGI performing the role of brigade command, robotic forces could adapt and execute plans, counter exploits. Wearing weird camouflage patterns probably wouldn't work on a decent AGI - if all else fails they could use thermal imaging. Palantir has already made a test LLM for quickly organizing strike missions, I see no reason why machines couldn't execute tactics. The speed and coordination of an unmanned force would be extremely impressive. Commanders are deluged in information from all the sensors in modern warfare, machines are best at managing a tsunami of data and providing quick answers. The gains in cost-efficiency and speed will probably outweigh the loss in human flexibility for most environments. I'll admit that infantry will be better in urban environments for a long time to come. But everyone seems to agree that urban environments are hellish to fight in, it might be easier to encircle and siege them out.
Jamming isn't a foolproof answer. The transmitter will be lit up for artillery or missile fire. Some weapons could be designed to go into an autonomous mode if they lose connection to command and control.
Look at Hamas' low tech tour de force which was all against state of the art automated defenses
Au contraire, the problem was that the human guards were understrength and unprepared due to the holiday. Arrogance and complacency was their core problem. They had a bunch of sensors but relied on a response force of human soldiers that simply wasn't there. There weren't any landmines beneath the fence (or certainly not enough to impede Hamas planting explosives there). There wasn't a response force ready to go, they planned assuming a 24-hour warning time to deploy.
For at least three months prior to October 7, the soldiers recalled reporting information on Hamas operatives conducting training sessions multiple times a day, digging holes and placing explosives along the border.
However, when presenting the evidence to their senior officers, they were ignored, and the information was not passed further up the chain of command.
While there were three infantry battalions and one tank battalion positioned along Gaza’s border, stated the report, a senior military officer estimated that perhaps half of the 1,500 soldiers were away.
Now maybe an AI-based combat system would also have failed here, yet the humans certainly didn't cover themselves in glory. Sensors are useless if the humans don't listen to them and aren't prepared to act. They missed the warnings, they fielded understrength forces, they waited too long to deploy and were uncoordinated in their initial attacks (since divisional HQ was directly attacked). Hamas also made good use of drones to defeat turrets and armour, which doesn't necessarily counter my argument.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
RandomRanger 3mo ago·Edited 3mo ago
What do you mean by holding a position?
Continuously effect control in the tactical sense "maintain physical influence over a specified area to prevent its use by enemy or to create conditions necessary for successful friendly operations" as the Americans put it.
But we're about to get in pedantic debates about things being tools of control instead of effecting control in and of themselves, because the real disagreement we are having, I think, is as to considering automated systems as agents. I do not think it is wise to do so.
the problem was that the human guards were understrength and unprepared due to the holiday
I think this is the key to what I'm saying. The fact that the human element failed is evidence that it is still and will probably remain crucial to effective operations even in a world with drones.
If drones were effective on their own and could replace the infantryman, the lack of intelligence would not have mattered as the automated defenses could have adapted to the breach. But machines are not generally intelligent so they can't do that, you need some human to figure it out before he gets killed, and the fewer humans you have right next to the problem the harder it is to figure things out on the fly.
I do not mean to imply that automated systems won't play a big part as a force multiplier in wars current and future. I only mean to assert that you're not going to be able to remove the humans from direct battlefield involvement without compromising capability to an unreasonable degree.
This is why I've long prognosticated that flesh and blood pilots would continue to exist in significant numbers even as drones become more sophisticated. There's just too many situations where looking at the objective or the enemy with your eyes and making a decision right there and then beats interpreting a camera feed, even with how sophisticated modern sensors are.
And ground combat is a lot more chaotic and difficult to parse so I intuit it's even less likely.
Another factor we haven't really discussed is how fragile all this equipment is. For all the fictional cachet robots get for being indestructible machines of death, they are surprisingly brittle and needy. If we had to bet on who survives continuous shelling for the longest, I'm not sure I'm putting my money on the high tech stuff. Even if it's a more morally acceptable loss, obviously.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What do you mean by holding a position? Entrenched infantry slows down the enemy, inflicts losses, funnels them where you want them. The primary difference is that infantry is mobile, yet drones can also be mobile. Engineering vehicles can dig earthworks suitable for tanks. A mini-tank could presumably go hull-down, though it seems most threats come from above these days.
What good are entrenched infantry going to be when a swarm of kamikaze drones fly down into their trenches at 3 in the morning?
Assuming we've got them all linked up to an AGI performing the role of brigade command, robotic forces could adapt and execute plans, counter exploits. Wearing weird camouflage patterns probably wouldn't work on a decent AGI - if all else fails they could use thermal imaging. Palantir has already made a test LLM for quickly organizing strike missions, I see no reason why machines couldn't execute tactics. The speed and coordination of an unmanned force would be extremely impressive. Commanders are deluged in information from all the sensors in modern warfare, machines are best at managing a tsunami of data and providing quick answers. The gains in cost-efficiency and speed will probably outweigh the loss in human flexibility for most environments. I'll admit that infantry will be better in urban environments for a long time to come. But everyone seems to agree that urban environments are hellish to fight in, it might be easier to encircle and siege them out.
Jamming isn't a foolproof answer. The transmitter will be lit up for artillery or missile fire. Some weapons could be designed to go into an autonomous mode if they lose connection to command and control.
Au contraire, the problem was that the human guards were understrength and unprepared due to the holiday. Arrogance and complacency was their core problem. They had a bunch of sensors but relied on a response force of human soldiers that simply wasn't there. There weren't any landmines beneath the fence (or certainly not enough to impede Hamas planting explosives there). There wasn't a response force ready to go, they planned assuming a 24-hour warning time to deploy.
SIGINT apparently wasn't working on holidays: https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-israeli-intel-unit-wasnt-operational-on-october-7-due-to-personnel-decision/
Now maybe an AI-based combat system would also have failed here, yet the humans certainly didn't cover themselves in glory. Sensors are useless if the humans don't listen to them and aren't prepared to act. They missed the warnings, they fielded understrength forces, they waited too long to deploy and were uncoordinated in their initial attacks (since divisional HQ was directly attacked). Hamas also made good use of drones to defeat turrets and armour, which doesn't necessarily counter my argument.
Continuously effect control in the tactical sense "maintain physical influence over a specified area to prevent its use by enemy or to create conditions necessary for successful friendly operations" as the Americans put it.
But we're about to get in pedantic debates about things being tools of control instead of effecting control in and of themselves, because the real disagreement we are having, I think, is as to considering automated systems as agents. I do not think it is wise to do so.
I think this is the key to what I'm saying. The fact that the human element failed is evidence that it is still and will probably remain crucial to effective operations even in a world with drones.
If drones were effective on their own and could replace the infantryman, the lack of intelligence would not have mattered as the automated defenses could have adapted to the breach. But machines are not generally intelligent so they can't do that, you need some human to figure it out before he gets killed, and the fewer humans you have right next to the problem the harder it is to figure things out on the fly.
I do not mean to imply that automated systems won't play a big part as a force multiplier in wars current and future. I only mean to assert that you're not going to be able to remove the humans from direct battlefield involvement without compromising capability to an unreasonable degree.
This is why I've long prognosticated that flesh and blood pilots would continue to exist in significant numbers even as drones become more sophisticated. There's just too many situations where looking at the objective or the enemy with your eyes and making a decision right there and then beats interpreting a camera feed, even with how sophisticated modern sensors are.
And ground combat is a lot more chaotic and difficult to parse so I intuit it's even less likely.
Another factor we haven't really discussed is how fragile all this equipment is. For all the fictional cachet robots get for being indestructible machines of death, they are surprisingly brittle and needy. If we had to bet on who survives continuous shelling for the longest, I'm not sure I'm putting my money on the high tech stuff. Even if it's a more morally acceptable loss, obviously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link