| ▲ | kragen 2 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well, suppose you have two countries at war, say, Burnia and Hevonia. They each produce a million autonomous weapons. Burnia sends their million autonomous weapons to kill the million people they judge are most crucial to Hevonia's war effort, prioritizing Hevonia's political leadership and military officers. Hevonia, meanwhile, sends their million autonomous weapons to destroy Burnia's autonomous weapons, when they can find them, but not to attack any humans. Who wins the war? I think Burnia does, because even if Hevonia's weapons are 99% effective, Hevonia's government has still lost its top ten thousand people, including all of their military officers, while Burnia has only lost half a billion dollars. That's going to make it impossible for Hevonia to keep fighting. And I think 50% effective is more likely. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | scotty79 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's the same question as when one opponent is ready to nuke enemy cities while the other is not. In theory everything turns out the same way you postulate. In practice cost of winning the war in this manner might be higher then the cost of losing localized, limited conflict. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||