| From: | Helge Diernaes <ecocide@***.CBS.DK> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Drones vs. Humans (was: Sentry Guns (Nasty Thought)) |
| Date: | Sun, 8 Oct 1995 10:48:43 +0100 |
> Silhouette writes:
> > You would in other words think, that if an WI/NE AI should control
> > drones, it would have to be done remote? So that our 200 killerdrones
> > were multi-tasking controlled by mr(s) IQ 400 AI?
> > Kinda cool and rather scary. That would leave the completeness of these
> > killerthings restrained by only their mobility and adaptedness of their
> > physical restraints to new kinds of weapons when ammo slips.
>
> Until someone drops 600 kilowatts of broadband noise into your comms
> frequency. Blocks your com-lasers with smoke. Tightbeam from satellite?
> ASAT weapons, killersats, or a cloud of gravel in the right orbit.
> Super-unjammable radios? Take out the antennae.
>
Sounds like killerdrones are exclusively for tactical eradication work.
Human factor still somewhat needful, but this is basically what you have been
saying all along :-) I believe.
But Paul, aren't there countertechniques for these neutralisation methods
mentioned above? You're the expert, but if com-lasers fail, will
switching to microwave not be an option? Ultrasonic vision as default,
interlocked sattelite sensors, so if one is blocked, the others can
coordinate the efforts for the blocked sattelite also, etc.etc.
> Smart base, dumb soldiers means that if you take out that base - or just
> the communications - the soldiers are helpless and can be much more easily
> taken out one at a time. This is how NATO planned to defeat the Warsaw Pact:
> take out the command tanks, so the others just kept motoring forward. They
> couldn't give mutual support, didn't know where to refuel and re-arm, and
> could be picked off individually much more easily than as a coherent unit.
>
> And you play headgames with the AI. It's only as informed as the sensors on
> the drones... so confuse the bastard! :) Trying to fight by remote control
> is a lot harder than it seems.
>
For a human :-). My main trouble with SR tech is, as I've told you before, that
I have no firm idea of the technology available in 2053. It seems to me
that beyond magic, there is really no advancement in 2053 that we haven't
already begun in some primitive way. Well, if one is of that mind, even magic
have been around for some time now.
With all our advanced tech, the tech evolution should have been cruising
at turbo speed for about 60 years now. The achivements in 2053 is puny
indeed, seen from my point of view, but then I'm not tech. Might explain
that issue. But ofcourse, Newtonian physics is assumed to stay the same.
> I did rip off the movies and have one possible future involve an AI, which
> by uncanny coincidence had both developed time travel, and was called
> Skynet :) But the AI was losing that war.
I've no AI's yet. My natural ones seem much nastier to me.
--
Sincerely,
Silhouette
___________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Helge Diernaes | "I'm going slightly mad..."
ecocide@***.cbs.dk | Freddy Mercury, Queen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
-----------
