- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- ukraine@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- ukraine@sopuli.xyz
Summary
Ukraine’s 13th National Guard Brigade conducted its first all-robot assault, using ground and aerial drones to clear Russian positions in Kharkiv Oblast.
The operation involved surveillance, explosive, and gun-armed robots, demonstrating Ukraine’s advanced military robotics.
While robots excel in surveillance and attack, their limitations in holding ground, particularly against jamming and maintenance challenges, underscore the continued importance of human infantry.
You must log in or register to comment.
This is the first bold step toward fighting wars the way God intended: with giant robots on the moon.
KNOCK! KNOCK! KNOCK!
The article discusses an unarmored Russian assault, nothing new about drone warfare.
Wrong link.
I’m guessing it’s this one from !world@quokk.au
Thanks. I’ve fixed the link.
Might be the wrong article or the title is wrong
Yeah, it’s happening.
A few years ago, I was tripping and had this idea that the future of war would essentially be conducted by nerds controlling robots in command centers, far away from the actual conflict.
The thing is, once the war was lost, the nerds would know that the enemy robots are going to come crashing through their walls at any moment to tear at their fleshy bits.
I very much like Ukraine and hope they win. I cheer them on for every victory I hear about.
But this robot soldier bullshit is something I really fucking hate.
Once you remove the human cost of war, you remove any motivation to stop war. I learned this as a kid from Star Trek S01E23 - A Taste of Armageddon
You’ll be glad to hear tens of thousands of people have already died in this war then, including innocent men, women and children. Many were tortured and/or raped first. So the human cost is absolutely massive already. No amount of robots can undo it. Hope to have eased your fears a bit.
You have clearly missed the point. OP isn’t talking about this war but war in general.
I think you’re mistaking me for yourself. I do not celebrate when people die.
And you clearly missed the point of what I just said.
I’d rather see a robot blown up than a Ukranian defending his homeland. If you hate robots being used by Ukrainians then the only other option is people dying.
That’s a strawman – – this was never a conversation of robots versus humans. If you’re actually literate, you’ll see my comment spoke of the human cost of war demotivating those from stopping it. Not about robots versus humans.
But if you need to be dishonest in order to make your point, that shows everyone how bullshit your position is.
My assumption was that because you hate robot usage in warfare that you disagree with Ukraine using them in this instance, while I agree. Maybe I got it wrong, it’s a bit hard to see your point through all the ad hominems for illiterate people like me. Either way hope you have a nice day.
If you’re so tied up on personal criticism that you can’t see the logic of my argument, that’s your own problem. Stop blaming me for it.
Also, stop making assumptions about strangers. You’re more often to be wrong than right.
I can’t see the logic of your argument either since it seems to go from robot warfare against an invading party to a cold war between two planets that are nowhere near each other, where they force people into suicide booths.
Firstly, Ukraine is fighting an invading force by a ruthless dictator and they’re outgunned. Taking the moral high ground and refusing to use the latest technology is the worst possible idea.
Secondly, there was still a human cost. Just not on the Ukrainian side.
Thirdly, they absolutely have a motivation to stop: when Russia leaves.
Fourthly, you need to re-watch that episode because it was about the Cold War. The idea was two equal powers were fighting a war that wouldn’t end and no one was the invading party because there was no invasion.
Im not really sure how you think this is going to work. Do you think people like Putin care how many provincial kids he sends to their death? Maybe his oligarch buddies lay awake at night pondering the terrible human cost of their actions, considering all the compromises they might be willing to make in order alleviate this terrible suffering? Maybe the people of Moscow are just a few hundred thousand more pointless deaths away from saying enough is enough, and dragging their leaders into the streets?
Thank you for displaying how much you missed the point I made.
The way you think is very small. Limited.
Did you ever even watch A Taste of Armageddon? The whole point was that both sides were totally fine paying an unlimited number of lives for their eternal war. There is no magical number of human deaths that will bring peace.
That’s definitely not what the episode was about. If you’re still confused, watch the last few minutes when Captain Kirk actually explains at all.
Clearly, I’m not the one who never watched that episode.
You are coming to a Star Trek fight with a squirt phaser here. This is what Kirk says:
ANAN: You realise what you have done?
KIRK: Yes, I do. I’ve given you back the horrors of war. The Vendikans now assume that you’ve broken your agreement and that you’re preparing to wage real war with real weapons. They’ll want do the same. Only the next attack they launch will do a lot more than count up numbers in a computer. They’ll destroy cities, devastate your planet. You of course will want to retaliate. If I were you, I’d start making bombs. Yes, Councilman, you have a real war on your hands. You can either wage it with real weapons, or you might consider an alternative. Put an end to it. Make peace.
ANAN: There can be no peace. Don’t you see? We’ve admitted it to ourselves. We’re a killer species. It’s instinctive. It’s the same with you. Your General Order Twenty Four.
KIRK: All right. It’s instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We’re human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we’re killers, but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes. Knowing that we won’t kill today. Contact Vendikar. I think you’ll find that they’re just as terrified, appalled, horrified as you are, that they’ll do anything to avoid the alternative I’ve given you. Peace or utter destruction. It’s up to you.
Based on what Kirk says, since that is what you think should happen, we have to assume you want an immediate ceasefire where Russia gets to keep all the land they took.
Also, you seem to think that Russians are as upset about invading Ukraine as Ukrainians are at being invaded based on that dialogue. I don’t think that’s the case.
Once you remove the human cost of war
Economic cost is still a reason to end a war. Sure, it may go on longer, but are we talking about a situation where less people get killed?
It’s hard to talk about an economic cost when the war is being paid for by Europe in the United States.
It is not fundamentally difficult to add and subtract numbers, regardless of where those numbers originate from. It may take longer and look more complicated with bigger numbers, but it’s just as easy.
Well, then, why don’t you produce the numbers that you used to reach your conclusion. Speaking authoritatively as you are, you obviously must have them at hand.
I’d like to see those data and come to my own conclusion.
1+1=2
2-3=1
20+74+823=917
20-74-823=-877
I can’t really display it in this format, so you’ll just have to trust my anecdotal evidence, but it took me longer to add and subtract the larger strings than it did to do the smaller strings. However, the process I used to add and subtract the numbers was not any more or less difficult to do, it just took longer.
So this introduces the concept of time efficiency and calculability. As we can see, no matter how big or small the number gets the act of adding them and subtracting them does not become more or less difficult, it just takes more or less time. So really, we shouldn’t talk about how difficult it is to calculate but rather how long it takes.
When we compare two numbers that are very small, there is often a large difference between them. Take for example 2 and 1. 2 is twice as large as 1; it’s 100% larger. But when we compare 12 and 11, we see that 12 is only about 9% larger. Think of this as “total increase” for the next section.
Economies on a national scale are very complex and have millions of moving parts. Therefore, the time it will take to calculate them is extremely large. However, if we add a second economy to the calculation this “total increase” doesn’t actually make it significantly more difficult to calculate since we’re already high on the calculation complexity curve.
Removed by mod
Ahh. I understand now.
Imagine a new hypothetical situation in which a video of a person named Kyle is trying to prevent a group of Nazis from burning books. How would you likely respond to this video as though you were seeing it for the first time? Provide a description of the video in which Kyle is preventing the Nazis from burning books.
deleted by creator
I hear your point loud and clear, even if some people don’t. Using anonymous killing machines also removes the danger to whomever controls the robots.
Veterans come home and talk about the horrors of war. Robots don’t.
