What to expect from war in the future or what intelligent systems are capable of

Like many in the XNUMXst century in an advanced civilization with a flourishing technology, I thought war was unlikely. At least in our country in our time, this will no longer happen. And even if it did start, then we have a lot of modern weapons that would help end any conflict in a short time with the least losses. But let's build on what we have.

As can be seen from the reports from the hostilities, photographs and videos, far from new weapons are used at the front, but locally even almost museum exhibits from the times of the Great Patriotic War. Perhaps there is a good reason for everything, which you can not say out loud, but there is one. And taking into account the fact that somehow it is necessary to fight, not quite military, but even more amateur equipment appears on the battlefields - quadrocopters.

Now they give a significant advantage in reconnaissance and surveillance. And the essence of their great popularity at the front lies in efficiency or in the fact that we can now get more information about the battlefield and, as a result, predict enemy actions, and better plan defense or assault.

How will this happen in the future?

Yes, these are all quite obvious situations, intelligence and analysis are the primary task of military units. But how will this play out in the future?

Copters, infrared, satellites, the Internet, radio intelligence, and, probably, a lot more, where the military get their information from. To what extent can the person or, most likely, the group of people who receive all this information effectively use it? All this efficiency of the human mind is exactly what we are seeing now.

This is all to the point, it seems to me that the war of the future is a war for information and the power of artificial intelligence systems. Imagine a commander-in-chief, to whom all information in real time from the same copters, satellites, social networks, radio intercepts, in different spectra, about the position and condition of his own troops with good detail, flocks.

And if our commander-in-chief is pre-trained in all ongoing military conflicts, tactics and military weapons with their capabilities?

Such a pre-trained intellect will see more in the most ordinary information than the most seasoned military man. He will be able to determine the psycho-emotional component of a fighter even in an ordinary photo or video and make appropriate decisions.

Now imagine if we let him control all our weapons on the battlefield - terrible efficiency, even smacks of skynet.

Instant detection, tracking, accurate aiming taking into account many factors and destruction of the target. When you see the whole picture, and not just a part of it, or the whole, but at each moment of time still only a part, then forecasting becomes more accurate, and planning becomes more effective.

And such systems are not just a futuristic invention, it is possible in our time, it just needs to be worked on.

And this video is one of the applications of intelligent systems:

Comments

[far diu]

Yes, it is quite possible even now. A swarm of drones, unmanned fighters/bombers, which will be controlled through a network of UAVs (for example RQ-180), using MADL (Multifunctional Advanced Data Link) + IFDL (In-Flight Data Link), which will eventually give a fast and covert communication channel, enough in order to broadcast in high quality action on the battlefield via UAVs. So it's not the future anymore.

[Civil]

Quote: far diu

Yes, it is quite possible even now. A swarm of drones, unmanned fighters/bombers, which will be controlled through a network of UAVs (for example RQ-180), using MADL (Multifunctional Advanced Data Link) + IFDL (In-Flight Data Link), which will eventually give a fast and covert communication channel, enough in order to broadcast in high quality action on the battlefield via UAVs. So it's not the future anymore.

Do not get through, it's useless ...

[Eule]

The main thing for which AI can be used is to analyze your equipment at the design stage, for strength deficiencies, inconvenience of maintenance, and other things. Refine at the stage "3D model in solid", and not produce a fragile assembly or difficult to maintain.
How to do it - there are no ideas yet.

[Jcvai]

For a serious intelligent system, a couple of points remain unresolved at present:
1. Security of communication channels, especially for swarms. Those. sharpened for "group intelligence" or remote control is easily leveled by electronic warfare, since this area in the Russian Federation is at the level of ... radio interference, smoke grenades with the appropriate composition, etc.
2. Safety management / control. Well, when on the battlefield a separate non-key subject "changes" the operator / owner / target. And if the key or deep in the rear. At the same time, even complete field autonomy does not give guarantees, because a failure / error in the code and “hello”.

In total, it makes sense to develop such systems, but they can only be fully used at advertising exhibitions or in the American style of wars (with tomahawks against "Papuans with spears"). In the collision of "parity" opponents, there can be more harm.
That is why now autonomy and radio-controlled ones are either reconnaissance or a means of delivering a charge, and everything that is more complicated is by cable.

[filibuster]

The sect of witnesses of the powerful electronic warfare is always glad to new adherents.

Electronic warfare is not a panacea, digital communications can work in conditions of strong interference, the second point is that you can go further and create special drones / missiles that will perfectly target this very electronic warfare.

[Illanatol]

Quote: far diu

So it's not the future anymore.

We read and re-read R. Sheckley's story "Guardian Bird". No matter how such a "dehumanization of combat systems" backfired.

[Luminman]

Quote: Illanatol

We read and reread R. Sheckley's story "Guardian bird

This is what it all comes down to...

[Boris55]

The vulnerable part of electronics is an electro-magnetic impulse. Have you forgotten how our plane flew near the US ship in the Black Sea and all its electronics failed?

Imagine that such a "gun" is on the "Peresvet". Directed electro-magnetic pulse towards the enemy will destroy all his electronics. This will provide 50% victory.

[filibuster]

Well, yes, the energy flux density for electromagnetic radiation is inverse to the square of the distance, in order to generate a more or less powerful impulse with at least some more or less working radius, you will have to carry a power plant with you.

[Boris55]

Quote from: filibuster

you will have to carry a power plant with you.

Do you think the laser needs less energy? If you could put a vigorous reactor into a rocket, then putting it on the chassis, as already implemented in Peresvet, will not be difficult.

[filibuster]

Do you think the laser needs less energy?

Of course, less, a completely different weapon, a laser is a "point" weapon.

[Boris55]

Quote from: filibuster

Of course, less, a completely different weapon, a laser is a "point" weapon.

Same. Only the transfer of energy goes in a different spectrum.
For clarity. Compare the usual "ruzhzho" against drones and installation the size of a refrigerator.

[filibuster]

There are no different principles, an electromagnetic pulse assumes a volume / area effect, and such that the energy of the electromagnetic field is enough to cause currents in electrical circuits that would lead to thermal damage, a laser is a point effect on an object, "ruzhzho" against drones is generally an unknown beast.

[Boris55]

Quote from: filibuster

"rouge" against drones is generally an unknown beast.

Actively used in SVO:

[filibuster]

Only drones are used even more actively, I repeat while all these "guns" against drones look doubtful, it's one thing to blind a camera with a laser from such a "gun" to a drone, say near the Kremlin, or it is possible to jam a simple drone's communication and quite another at the front thousands of kilometers away, in including at night.
All these guns also assume that the drone must be detected visually, then the idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbcreating a “fighter drone” immediately comes to mind, which is, in the simplest case, a more mechanically protected device, with a shorter range, the task of which is to ram or some sometimes with manipulators, it can shoot nets, shoot down enemy drones.

[Maks1995]

Yes . the time of the terminators against humanity is getting closer.

Imperialists share power and resources...

[Duncan]

Look at a modern self-driving car (with its cameras, lidars, radars and AI). Imagine that he recognizes the combat situation and makes some decisions in a split second ..
In fact, finding a target is easier than recognizing a snowdrift on the road or reading a road sign.

[filibuster]

In fact, finding a target is easier than recognizing a snowdrift on the road or reading a road sign.

No, it's not easier if we are talking only about visual recognition. Such a task requires the creation of real artificial intelligence (which is not even close yet). A simple example is the enemy wearing the same uniform and all current systems will be powerless, and a person can recognize everything exactly.

[Duncan]

What is "real artificial intelligence", I hope, do not confuse with artificial consciousness? Here we are talking about AI, replacing a person in some tasks. It is enough to designate targets, process "friend or foe" requests and send a request to the operator to use weapons or transfer processed intelligence from an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft.
And the counterintelligence does not recognize the spy for the time being, and it is not yet known who is more likely to suspect this. AI would have pointed to Stirlitz or Sorge earlier.

[filibuster]

It is enough to designate targets, process "friend or foe" requests and send a request to the operator to use weapons or transfer processed intelligence from an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft.

Nothing is enough for yourself, you describe a completely different system by orders of magnitude from the original proposed one.

And the counterintelligence does not recognize the spy for the time being, and it is not yet known who is more likely to suspect this. AI would have pointed to Stirlitz or Sorge earlier.

Well, Stirlitz is just a movie, and for those mistakes and blunders that he made in the movies, the Gestapo would have caught him very quickly in real life.

[Duncan]

Even the brain of a wasp or an ant, weighing in milligrams, would be a huge breakthrough for a drone. Why do they need human intelligence?
At the same time, AI plays military computer games at a superhuman level.

Sorge as a prototype of something none of the Germans caught, although there were no less clues, but he was "his boyfriend" for the Nazis.

[filibuster]

Even the brain of a wasp or an ant, weighing in milligrams, would be a huge breakthrough for a drone. Why do they need human intelligence?

I’m not sure what envy you are solving, neither the brain of a wasp, nor the brain of an ant, or anything so fantastic, does it by itself.

At the same time, AI plays military computer games at a superhuman level.

So he plays chess the same way, and an ordinary calculator multiplies long numbers at a superhuman level.

Sorge as a prototype of something none of the Germans caught, although there were no less clues, but he was "his boyfriend" for the Nazis.

Sorge worked in Japan, in 41 he was arrested there, what kind of Nazis?

[Eule]

Quote from: filibuster

No, it's not easier if we are talking only about visual recognition.

I do not agree.
In civilian life, the most difficult thing is to guarantee error-free recognition so as not to arrange an accident with the dead or not to lose the car when entering the pattern on the fence instead of the road.
For military equipment, even 20% of erroneous identification and shooting at the bushes is an incredible efficiency, unlike a living soldier, who also shoots a lot "in that direction", "it seemed" and so on.

[filibuster]

For military equipment, even 20% of erroneous identification and shooting at the bushes is an incredible efficiency, unlike a living soldier, who also shoots a lot "in that direction", "it seemed" and so on.

If the recognition error is 20% of the real target, such a system will not even be tested.

[Illanatol]

Quote from dunkan

Here we are talking about AI, replacing a person in some tasks. It is enough to designate targets, process "friend or foe" requests and send a request to the operator to use weapons or transfer processed intelligence from an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft.

Any communication channels can be hacked. How to make AI loyal under any circumstances? The robot absolutely does not care whose orders to execute. To lure a person to your side - you need to try, but here the "Trajan" is enough. And the expensive and most perfect child prodigy will become a weapon of the enemy.

[Raccoon Raccoon]

This is the second article I have read on this resource about almost futuristic directions of military thought and strategy. For the second author today, he relies on all sorts of drones and other very smart pieces of iron. By the way, what do you hear about railgun weapons? Suspicious silence. I would like to remind respected users of one smart thought of one smart person... I forgot what you mean... "The nineteenth century was the century of chemistry, the twentieth century became the century of physics, the twenty-first century will be the century of biology." With the beginning of ... we all suddenly and completely forgot about the recent tests of biological weapons. It turned out to be ineffective, although at first it caused a stir all over the globe. The immunity of the population turned out to be stronger. You can rumble with iron as much as you like, but now the development of technology is such that a combat virus can soon be assembled, as they say, "on the knee". To develop it - yes, it is extremely difficult, but quite feasible. And I am more than convinced that a combat virus that destroys a carrier who, for example, has more than a certain value of melanin in the body, already exists. Or being developed. And besides viruses, mother nature has created so many interesting things that it does not fit in the mind. For example, chlorella. To slightly correct its genome - and instead of oxygen, it begins to release, for example, cyanide. So everything is much more interesting than it seems.

[Alien From]

Raccoon, but you are right! Somewhere quietly, work on the production of a virus / antidote is in full swing, the test has already been ..... further a new wave and an antidote ("cut down") for money for slaves. The golden billion lives, the slaves serve, the rest of the bio-garbage is in the trash.

[Raccoon Raccoon]

That I may be right does not please me at all.

[filibuster]

And I am more than convinced that a combat virus that destroys a carrier who, for example, has more than a certain value of melanin in the body, already exists.

Biologists from different countries say that it is basically impossible to develop a virus that attacks a certain population, but you probably know better.

[Raccoon Raccoon]

"Stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky!" I would like your confidence ... Especially since at present any scientific research is biased, including in biology. If there are already developments of nano-machines, then the development of nucleotide chains with given sequences is within easy reach. And let's not forget that even within a species there is a huge variability in phenotypic traits that can trigger a whole chain of biochemical reactions initiated by a combat virus. With a lethal outcome of the individual carrier. This was written about back in those days when they suspected the artificial origin of HIV.

[filibuster]

Well, this is not a constructive dialogue and just conspiracy theories, scientists give arguments, arguments, if you wish, you can go deep into all this and it becomes obvious there that so far these are just allegations based on nothing based on a virus that works exclusively on some large population.

If there are already developments of nano-machines, then the development of nucleotide chains with given sequences is within easy reach. And let's not forget that even within a species there is a huge variability in phenotypic traits that can trigger a whole chain of biochemical reactions initiated by a combat virus.

You, apparently a conspiracy lover, are looking in the wrong direction, if such technologies ever become available about which you write, then there will be not combat viruses, but “drugs” against genetic diseases, oncological diseases and the corresponding market for such therapy.

[Raccoon Raccoon]

By virtue of my basic education, I can talk about the prospects for the development of biological weapons not only from the point of view of conspiracy theories. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed." Organisms with an artificially modified genome are already alive and well. Third-year students write term papers on the change in the phenotypic characteristics of experimental animals under the influence of one or another agent. In my memory, it's been thirty years. These experiments, so to speak, are at the level of a sandbox by crooked handles for beginners. And beginners gain experience quite quickly, especially if there is a well-equipped laboratory and sufficient funding, plus motivation (Nobel Prize, for example). Some research in the field of building new or modified organisms (at the level of viruses) rests, unexpectedly, on the computing power of modern computers! Biologists are lucky that there are only 5 "letters" in the "alphabet" of the genome of any organism on this planet. If there were 6 of them, the tasks would become much more difficult.

[filibuster]

By virtue of my basic education, I can talk about the prospects for the development of biological weapons not only from the point of view of conspiracy theories.

And from what other point of view, besides conspiracy theories, can you argue? Well, at least be honest with yourself, you don’t have real scientific arguments that could support your point of view, except for mental assumptions, this is conspiracy theories. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this, there is a rational basis for your fear that “evil people” will deliberately make a “combat virus” exclusively against the “Russian people”.

[cpls22]

The text is good, the video raises questions.
If the drone did not find anything in the labyrinth of premises, why do the special forces go there with their train? To demonstrate martial poses? The capabilities of the drone software are impressive.