@@chadcuckproducer1037 Nah, there are plenty of examples of war where one side 'didn't lose', but honestly probably wished it had been that simple. You DEFINITELY want to win.
@@colinsmith1495 Win may not always be good either depending on what exactly is your connection to the war. For example, a major financial service provider might lose a stable and lucrative stream of contracts if their host nation wins and ends the war. I'd generalize the idiom further as 'Achieve beneficial end results". Conversely, a major financial actor in a smaller nation might wish for their host nation to lose the war and be annexed to the other nation so that their market access increases.
Sure? Also: win before the fighting starts. Nobody wants a massacre like WWII Eastern Front, WWI Western Front or virtually any war which took place in China, win or lose.
@@Joshua_N-A There are some food that can be excellent to feed armies. The potato is such a food. Locally here in Sweden swedish pea soup is a classical military meal made from dried yellow peas and pieces of pork.
@@michaelpettersson4919 there has to be a balance between realism and what's fun because the more realistic a strategy videogame is, the less fun it is. Supreme Commander tried to be super realistic and it was joked that you need a degree in math/economics to play it. The developers then give in and made the sequel to be less demanding on the resource management.
1995 pinged between servers in antipodes - round trip latency was ~300 milliseconds. That would mess you up if you had to align a gunsight without help from the drone.
@@richardgreen7225 Absolutely. Might be fast enough for target selection and decision making, but trying to take dexterity control of the drone for things like aiming and evasive movement would be subject to game-like signal lag.
it would be silly to have a human doing the aiming. the human will just make decisions like where the craft should fly and whether or not to engage the target and by what means. the actual mechanics will be handled by the onboard AI (e.g. flight controls, weapon locks, etc)
The fuck you grama or som'g? You tryna sneak ich in on me pal?! I'm certain that I was high on drugs that day I made this comment. And I am not being sarcastic like wow, my ass was so high all the fucking time look at that! I couldn't spell for shit, anyway just thought my comment was goofy wanted to clear it up.
11:22 Isn't there something in The Art of War about winning without battle by outmaneuvering the enemy so that he goes and does what you want him to do?
One of Neal Stephenson's books has a pretty compelling look at infantry warfare. The most common type of projectile is a small drone that can crawl around a person looking for a weak point to provide chemicals or electrical stimulation to encourage the target to remain still. Soldiers don't wear much armor, instead they have a couple dozen hand-sized spider drones crawling all over them, scanning for nearby threats and ready to move and disable any other drone that comes nearby.
I have studied war for my entire life and two technologically equal opponents going at it is the exception rather than the rule. Most wars are asymmetrical and involve a superior force slaughtering mostly civilians and poorly armed rebels. With robots this will be even more pronounced. Tactics, morale and organization are far more important than technology. As almost all tech is powered by electricity it would be an advantage to the weaker part to pull the plug and the grid is very vulnerable. The strategy they seem to be aiming at is stopping recruitment of fighters through control, surveillance and tracking of the population. By controlling and tracking everyone you can stop an organized resistance before it even starts. So cutting the power will in any case be the main counter move. Hitting vital war production and supply chains would be a main target for any resistance.
@@jb76489 Disambiguation: Did you mean World War 2, Korean War, Vietnam, Op. Iraqi Freedom (that's Gulf War 2: Electric Boogaloo), or Various ops in Afganistan, Syria, and similar locales?
This episode made for great brain food while washing dishes and having desert afterward. Its staggering how much warfare will and will not change in ways most Sci-Fi writers and enthusiasts don't think about. Never thinking the implications of everything through or ignoring them for story purposes (more understandable). But its annoying how little people barely begin to comprehend how complex network centric warfare of the future will be. Especially as Artificial Intelligence makes itself felt and even more complex technologies are employed. Instead they create their views and opinions almost entirely from pop-culture, with all the misconceptions that engenders. From the tactical level to the grand strategic levels, warfare in the next 100 years will be both different and familiar. A fantastic and informative video Isaac and team.
@@davidegaruti2582 Then there would still be civil wars and possibly wars against other intelligent species, if we ever find them. It would reduce them but not stop them.
@@DrRitterstein well mine was more of a point at how we could reduce the amount of wars i don't think humans or any other species for that matter are inerently destructive towards other member of their species , there have to be bigger dynamics at play , Namely states ...
Humans are motivated purely by perceived self-interest. Cooperation is advantageous to the individual most of the time so that is by in large our default. However, That isn't always the case;if the reward is great enough, or the alternatives unpleasant enough, violence becomes an option. Any large enough division between two groups of people, even if they share the same political structure, and one side is going to want to kill the other. That split can be cultural, religious, political, ethnic. Anything. The Riots after a damn *ball game* have been bad enough at times to look like the aftermath of a small skirmish. There doesn't need to be any "Dynamic' larger than "I don't like X people's skin color/language/culture/Religion/anything else we've killed each other over," and barring all of that, "If I kill you, I can have your stuff". A singular government isn't going to staunch that in the slightest. Humans are Sapient, and most of us have empathy. But despite that, we still have theft, murder, sexual assault... War isn't any different, sans it's scale. I'd say the opposite is true, a singular political entity would make wars much more common, even if they're not called such (Terrorism/Civil Unrest) as it cannot structure itself in a way that makes everyone on this vast planet happy. The USA can't even manage it and we're far smaller then the whole world. The UN is the closest thing we have to a single-world-government and the only arm of it that works is the humanitarian side. The peacekeeping side is a horror show.
My take has always been: common sense is like the Holy Roman Empire - it’s neither common nor sensible. People invoke it when they are too lazy to intellectually defend their ill-thought out ideas. Therefore what they claim is common is based on their own peculiar lazy generalisations.
That rule is basically applicable to every facet of life. Common sense differs from person to person. That's why its so uncommon to find someone with the same common sense as you.
Common sense is just a group of people agreeing that there's no reason to question anything; common sense is believing that living in caves is good enough. Common sense loses wars.
Good video. Only thing missing is the battlefield of the next century: there is a lot of emphasis now on being able to fight underground, including in underground cities. Especially since it is difficult to get your drone swarms into an underground restricted space, while the surface becomes one big dead zone.
my rock. no my rock. My rock not yours. i have it now and i keep. but its mine so i take. this is the story of how the first war started a dispute over mashing rock rights, it eventually led to the brutal massacre of 50% of the human race with unknowable casualties in the tens of tens.
I would like an episode about the logistics of a war between two nations who have robot armies: who are they attacking, who gives the orders, are the machines programmed to kill humans on both sides?
@Dan Nguyen Most people can't type a 1 page document without making spelling or grammatical errors, a printer can print a whole encyclopedia without a single mistake. When this efficiency is reached in robotic coordination, robotic soldiers would make the Terminator look silly, thus you are not aggregating anything by also bringing along humans except war casualties...
@Dan Nguyen I think it all depends on the ultimate goal of either nation in this scenario. Is it merely raw resources theyre after? Seems silly to fight a robotic war over resources, when so much is available in space to a technologically advanced society. Seems more likely that if a planetary civilization was in a war, robotic or not, it would have social origins, and those types of wars are historically fought to eradicate the other side. The purpose of the robots, would then be to reduce risk to aggressors while maintaining maximum efficiency, and would most likely manifest as defensive and offensive robotics strategically placed. Offensive robots would very likely be programmed to killed both humans and robots, while defensive units would likely only target specific threats per their programming, be it human threat or otherwise.
@Dan Nguyen lol yeah, that is the type of dilemma and conversation I think the video should have... It has a lot of catch 22 scenarios and contradictions and reversals. Good thinking.
@Dan Nguyen yeah, i agree. depending on strategic necessity, it would probably have a dynamic targeting system, controlled by AI of some fashion, impartial and unlikely to have errors. its all depends on the level of technology honestly, as this is all hypothetical and we have no real postulates on what this ficticious world is capable of.
Your channel is the most expensive channel I've found on future technology and civilizations. I don't know how you do it, but it's amazing. The way you curate your playlists is so perfect too.
Seems like emp style attacks even at best on civilian units if not some military systems would be quite effective. Imagine the drain on a society that might go months without electricity and grinding an economy to a halt.
@@jb76489 that might be true but it isn’t currently. It doesn’t mean emp in future can’t handle that. Then you have tactics like israel rumored to have done shower substations tiny pieces of metal which is also very effective. I just think you can make a big impact without civilian deaths by impacting enemy power systems
I thought getting involved in a land war in Asia was the third Great Mistake? Been a while since I watched the princess bride. Great film. “I’m not a witch I’m your wife!”
One thing almost never mentioned when talking about the potential future uses for AI is the counter use of tech like adverserial images. With a drone or some such device depended on neural networks to identify objects but the enemy utilized adverserial images. The side using the drones would need to implement neural networks more robust to attack, but likely won't be as efficient. This would lead to an arms race over who can deploy AI that is robust to these types of attacks while at the same time using these types of attacks on their enemies. During all this back and forth, machines that are solely reliant on AI are likely to 'malfunction' in spectacular ways, which may reduce the confidence in them. I am interested to see how this playes out.
13:35 This reminds me of some of the later books in Ian Douglas's Heritage/Legacy/Inheritance trilogy of trilogies, where the power armors are surrounded by swarms of drones called a Nano-D cloud,. If you get caught out on that battlefield without your own swarm, you get disassembled into a pile of goop.
Speaking as both a veteran and as a Quaker, I would have liked it if this episode had featured a little more of ways that advancing technology might allow us to prevent war. You did include a few which I found quite intriguing - some I would consider well suited for a story by Harry Harrison or Mack Reynolds - but more would have been welcome. There could easily be an entire separate episode on the subject: how to use new technology to avoid war.
Years ago while designing radio controlled drone fighters for an RPG I was running I solved the jamming issue by giving them limited AI (networked swarming wasn't an idea at the time, and even the idea of drones was pretty cutting edge IRL) and a kamikaze protocol for when all else failed.
21:20 well, if you hit in opposite directions there's a good chance most of both will slwo down and fall down also, smal ldebree in very low earth orbit tends to decay quickly
"The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower. But war never changes."
I think hacking would play a big role in future warfare. Cyber attacks can cripple a country like we seen with not petya or disrupt a target's manufacturing capabilities, even when the servers are Air gapped like we seen with Stuxnet.
Drone communications might end up resembling cell phone communications not only as a disguise but because cell phone networks are a pretty good model for a swarm of devices that want to maintain low-powered communication with a central control point. Having a number of redundant relays means the power each drone needs to use to maintain the link is less, so each drone has more endurance and is harder to target individually while the relays are harder to eliminate because they are redundant. If all the relays covering an area are out of action, the drones in that area can fall back to a mesh network at the expense of having greatly restricted bandwidth in that area.
"Rifle, pistol, and machine gun technology has changed so little in thee last century that many weapon designs from back then are still in use, even the weapons themselves." Cut to clips of the M2. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched Browning M2 tracers glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain For some reason Roy popped into my head after I remembered my M2 that had seen action in Vietnam, Grenada, and Desert Storm mounted on one of the first CROWS in Iraq. And I'm sure some kid half my age is still using that same machine gun now.
I have a question: Would it be more efficient to use Drone Swarm as a Pseudo forcefield or just a lot of Point Defence systems, which one would be more cost effective or rather useful in a realistic sense. Since a wall of Bullets from an Point Defence is also in a sense a Force Field of its own.
21:30 "the first rule of warfare is to avoid making enemies out of friends" 23:30 "the first rule of warfare -- the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it" Actually, the first rule of warfare is to confuse everyone about the first rule of warfare.
There is an article in the Future fandom thing known as "Scenario: The expanse" and it took alot of stuff from this channel, i wonder if in anyway it belongs to you
Maybe we should invest in defence as opposed to offence. It does state Defence after all right? Like create indestructable forcefields as opposed to destructive forces
@11:11 - even something as seemingly harmless as chess for example is still an extremely stylized representation of a real conflict. Not that I object to chess or any other sport because of it. And there was a remark about nano tech which immediately reminded me of the Borg. Again, I don't object to it, but the Borg are a good fictional example of what *could* go wrong.
I recently got into college, I'm 15 and it was a godawful amount of work but I wanted to do positive change in the world through engineering, to secure a future for humans in space. Your videos really inspired me to care about the future, to see a future where humanity can be a multi planet species, and that right now its so very important to do that work of getting us into space. So thank you for making such amazing content for us all to enjoy, and giving me the motivation to do the hard work now so that I can be a part of the next century of space innovation and colonization.
Hello! I’m a 20 year old horticulture student passionate about cosmic cultivation, colonization, and industrial hemp and horticulture innovation! Founded on 4/20/2020, The Initiative for Martian Hemp Industrialization (I.M.H.I.) exists to advocate the research, cultivation, and utilization of Cannabis sativa (hemp) and the hypothetical subspecies Cannabis cosmicus in space exploration to sustainably and independently produce tens of thousands of resources across industries on Mars and its moons as the foundation for a self-sustaining Martian society. If hemp’s versatility is utilized in cosmic colonization efforts, a subsequent renaissance of industrial horticulture and hemp innovation will maximize yields and prosperity in civilizations on Earth, Mars, between, and beyond. If you’d like to learn more about utilizing cosmic factors to maximize yields, the Initiative for Manned Venusian Atmospheric Residency Research and Innovation of Hemp Industries (I.M.V.A.R.R.I.H.I.), a theoretical subspecies of cannabis (hemp) known as Cannabis cosmicus, or the Initiative for Martian Hemp Industrialization (I.M.H.I.) in general, check it out on my site! www.imhi.space the key reasons why we need to grow hemp on Mars is the quality, quantity, viability, and versatility of terrestrial cannabis sativa (hemp) biomass yields, and the singularity of potential Cannabis cosmicus has for Martian and cosmic colonization efforts alike.
A simple graffiti satellite that can float by and spray paint all of your satellite's sensors and cameras can be very cheap and effective, and are rumored to be orbiting now. Don't know how you apply spray paint in space... orbital tagging? Banksy in Space?
What is the old saying? 'Generals always fight the last war'. I think if there is a major new conventional war in the future we will see a lot of WW2 vintage thinking fall apart in the face of newer technologies. Aircraft carrier enthusiasts seem exactly like the Battleship enthusiasts of the 1930s ignoring the increasing vulnerability of these ships to ever improving anti-ship and land based hypersonic missiles. Same deal with manned aircraft, autonomous aircraft are going to fly rings around them and the downward cost trend of drone production means that even manned close support aircraft will be usurped very quickly by massed drone strikes. There is also an underestimation of just how deadly and accurate artillery technology has become in the last 40 years among the superpowers. That is going to be a very nasty surprise to advancing soldiers on the battlefield. There are also questions about the utility of helicopters and their survivability on a modern peer to peer battlefield and the effects (if any) of cyberwarfare on the home-fronts.
There were times in which one side's weapon was just a bit older (ME-109) then the more advanced (Spitfire). The destroyer/submarine right foot, left foot march to advancement.
21:31 - the first rule of warfare is to avoid making enemies out of friends. 23:32 - often the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for it. that is the first rule of warfare after all. *scratches head*
Fun video, but fourth and fifth-generation warfare tactics (arguably an improvement since you don't necessarily kill people) will be employed heavily going forward.
I could actually imagine warfare decreasing in severity and frequency. Whilst we still have wars in the modern day, there are less and less of them, with most being civil conflicts. This appears to happen due to an increasing interdependence through trade, you can't attack the nation that grows your food, makes your computers, or manages your finances, especially if you can get their stuff for less by trading for it. Given increases in trade, direct conflict has become far less preferable an option, with indirect proxy conflicts, and the generous application of soft power becoming far more prevalent.
Developed nations are also moving to indirect virtual conflicts involving cyberspace, ideological and propaganda attacks instead of direct physical conflicts. As Isaac put it: "The first rule of warfare is make the enemies population support your own cause."
The Dyson Sphere Program is a video game on Stream that I thought fellow members of SFIA would likely enjoy. I have no relationship with the Devs, other than having purchased the game. I just wanted to spread some joy.
@Isaac Do you have suggestions for where to learn more about the quantum resistant cryptography? Is that an upcoming episode? Addendum: Now that we have several probes on Mars why don't we use laser targeting or similar to guide new drones down? Is it just that we want them very far apart? When we go to pickup Perseverance's samples would that be a viable tech to land close?
Indeed, and let us not forget that Skyward Sword HD (Nintendo Switch), and the PC Version of Ys IX, are both set to release in July of this year (2021). There's also loads of games in everypony's backlog, as well as loads more coming soon, that I didn't mention.
I cant predict the next century, but the next half hour will be spent here on another journey with SFIA. P.s. please let's hope it doesnt end up like warhammer 40k...
Would k3 just be civil wars? Tbh I feel that such long lived civs would probably avoid war. They have the heat death of the universe to worry about. Far more pressing. Prepare for total annihilation anyone who dares disrupt their focus on that.
Men has killed men from the beginning of time and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different? - Colonel Corazón Santiago, Planet: a survivalist guide.
I didn't know Issac was in the military and was on the frontlines. Any info on what Branch, War and Role? Asking cause I have many family members in the military or are veterans
The first rule of war is to only battle if you must. The point is that, if you're really skilled at running the state, then you'll not need go battling all the time. Becuase it costs so much to war; and even if you could afford to war all the time, there are far more effective & efficient ways to attain the needs of the state. Be it cooperative negotiation, trade or mutual give and take, or seduction. They're usually more useful, and less expensive, than war.
No matter how many other things change blades will always be cutting edge technology.
I'm gonna steal this!
Zing!
....... untill they come across something stronger!
this is about the only place where I could say that ;0)
I've never heard that before but it's brilliant
Sounds like something from _How It's Made_
I heard they are developing a second rule of warfare. What a terrifying thought
And perhaps *shudder* a third.
@Texas Rattlesnek third rule of warfare "its not a warcrime if there are no witnesses "
@Texas Rattlesnek fourth rule of warefare "they are no civilians just future combatents"
But the Second Rule will only be stated after the 495,617 First Rules have been determined.....
@Texas Rattlesnek sixth rule of warfare "violence isnt the the answer its the question and the answer is yes "
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't prepare well enough.
Yep, somebody definitely f'ed up...
😅
The first rule of war is, Never start a war without intending to and having a plan to win.
I may need to steal that one
@@isaacarthurSFIA
Stealing is wrong. Take it as a gift.
@@isaacarthurSFIA don't steal, take it in brutal warfare.
and to win the peace.
@@lasttarrasque6223
As the old saying goes; To the victor goes the spoils.
The first rule of war is win. This rule has a thousand sub-clauses though
I would say that it is actually "Don't lose."
@@chadcuckproducer1037 Nah, there are plenty of examples of war where one side 'didn't lose', but honestly probably wished it had been that simple. You DEFINITELY want to win.
@@colinsmith1495 Win may not always be good either depending on what exactly is your connection to the war. For example, a major financial service provider might lose a stable and lucrative stream of contracts if their host nation wins and ends the war. I'd generalize the idiom further as 'Achieve beneficial end results". Conversely, a major financial actor in a smaller nation might wish for their host nation to lose the war and be annexed to the other nation so that their market access increases.
@@Teknokraatti That fundamentally gets to your definition of 'win'. Notice I didn't say 'defeat the enemy'. But yes, it is a good point.
Sure? Also: win before the fighting starts. Nobody wants a massacre like WWII Eastern Front, WWI Western Front or virtually any war which took place in China, win or lose.
The first rule of war: Don’t neglect logistics. That tank division is just a collection of heavy gravestones without ammo, fuel, and maintenance.
Amateurs study strategy & tactics. Professionals study logistics.
The army march with its stomach. You need to feed the men and materials to keep them going.
@@Joshua_N-A There are some food that can be excellent to feed armies. The potato is such a food. Locally here in Sweden swedish pea soup is a classical military meal made from dried yellow peas and pieces of pork.
@@daddyd0c I rarely see logistics in strategy wargames.
@@michaelpettersson4919 there has to be a balance between realism and what's fun because the more realistic a strategy videogame is, the less fun it is. Supreme Commander tried to be super realistic and it was joked that you need a degree in math/economics to play it. The developers then give in and made the sequel to be less demanding on the resource management.
19:30 I can just imagine soldiers piloting drones complaining about lag just like a video game.
1995 pinged between servers in antipodes - round trip latency was ~300 milliseconds. That would mess you up if you had to align a gunsight without help from the drone.
@@richardgreen7225 Absolutely. Might be fast enough for target selection and decision making, but trying to take dexterity control of the drone for things like aiming and evasive movement would be subject to game-like signal lag.
it would be silly to have a human doing the aiming. the human will just make decisions like where the craft should fly and whether or not to engage the target and by what means. the actual mechanics will be handled by the onboard AI (e.g. flight controls, weapon locks, etc)
@@DevinDTV still, a lag can ruin an engagement if you don't give the right order at the right milisecond
The first rule of warfare is that commercial fusion is roughly 20 years off.
Said 20 years ago. LOL
The first rule of warfare: Eat something before you go out, you're so thin - and wear a scarf, it's cold out there.
The fuck you grama or som'g? You tryna sneak ich in on me pal?!
I'm certain that I was high on drugs that day I made this comment. And I am not being sarcastic like wow, my ass was so high all the fucking time look at that! I couldn't spell for shit, anyway just thought my comment was goofy wanted to clear it up.
In the grim darkness of the near future, there is only war.
Unfortunately I think that statement may turn out to be true
For the imperium of man.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
GLORY to the Imperium. Hell I will molest some poor civs in Stellarium right now.
Don’t forget the laughter of the thirsting gods
"...There will only waaarr!" Giggle giggle. Now we know how you think Arthur.
cyber war = vr smash brawl
Ummmm we're talking about 40k...
@@jason.larsenthedanishgreek1226 By the Emperor, you're right brother!
Is not only him...
Can you blame him he probably hasn't had pussy ever. He's a fighter not a lover.
Positivists philosophers: 0:03
WW1: I am about to end this men's whole careers
"optimist"
The war to end all wars
truly tragic. All the human men d!3d. At least the woman remained for who ever Human like were around.
those optimist should have be the same hustling as those who ruined it all. There is only war. This is possible. Especially when someone forces it.
That's not what positivism means. : |
Besides the 20th was the most peaceful century.
11:22 Isn't there something in The Art of War about winning without battle by outmaneuvering the enemy so that he goes and does what you want him to do?
Dropped a like for the warhammer reference! And the hard work obviously
One of Neal Stephenson's books has a pretty compelling look at infantry warfare. The most common type of projectile is a small drone that can crawl around a person looking for a weak point to provide chemicals or electrical stimulation to encourage the target to remain still. Soldiers don't wear much armor, instead they have a couple dozen hand-sized spider drones crawling all over them, scanning for nearby threats and ready to move and disable any other drone that comes nearby.
So we saw that armor wasn’t as practical as the rule of cool applied irl, so we just jump everyone with a bigger army of drones
I have studied war for my entire life and two technologically equal opponents going at it is the exception rather than the rule. Most wars are asymmetrical and involve a superior force slaughtering mostly civilians and poorly armed rebels. With robots this will be even more pronounced. Tactics, morale and organization are far more important than technology. As almost all tech is powered by electricity it would be an advantage to the weaker part to pull the plug and the grid is very vulnerable.
The strategy they seem to be aiming at is stopping recruitment of fighters through control, surveillance and tracking of the population. By controlling and tracking everyone you can stop an organized resistance before it even starts. So cutting the power will in any case be the main counter move. Hitting vital war production and supply chains would be a main target for any resistance.
I believe subversion is and will continue to be the most effective way to fight a war.
The CEO of Northrop-Grumman was an ActBlue donor, after all.
Last time I was this early archery was a cutting edge weapon.
lol
By the time I got here we had muskets.
now archery is just a cutting point weapon.
High poundage compound bows were being used in Sarajevo (i think it was) to shoot through sands bags
@@solanumtinkr8280
And people still get murdered with blunt objects it does not make it a cutting edge weapon.
Another amazing addition to the SFIA collection, Arthur! Thank you, again, for all the captivating videos you put out!
My pleasure!
So many times we've heard, "the first rule of of warfare is..."
Finally, the video I've been waiting for from Isaac!
9:50 Geneva Convention? More like Geneva _Suggestion_ .
LOL you’re right even the United States doesn’t follow those rules
@@masonman_2113 citation needed
@@jb76489 Disambiguation:
Did you mean World War 2, Korean War, Vietnam, Op. Iraqi Freedom (that's Gulf War 2: Electric Boogaloo), or Various ops in Afganistan, Syria, and similar locales?
@@aerfwefd7334 how about “which parts of the Geneva conventions, to which the US is a signing party, do they violate as part of their doctrine”
Non state actor and PMC: What the hell is that?
First Rule of Warfare: Subscribe and get some snacks.
Don't forget your drink!
This episode made for great brain food while washing dishes and having desert afterward.
Its staggering how much warfare will and will not change in ways most Sci-Fi writers and enthusiasts don't think about. Never thinking the implications of everything through or ignoring them for story purposes (more understandable). But its annoying how little people barely begin to comprehend how complex network centric warfare of the future will be. Especially as Artificial Intelligence makes itself felt and even more complex technologies are employed. Instead they create their views and opinions almost entirely from pop-culture, with all the misconceptions that engenders.
From the tactical level to the grand strategic levels, warfare in the next 100 years will be both different and familiar.
A fantastic and informative video Isaac and team.
I wonder how accurate E.E "Doc" Smith was with Lensman.
Oh great: Warhammer 40k Beta test. Still think we should go to a Beer Drinking Contest. Or better yet! MREs eating contest without puking. 😉
Dark age of technology incoming.
@@Okanehira Chaos is the only true answer.
@@Okanehira I know I will be worshipping our machine gods.
@@StevenKell I'm going to stick with the Interex, thanks.
@@Oliolli3 Interex best faction.
Always remember the first rule of warfare: likes always come first.
Commenting comes second.
Lol that has become his running joke
First rule of warfare: If a restaurant offers bacon as a sandwich topping, don't forget to order it.
Never in history has it been either all war or no war. I doubt it would ever be any different.
Well as long as there are two states one will want the other on his knees ...
But what if we had a human state ?
@@davidegaruti2582 Then there would still be civil wars and possibly wars against other intelligent species, if we ever find them. It would reduce them but not stop them.
All out wars are rare throught history
@@DrRitterstein well mine was more of a point at how we could reduce the amount of wars i don't think humans or any other species for that matter are inerently destructive towards other member of their species , there have to be bigger dynamics at play ,
Namely states ...
Humans are motivated purely by perceived self-interest. Cooperation is advantageous to the individual most of the time so that is by in large our default. However, That isn't always the case;if the reward is great enough, or the alternatives unpleasant enough, violence becomes an option. Any large enough division between two groups of people, even if they share the same political structure, and one side is going to want to kill the other. That split can be cultural, religious, political, ethnic. Anything. The Riots after a damn *ball game* have been bad enough at times to look like the aftermath of a small skirmish.
There doesn't need to be any "Dynamic' larger than "I don't like X people's skin color/language/culture/Religion/anything else we've killed each other over," and barring all of that, "If I kill you, I can have your stuff". A singular government isn't going to staunch that in the slightest. Humans are Sapient, and most of us have empathy. But despite that, we still have theft, murder, sexual assault... War isn't any different, sans it's scale.
I'd say the opposite is true, a singular political entity would make wars much more common, even if they're not called such (Terrorism/Civil Unrest) as it cannot structure itself in a way that makes everyone on this vast planet happy. The USA can't even manage it and we're far smaller then the whole world. The UN is the closest thing we have to a single-world-government and the only arm of it that works is the humanitarian side. The peacekeeping side is a horror show.
This first rule of war is sponsored by audible.
First rule of warfare: common sense isn't very common.
My take has always been: common sense is like the Holy Roman Empire - it’s neither common nor sensible. People invoke it when they are too lazy to intellectually defend their ill-thought out ideas. Therefore what they claim is common is based on their own peculiar lazy generalisations.
That's actually the first rule of life.
That rule is basically applicable to every facet of life. Common sense differs from person to person. That's why its so uncommon to find someone with the same common sense as you.
@@MrMuel1205 Thanks for the epiphany.
Common sense is just a group of people agreeing that there's no reason to question anything; common sense is believing that living in caves is good enough. Common sense loses wars.
Good video. Only thing missing is the battlefield of the next century: there is a lot of emphasis now on being able to fight underground, including in underground cities. Especially since it is difficult to get your drone swarms into an underground restricted space, while the surface becomes one big dead zone.
The 1st rule of warfare is that you must remember the 1st war of warfare
my rock.
no my rock.
My rock not yours.
i have it now and i keep.
but its mine so i take.
this is the story of how the first war started a dispute over mashing rock rights, it eventually led to the brutal massacre of 50% of the human race with unknowable casualties in the tens of tens.
That’s an endless loop.
The second rule of warfare is, YOU MUST REMEMBER THE FIRST RULE OF WARFARE.
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,''. Sun Tzu,,,The art of war,,
I am thinking about our current social ideological problems. The long term thinking of China. Yep. sounds about right.
Like 2021??
The media-industrial complex. More dangerous than selling arms.
@@Joshua_N-A Media falls under the industrial category.
7:42 First Rule of Warfare: Know where your enemy lives so you drop by "with a drink & a snack".
I would like an episode about the logistics of a war between two nations who have robot armies: who are they attacking, who gives the orders, are the machines programmed to kill humans on both sides?
sounds like an interesting topic for a novel
@Dan Nguyen Most people can't type a 1 page document without making spelling or grammatical errors, a printer can print a whole encyclopedia without a single mistake. When this efficiency is reached in robotic coordination, robotic soldiers would make the Terminator look silly, thus you are not aggregating anything by also bringing along humans except war casualties...
@Dan Nguyen I think it all depends on the ultimate goal of either nation in this scenario. Is it merely raw resources theyre after? Seems silly to fight a robotic war over resources, when so much is available in space to a technologically advanced society.
Seems more likely that if a planetary civilization was in a war, robotic or not, it would have social origins, and those types of wars are historically fought to eradicate the other side. The purpose of the robots, would then be to reduce risk to aggressors while maintaining maximum efficiency, and would most likely manifest as defensive and offensive robotics strategically placed. Offensive robots would very likely be programmed to killed both humans and robots, while defensive units would likely only target specific threats per their programming, be it human threat or otherwise.
@Dan Nguyen lol yeah, that is the type of dilemma and conversation I think the video should have... It has a lot of catch 22 scenarios and contradictions and reversals. Good thinking.
@Dan Nguyen yeah, i agree. depending on strategic necessity, it would probably have a dynamic targeting system, controlled by AI of some fashion, impartial and unlikely to have errors. its all depends on the level of technology honestly, as this is all hypothetical and we have no real postulates on what this ficticious world is capable of.
The opening of this is a drastically more sophisticated-looking CG... I dig it
Thank you for your service!
*So vis pacem, para bellum.*
Outstanding conclusion, Isaac.
Obligatory Edwin Starr lyrics:
"War! Huh! Yeah... What is it good for?"
Frankie Goes to Hollywood works as well
Increased profits in certain industries, distracting a populace, power grabs, and getting rid of political enemies.
Ideas for video game development.
Identifying heroes,
None of you can take a joke huh.
Your channel is the most expensive channel I've found on future technology and civilizations. I don't know how you do it, but it's amazing. The way you curate your playlists is so perfect too.
Seems like emp style attacks even at best on civilian units if not some military systems would be quite effective. Imagine the drain on a society that might go months without electricity and grinding an economy to a halt.
Almost as destructive as beer virus enforcement.
Electronics can be hardened against EMP. Hell, better circuit breakers would do it for most things
@@jb76489 That will not work
@@foty8679 citation needed
@@jb76489 that might be true but it isn’t currently. It doesn’t mean emp in future can’t handle that. Then you have tactics like israel rumored to have done shower substations tiny pieces of metal which is also very effective. I just think you can make a big impact without civilian deaths by impacting enemy power systems
"What will the next century of warfare look like?"
"Drones. Loooooots of Drones."
The first rule of warfare is that every rule of warfare is the first rule.
First rule of warfare: never get involved in a land war in Asia
Inconceivable
Notice how the idiots keep doing so too.
No, the first rule of war is never get into a war you don't have to win.
I thought getting involved in a land war in Asia was the third Great Mistake?
Been a while since I watched the princess bride. Great film.
“I’m not a witch I’m your wife!”
Historically, navies work better and I'm sure modern air doctrine wouldn't hurt
One thing almost never mentioned when talking about the potential future uses for AI is the counter use of tech like adverserial images.
With a drone or some such device depended on neural networks to identify objects but the enemy utilized adverserial images.
The side using the drones would need to implement neural networks more robust to attack, but likely won't be as efficient.
This would lead to an arms race over who can deploy AI that is robust to these types of attacks while at the same time using these types of attacks on their enemies.
During all this back and forth, machines that are solely reliant on AI are likely to 'malfunction' in spectacular ways, which may reduce the confidence in them.
I am interested to see how this playes out.
13:35 This reminds me of some of the later books in Ian Douglas's Heritage/Legacy/Inheritance trilogy of trilogies, where the power armors are surrounded by swarms of drones called a Nano-D cloud,. If you get caught out on that battlefield without your own swarm, you get disassembled into a pile of goop.
I still laugh at every 1st rule of warfare and the hurry up and wait analogies. Takes me back. Lol
Excellent episode SFIA team. Thanks
Nah but seriously im a huge fan, and you have been a massive influence on me these past two years. Keep up the great work
Being a cyborg, I do not eat or drink, so I brought my cable ties and selection of tiny screws.
Speaking as both a veteran and as a Quaker, I would have liked it if this episode had featured a little more of ways that advancing technology might allow us to prevent war. You did include a few which I found quite intriguing - some I would consider well suited for a story by Harry Harrison or Mack Reynolds - but more would have been welcome.
There could easily be an entire separate episode on the subject: how to use new technology to avoid war.
Years ago while designing radio controlled drone fighters for an RPG I was running I solved the jamming issue by giving them limited AI (networked swarming wasn't an idea at the time, and even the idea of drones was pretty cutting edge IRL) and a kamikaze protocol for when all else failed.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. For over two millennia and for long into the future.
21:20
well, if you hit in opposite directions there's a good chance most of both will slwo down and fall down
also, smal ldebree in very low earth orbit tends to decay quickly
In the grimmest and darkest of potential futures, there is only peace.
Peace by slavery.
@@adaeptzulander2928 I was thinking more along the lines of the peace that is heat death, but that also works.
Subjugation in the name of peace.
Good job as always I have seen tons of your content over the years.
"War, war never changes"
"The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth.
Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory.
Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.
But war never changes."
But the roads men walk do.
Israel never stops finding enemies for America to fight.
@@loneneotank.5687
Men/women do, through the roads they walk..
Yes! I’ve been looking forward to this one😁
I think hacking would play a big role in future warfare. Cyber attacks can cripple a country like we seen with not petya or disrupt a target's manufacturing capabilities, even when the servers are Air gapped like we seen with Stuxnet.
OwO, perfect timing, I was feeling depress so listening to a podcast about the grin darkness of the next century. I feel better now
Drone communications might end up resembling cell phone communications not only as a disguise but because cell phone networks are a pretty good model for a swarm of devices that want to maintain low-powered communication with a central control point. Having a number of redundant relays means the power each drone needs to use to maintain the link is less, so each drone has more endurance and is harder to target individually while the relays are harder to eliminate because they are redundant. If all the relays covering an area are out of action, the drones in that area can fall back to a mesh network at the expense of having greatly restricted bandwidth in that area.
You make a lot of good points.
Perfect timing for this to hit my feed...I had literally just sat down after grabbing a drink and a snack!
"Rifle, pistol, and machine gun technology has changed so little in thee last century that many weapon designs from back then are still in use, even the weapons themselves." Cut to clips of the M2.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched Browning M2 tracers glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain
For some reason Roy popped into my head after I remembered my M2 that had seen action in Vietnam, Grenada, and Desert Storm mounted on one of the first CROWS in Iraq. And I'm sure some kid half my age is still using that same machine gun now.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it, remember to give it a KISS too.
I have a question: Would it be more efficient to use Drone Swarm as a Pseudo forcefield or just a lot of Point Defence systems, which one would be more cost effective or rather useful in a realistic sense. Since a wall of Bullets from an Point Defence is also in a sense a Force Field of its own.
Extraordinary care needs to be exercised to distinguish common sense from wishful thinking.
21:30 "the first rule of warfare is to avoid making enemies out of friends"
23:30 "the first rule of warfare -- the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it"
Actually, the first rule of warfare is to confuse everyone about the first rule of warfare.
There is an article in the Future fandom thing known as "Scenario: The expanse" and it took alot of stuff from this channel, i wonder if in anyway it belongs to you
feel free to link this article
Maybe we should invest in defence as opposed to offence. It does state Defence after all right? Like create indestructable forcefields as opposed to destructive forces
The first rule of warfare:
WIN.
@11:11 - even something as seemingly harmless as chess for example is still an extremely stylized representation of a real conflict. Not that I object to chess or any other sport because of it. And there was a remark about nano tech which immediately reminded me of the Borg. Again, I don't object to it, but the Borg are a good fictional example of what *could* go wrong.
I'm not a pacifist. You shouldn't pull a predators teeth but I hope war becomes even lesser of an option in the future.
I recently got into college, I'm 15 and it was a godawful amount of work but I wanted to do positive change in the world through engineering, to secure a future for humans in space. Your videos really inspired me to care about the future, to see a future where humanity can be a multi planet species, and that right now its so very important to do that work of getting us into space. So thank you for making such amazing content for us all to enjoy, and giving me the motivation to do the hard work now so that I can be a part of the next century of space innovation and colonization.
Go for it mate, good luck!
Hello! I’m a 20 year old horticulture student passionate about cosmic cultivation, colonization, and industrial hemp and horticulture innovation!
Founded on 4/20/2020, The Initiative for Martian Hemp Industrialization (I.M.H.I.) exists to advocate the research, cultivation, and utilization of Cannabis sativa (hemp) and the hypothetical subspecies Cannabis cosmicus in space exploration to sustainably and independently produce tens of thousands of resources across industries on Mars and its moons as the foundation for a self-sustaining Martian society. If hemp’s versatility is utilized in cosmic colonization efforts, a subsequent renaissance of industrial horticulture and hemp innovation will maximize yields and prosperity in civilizations on Earth, Mars, between, and beyond.
If you’d like to learn more about utilizing cosmic factors to maximize yields, the Initiative for Manned Venusian Atmospheric Residency Research and Innovation of Hemp Industries (I.M.V.A.R.R.I.H.I.), a theoretical subspecies of cannabis (hemp) known as Cannabis cosmicus, or the Initiative for Martian Hemp Industrialization (I.M.H.I.) in general, check it out on my site! www.imhi.space
the key reasons why we need to grow hemp on Mars is the quality, quantity, viability, and versatility of terrestrial cannabis sativa (hemp) biomass yields, and the singularity of potential Cannabis cosmicus has for Martian and cosmic colonization efforts alike.
"those titles are yours to keep forever"
C'mon Isaac, you know that's just not true
A simple graffiti satellite that can float by and spray paint all of your satellite's sensors and cameras can be very cheap and effective, and are rumored to be orbiting now. Don't know how you apply spray paint in space... orbital tagging? Banksy in Space?
First rule of warfare: never pick on someone your own size.
Awesome video! I would've loved to hear about cyber warfare a bit more though
What is the old saying? 'Generals always fight the last war'. I think if there is a major new conventional war in the future we will see a lot of WW2 vintage thinking fall apart in the face of newer technologies. Aircraft carrier enthusiasts seem exactly like the Battleship enthusiasts of the 1930s ignoring the increasing vulnerability of these ships to ever improving anti-ship and land based hypersonic missiles. Same deal with manned aircraft, autonomous aircraft are going to fly rings around them and the downward cost trend of drone production means that even manned close support aircraft will be usurped very quickly by massed drone strikes. There is also an underestimation of just how deadly and accurate artillery technology has become in the last 40 years among the superpowers. That is going to be a very nasty surprise to advancing soldiers on the battlefield. There are also questions about the utility of helicopters and their survivability on a modern peer to peer battlefield and the effects (if any) of cyberwarfare on the home-fronts.
There were times in which one side's weapon was just a bit older (ME-109) then the more advanced (Spitfire).
The destroyer/submarine right foot, left foot march to advancement.
First Rule of Warfare: Win
21:31 - the first rule of warfare is to avoid making enemies out of friends.
23:32 - often the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for it. that is the first rule of warfare after all.
*scratches head*
Fun video, but fourth and fifth-generation warfare tactics (arguably an improvement since you don't necessarily kill people) will be employed heavily going forward.
Is that the occupying force doing the killing or the legitimate government?
A fantastic video as usual Issac! Keep up the good work!
You definitely enjoyed that W40K reference.FOR THE EMPEROR!!!!
какие?
Here I was fighting for this next episode.
Great work!
I could actually imagine warfare decreasing in severity and frequency. Whilst we still have wars in the modern day, there are less and less of them, with most being civil conflicts. This appears to happen due to an increasing interdependence through trade, you can't attack the nation that grows your food, makes your computers, or manages your finances, especially if you can get their stuff for less by trading for it. Given increases in trade, direct conflict has become far less preferable an option, with indirect proxy conflicts, and the generous application of soft power becoming far more prevalent.
Developed nations are also moving to indirect virtual conflicts involving cyberspace, ideological and propaganda attacks instead of direct physical conflicts.
As Isaac put it: "The first rule of warfare is make the enemies population support your own cause."
The Dyson Sphere Program is a video game on Stream that I thought fellow members of SFIA would likely enjoy. I have no relationship with the Devs, other than having purchased the game. I just wanted to spread some joy.
Sadly, conflicts accelerate economies, as long as that economy is a supplier (lend lease program of America to England)
But at the same time they push forward tech it's an unfortunate cost but at the same time a good thing
mio honda very true. It took nazi codes to force development of mechanical computers. Also rocket science. Also high altitude planes.
@Isaac Do you have suggestions for where to learn more about the quantum resistant cryptography? Is that an upcoming episode?
Addendum: Now that we have several probes on Mars why don't we use laser targeting or similar to guide new drones down? Is it just that we want them very far apart?
When we go to pickup Perseverance's samples would that be a viable tech to land close?
Do we NEED to have a war? I have video games to play, i have no time for war...
We don't but nations have interest.
Indeed, and let us not forget that Skyward Sword HD (Nintendo Switch), and the PC Version of Ys IX, are both set to release in July of this year (2021). There's also loads of games in everypony's backlog, as well as loads more coming soon, that I didn't mention.
9:30
or precise adversarial attacks
...
or gps spoofing
Very nicely done. Anyone who thinks violence is 'going away" is kidding themselves. Lenin's "useful idiots".
YEEE HAAAAW! A new Isaac Arthur video!
I cant predict the next century, but the next half hour will be spent here on another journey with SFIA.
P.s. please let's hope it doesnt end up like warhammer 40k...
You are the real first.
What would you do if you happen to stumble upon a weird looking wormhole?
As always, much food for thought here. Thank you.
Or imagine you targeted the software in a centrifuge so you could send false data about how fast it was spinning...
Oh, right, we did that :P
wait, are u from these high tech jewish XD
Dude, you're unstoppable. Keep up the great work!!!
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Truly hope we can see more videos like these that go up to k2 or k3 or even beyond
Would k3 just be civil wars?
Tbh I feel that such long lived civs would probably avoid war. They have the heat death of the universe to worry about. Far more pressing.
Prepare for total annihilation anyone who dares disrupt their focus on that.
I am supposed to be writing my book, not watching this and bookfacing.
Men has killed men from the beginning of time and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different? - Colonel Corazón Santiago, Planet: a survivalist guide.
I didn't know Issac was in the military and was on the frontlines. Any info on what Branch, War and Role? Asking cause I have many family members in the military or are veterans
He was U.S. Army. Artillery. I was stationed at the same post as he was, though I never met him, because I was a combat engineer.
@@sheldoniusRex I thought he said he was armor?
@@mebutinspace1934 he was artillery in an armored division. Those guys driving self propelled howitzer that the news always mistakes for tanks.
Gotcha, that explainedwhy he said armor. Ex 11M here, so I know most of those tracked thingies that worked with... or for us... :)
The first rule of war is to only battle if you must.
The point is that, if you're really skilled at running the state, then you'll not need go battling all the time. Becuase it costs so much to war; and even if you could afford to war all the time, there are far more effective & efficient ways to attain the needs of the state.
Be it cooperative negotiation, trade or mutual give and take, or seduction. They're usually more useful, and less expensive, than war.
Underrated comment, straight from Sun Tzu's opening paragraph