Hacker News Reader

Comment by kragen | Hacker News Reader

> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.

— Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling

View on HN

You have a point, but he wasn’t completely wrong. Though it contains the assumption your advantage is indefinite. In reality the foe catches up.

So he was right but it only holds true while you maintain the advantage.

Which in turn leads to "all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis

Tell it to the Zulus who got massacred by early machine-guns or the Congolese who couldn't successfully rebel against the atrocities of King Leopold's machine-gun-armed forces, the atrocities that inspired Heart of Darkness. Even before the opposing side caught up (around 1965, by my reckoning) the effect of the machine-gun was precisely the opposite of "exposure to battle and disease [being] greatly diminished". Some would argue especially before that time.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23473201

I made no implication on justice or fairness. My implication is that the side with the upper hand afforded by this machinery would enjoy less battle induced disease and losses. It’s not a revelation.

What it can do though is make the possessor overconfident and while the battle numbers are in your favor, you may yet not have the stamina to win the war—unless you’re completely ruthless.

The reason I brought up those situations is not that they were unfair — although they were, that wasn't the point. It's because Gatling predicted that his wonderful invention would diminish exposure to battle and disease overall, reducing the total of harm done by warfare to humanity — not just to the winning side.

He was spectacularly, world-changingly wrong about that.

In the same way, praveen9920 is predicting that "suicide drones…actually means limiting collateral damage". "Collateral damage" is a euphemism for mass-murdering civilians on the side of the military you are nominally fighting against, which is a war crime if done intentionally.

Praveen9920's optimistic predictions are likely to turn out to be catastrophically mistaken, like Gatling's, and for very much the same reason.

Right so my point is Gatling was right but not completely right. He was right that it could minimize the need for military personnel on the possessors side, rather than overall reduction (which is more or less fantasy, but may have some truth if the foe gives up earlier than they would if they thought they had some chance at winning, though like I said overconfidence can result in difficulties incurred by going further than prudent —for your side).

These drones can actually take away control from machines and give it to humans. Learning from history, it is not a good thing in long run. Humans are good at judging the situation but they come with bias and emotions

Dr Richard Jordan Gatling underestimated human craving for violence. His prediction has accuracy of a Gatling gun.

Note: huge fan of Gatling gun

Everyone should just get along and not produce weapons :)

To the extent that those of us who are making a positive contribution to society can slow down and impede the progress of those who are working to put more and more power in the hands of trained killers with more advanced weapons, we will have a better future with less destructive conflicts. Of course it is better to impede the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at you than the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at them.

Eliminating weapons entirely seems unlikely.

If you're avoiding war and you don't have the ability to win war, you're not peaceful or virtuous, you're just weak.

“Strength is paradoxical. I am not strong because I can force others to do what I wish as a result of my play with them, but because I can allow them to do what they wish in the course of my play with them.” ― James P. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility

Tip: If you can't win the peace you're weak no matter how many weapons you have.

I'm half a century old. The US hasn't managed to win the peace in my lifetime. Every attempt to impose it's will by force has left it weaker not stronger.

Unlikely but a worthwhile goal to keep in mind and work towards.

Wishful thinking. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com