GenZedong

4624 readers

121 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

Elara@lemmygrad.ml

American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml

The Dark Horse of WW3: Humanoid Robots (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Recently Hangzhou, Zhejiang based Unitree announced a humanoid robot that costs just 39,999 yuan, or 5,900 USD.

It is capable of doing complex movements like hand stands, cartwheels, punching, lying down prone, and standing up again on its own. It weighs 25 Kilos, and is about as tall as a smaller sized human.

I think this is an area we should be paying very special attention to. AI is getting all the hype, but it's unlikely to have a big effect on the outcome of a war. Being able to mass produce soldiers though? That's a game changer.

These robots would work in any terrain a human can once water proofed, and could be remotely piloted by human soldiers. Retrofitting them with weapons systems would be simple, and they could have armor plating added on so they could just stand under heavy fire and be fine. You'd need higher caliber rounds to take them out. (Exactly the things that the US is floundering to secure metals to make since China controls so much of the rare earth industry).

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that these could be the equivalent of the invention of the musket. If WW3 happens sometime in the next decade i expect the world to be shocked as it becomes clear war will never be the same again. It's like a countdown has begun where everyday we get closer to the moment one of these is first used in a peer conflict, and an arms race begins. One China already seems to be winning before it even starts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] commiewolf@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't see the purpose, in a world where every major power has missiles and nuclear warheads. Even without that, armoured vehicles and air superiority are the next most significant in modern war, and infantry comes a distant third. I think we are long past the point that robotic infantry would serve any use.

[–] juchebot88@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

armoured vehicles and air superiority are the next most significant in modern war, and infantry comes a distant third.

That's not entirely true. To actually hold an area, you need infantry, hence why all warfare ultimately comes down to a ground assault. Bombing campaigns kill (murder) civilians and destroy infrastructure, but it's harder to take out soldiers that way: since by the time your planes get there, most of the men and equipment will be dispersed and spread out. World War II proved this, and the lesson has been reiterated many times, notably in Korea and in Yugoslavia.

From what I understand, the idea of bombers and missiles coming out en masse and wiping out the enemy is largely a creation of Hollywood. In actual military tactics, air power is considered a "force multiplier," i.e., it enables you to attack or defend as if with more men. Armor is also not nearly as invincible as often assumed. Its tracks are its weak point, and once immobilized it becomes very vulnerable -- basically a standing artillerypiece. It is for this reason not very useful in urban fighting.

[–] TacticalSanta@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

On the ground combat in gaza says otherwise. These will be used to infiltrate places a squadron would attempt to.

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

robotic infantry wouldnt have the same dynamics and implementation that meatbags would though, as for one humans really dont want to die but a human piloting a remote machine with a gun will not care if they live or die as they have 100 lives.

[–] commiewolf@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What does it matter? I was referring specifically to the usefulness of robotic infantry in modern warfare. Battles are won with air power, missiles and intelligence warfare, things you don't really need humanoid autonomous robots to do.

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

Its because they wont act like normal infantry, they will act like suicide bots that can manipulate things like a human can. Needs to be understood under different dynamics than a straight 1:1 with bio-infantry

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

I get why you feel this way. Because its been true for a lot of modern conflicts. The issue is that we have gotten used to non-great power conflicts.

Great power conflicts are very different. It's not so much about winning battles. It might seem strange, but you can win every battle and still lose if you don't have the ability to keep fielding soldiers. They are wars of attrition. Whoever keeps their industrial capacity higher longer, and stops their population from dying longest wins. Yes winning battles helps with that, but it's not the only thing that matters.

The reason robotic infantry is so game changing is because people don't die. You start a war with a limited amount of possible manpower. You send people out to fight, and they die. As wars drag on, and on you are forced to conscript more, and it slowly destroys you even if you are holding the line, or even winning.

Just look at Ukraine. They're basically running out of fighting age people to send to war.

Now imagine your in a defensive war. You are trying to hold your border against a near-peer agressor. If you use human soldiers to hold that border then each time one dies they have to be replaced by some other person in your country.

If you use robotic infantry to hold that border each time one is destroyed you drag the broken corpse out, strip it for parts, melt it down, and build a new one. Or just repair it depending on the damage. Even if you are limited in how many you can field. Say you can field 10k robots, and 50k humans. Say 80% of the time a robot is destroyed it's fixable. That 10k becomes 10k->8k->6.4k->5.1k->4k->3.2k-> etc. So with just 10k robotic units you've effectively doubled the size of your standing army, and can now go twice as long without conscripting people. Allowing you to have a more robust economy during war, and outlast your enemies when you might not have before.

Nobody is saying things like missiles will be obsolete. Just that these will be a game changer, and human infantry will end up taking more of a back seat. Relegated to specific roles, and used sparingly.