>>63357717
The very simple answer to this is:
>humans declare war against one another to kill humans. this is done for hundreds of reasons but the bottom line of every war in history is that somebody wanted somebody else dead.
>states do not ever simply declare war for the sake of it. somebody is the target who must die, be it the general population of the targeted country or a political leader they want replaced, someone is the target.
>though it sounds very cool and ethical for us to send robots to fight for us, two legions of robots fighting in the desert will not sway the opinion of any nation.
>(at least) one nation must be swayed to allow for the end of the war, be it the one declared upon admitting capitulation or surrender or the aggressor acquiescing and giving up on their war, a nation has to have a reason to agree to the end of a war they're taking part in.
>simply put; the human leaders of these countries simply don't care about robot casualties, so no progress would be made for either side of this hypothetical war. these nations could continue to throw robots at eachother in the desert forever but it wouldn't change anything. it wouldn't lead to the end of the war.
>sadly, humans have to die for war to end once it's began. an appeal has to be made to a nation's leader to end a war, and that appeal is written in the blood of the nation's soldiers.
>TL;DR countries dgaf about robots dying so humans have to die to end war.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/k/

Thread:

What will warfare look like after humans become completely replaceable by robots and AIs?