niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Honorable Critical Thought,
Admittedly, a weapon system that requires zero maintenance and zero input from its user except the pushing of a button does not require trained manpower to operate. Your question envisages a hypothetical scenario where artificial intelligence has advanced to the level that has made human input virtually obsolete. In such a case one does not require any soldiers at all as the wars would be fought by robots only and side with the most sophisticated robots would win.
However, would you trust a man to push the right button unless he was highly trained? Here is an actual example of pushing the wrong button in error.
“A BUNGLING defence worker who sparked a nuclear missile alert after "pushing the wrong buttons" has lost his job after saying he feels "really bad" for the life or death panic he caused.
The full-scale alarm was broadcast when the fat-fingered Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (EMA) employee made the shocking mistake during a shift handover drill at 8.07am.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/53348...rean-attack-after-employees-fat-finger-error/
In the USA which has with a large number of MIRV ICBMs and now plans the satellite-based weapons, operators sitting deep inside their bunkers can wage war and kill individuals via drones by simply looking at the screens and pushing the buttons. But it is the highly educated and trained manpower that enables the country to design, produce and maintain these weapons and the associated C3 (Command, control & Communication) systems. Additionally, the missiles & bombs will simply destroy the enemy; one would still need boots on the ground to physically occupy the land.
No one in the right mind would deny that all other things being equal, the side possessing superior technology will be victorious. However, it is understood that without the availability of highly trained & educated manpower, it is not possible to design & make use of superior technology. The point I am trying to make is that it is neither trained power nor the technology on its own but a combination of the technology & manpower that results in victory.
Most countries would try to acquire/manufacture the best possible military hardware that is possible within the limits of their financial & human resources. In Pakistan case also, it is not the question of mind over matter or man behind the gun. Because most of the state of the art military hardware & technology is very expensive, we simply can’t afford it.
Short of bankrupting the country in the process of acquiring superior technology; the only option is to raise the quality of the military manpower to the level which enables them to make the best possible use of whatever technology we can afford to acquire, thereby narrowing the technological gap. This is achieved thru training & education.
Admittedly, a weapon system that requires zero maintenance and zero input from its user except the pushing of a button does not require trained manpower to operate. Your question envisages a hypothetical scenario where artificial intelligence has advanced to the level that has made human input virtually obsolete. In such a case one does not require any soldiers at all as the wars would be fought by robots only and side with the most sophisticated robots would win.
However, would you trust a man to push the right button unless he was highly trained? Here is an actual example of pushing the wrong button in error.
“A BUNGLING defence worker who sparked a nuclear missile alert after "pushing the wrong buttons" has lost his job after saying he feels "really bad" for the life or death panic he caused.
The full-scale alarm was broadcast when the fat-fingered Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (EMA) employee made the shocking mistake during a shift handover drill at 8.07am.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/53348...rean-attack-after-employees-fat-finger-error/
In the USA which has with a large number of MIRV ICBMs and now plans the satellite-based weapons, operators sitting deep inside their bunkers can wage war and kill individuals via drones by simply looking at the screens and pushing the buttons. But it is the highly educated and trained manpower that enables the country to design, produce and maintain these weapons and the associated C3 (Command, control & Communication) systems. Additionally, the missiles & bombs will simply destroy the enemy; one would still need boots on the ground to physically occupy the land.
No one in the right mind would deny that all other things being equal, the side possessing superior technology will be victorious. However, it is understood that without the availability of highly trained & educated manpower, it is not possible to design & make use of superior technology. The point I am trying to make is that it is neither trained power nor the technology on its own but a combination of the technology & manpower that results in victory.
Most countries would try to acquire/manufacture the best possible military hardware that is possible within the limits of their financial & human resources. In Pakistan case also, it is not the question of mind over matter or man behind the gun. Because most of the state of the art military hardware & technology is very expensive, we simply can’t afford it.
Short of bankrupting the country in the process of acquiring superior technology; the only option is to raise the quality of the military manpower to the level which enables them to make the best possible use of whatever technology we can afford to acquire, thereby narrowing the technological gap. This is achieved thru training & education.
Last edited:
