The future of warfare

I doubt it, military standards demand a level of reliability most robots today can't keep up with. Faulty engines, backup systems that can't handle most situations, comms problems that end with crashed drones most of the time, etc...

A soldier can compensate for a faulty rifle doing repairs on the field, and pilots have gone as far as landing a plane with only one wing (F-15, google it) something robots can't do and wont be able for a long time.

In the modern era it's not possible to be completely safe from attack, the world is too interconnected. Our safety is partly dependent on the absence of major power vs. major power popularly supported animosity. A modern version of total war would not look like the WWII version of total war, or even the Cold War hypothetical WW3 version of total war.

Instead it looks like economic war, trade war, sabotage, cyber war, espionage, and guerrilla warfare/terrorism.

Want to hear a funny joke?

"How many lasers does it take to stop a nuclear bomb being exploded in a shipping container in the port of a major population center?"

...

"Give up? Here's the ans.." zzzzrt FLASH

The punchline is you're dead.

Want to hear a funnier joke? How vulnerable is our critical power, fuel, manufacturing, transportation, water, and emergency medical care infrastructure to sabotage? Here the punchline is: we're fucked.

You can't use laser weapons to conquer the 21st century Earth, at best you can use them as part of a deterrent. The moment you become a hegemonic asshole then you end up being a major target for asymmetrical warfare. Look at what happened with Russia vs. a teeny, tiny group of folks in Chechnya/Dagestan. Not only were tens of thousands of Russian troops killed in brutal urban warfare but hundreds of Russian civilians were killed by terrorist attacks within Russia proper. Chechnya has a population one one thousandth of China. Imagine turning China into a new Chechnya by attempting to conquer it with violence. Anti-ballistic missile lasers don't help with car bombs, they don't help with assassinations, or kidnappings, or sabotage.

Moreover, there is too much mutual self-interest against a major military confrontation between any of the major economies of the world for anything of the sort to be likely. The major conflicts of the 21st century are, as now, likely to be of a much different nature.

> people are starting to seriously lack imagination the way you do.

Great way to start a civilised discourse there! Not coming off as aggressive or arrogant at all...

Of course the US population won't accept ethnic cleansing, or the like, so it won't achieve that kind of dominance you're talking about, and why would it want to? Its not profitable.

Its goal with be that no one can take an opposing stance. There are multiple ways it will try to do this, but having laser weapons makes it easier against potentially competing military powers.

For smaller countries it will probably resort to its traditional proxy war/start revolution approach, picking sides as needed that align with its views.

One last thing... these things are points of view, not insults directed at you if you don't share those views. Life will be more enjoyable if you realise this.

I would argue that several parties, like, say ISIS, Iran, North Sudan or Hamas/PLA are trying to do exactly that, today. Americans by and large don't realize this is the case, assuming everyone behaves like Americans do, and then don't understand the reaction states/populations have to these "revolutions", or even more ridiculous "resistance". They don't understand that there can be no peace until these organisation have either died or abandoned their goals and most of their identity.

Europeans (and I'm one) act all high and moral, but the last times they did have the option to commit ethnic cleansing, most European states chose to do exactly that. And don't say the allies didn't do that, rather, read about the aftermath of WWII and the revenge killings (which targeted am. And no, at those times the US also had that opportunity and the US chose to not do it, and I do not have faith that they won't repeat those mistakes. Given that I grew up in an environment characterized by US military "dominance" I have to say, I'm extremely grateful for the result of said dominance.

Laser weapons on the US side may provide the option of having the military standoff that has characterized the 20th century last longer. That's a very, very good thing.

I've travelled around enough to know that what Europeans are really blaming the US for when it comes to Israel, for example, is that the US helps prevent the Palestinians do the ethnic cleansing they want to (and others), and prevent Europe from interfering (e.g. with the recent Lebanon war vs. (that was partly a proxy war with France and Iran)).

Frankly this is the reason I'm both a techie but sympathize strongly with the republicans. I don't care (at all) for their social agenda, but I don't really care about social stuff in the US at all, and the democrats have a distinct isolationist streak that the republicans never displayed. If the democrats had their way Europe and the middle east would be screwed. And not screwed in "oops we don't get the oil contract", but screwed in the "another 1000 dead today" sense.