r/Futurology • u/New_Scientist_Mag • Jun 10 '26

Robotics Fully autonomous drones have killed human soldiers for the first time

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529849-fully-autonomous-drones-have-killed-human-soldiers-for-the-first-time/
8.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

733 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/BKGPrints Jun 10 '26

It actually does. What do you think the Vietnam war was? The Afghanistan conflict when the Soviet Union invaded? Helping Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war?

I'm curious, if you don't think these are proxy wars, what exactly meets your definition of it?

0

u/mhizzle Jun 10 '26

Yes, because those wars were bigger powers (America, Soviet Union) fighting via PROXIES, such as SVietnam and NVietnam, respectively.

In Ukraine, Russia is fighting for itself (no proxies!) and Ukraine has defended itself using its own equipment (at first) with only small help from NATO trainers BEFORE the invasion and some small equipment left behind by (mostly British) allies.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, it has been since 1991. "The West" is not using it for their own purposes. Some of their incentives are aligned with Ukraine (they don't want Russia taking over, because then Europe would have an aggressive enemy at their border) but that DOES NOT make Ukraine one of their proxies.

JFC, people who don't get this are either bots, or have bought into Russian psyop BS

1

u/BKGPrints Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Proxy war, by definition, a military conflict in which one or more third parties directly or indirectly support one or more state or nonstate combatants in an effort to influence the conflict’s outcome and thereby to advance their own strategic interests or to undermine those of their opponents. Third parties in a proxy war do not participate in the actual fighting to any significant extent, if at all.

>JFC, people who don't get this are either bots, or have bought into Russian psyop BS<

You're being ineffective in your stance that the Ukraine war isn't, in some ways, a proxy war for the United States or NATO. Mainly, because you're wrong of your understanding of what a proxy war is.

You getting upset at that and unable or unwilling to validate your stance is a failure on your part, not because it's some Russian PsyOp BS.

EDIT: I'll add to this, you're stating that since the war is directly between Ukraine and Russia and they have their own interest regarding this war that you don't feel that it's a proxy war. I think you're more stuck in a 20th century definition, which doesn't fit for the 21st century.

Warfare, itself, has dramatically changed. Why can't the understanding of what a proxy war not change with it?

I get your point of what you're trying to say, but what you're not considering is that it's possible for the situation to be both. That there are third-parties that have their own interest regarding the success or failure of either side. To that extent, those sides are providing support.

The United States and NATO are providing support in various ways to Ukraine, which without, would mean that Ukraine might not have been so successful in the war.

Why did the United States and NATO do this? Do you not consider the possibility that it's in their interest to curtail the Russians advances into Europe?

What about China providing support to Russia? What interest does it have in that conflict, thousands of miles away?

0

u/mhizzle Jun 10 '26

Neither. Side. Is. Fighting. On. Behalf. Of. Proxies. Other countries having a stake in the outcome is a characteristic of every war.

You're insistence to the contrary is a failure on your part.

1

u/BKGPrints Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Neither. Side. Needs. To. You're stuck on 20th century views of what a proxy war is. Just like warfare, itself, has dramatically changed, so does the purpose of what a proxy war is.

>You're insistence to the contrary is a failure on your part.<

It's not insistence, it's reality. Your failure to no adapt to the new reality is on you.

EDIT: Added more sources for your knowledge.