Sean Carroll

attack more advanced countries and damage their cyber infrastructure in dramatic ways.

Like if you wiped out all the electricity and all the internet in the country, that in the modern era would do an enormous amount of damage to it right away, cause enormous suffering.

So my only very vague thought is that whatever war is today, it's not gonna be like that 20 or 50 years from now.

So it's most important.

Look, this is a different version of the same reason why you shouldn't go to university with the idea of becoming an expert in some technical field that will then get you a job that will last your lifetime.

Because what is an interesting technical field will be different in 20 years than it is today.

It's much more important to go to university and get an education in being a well-rounded human being.

And then you pick up the parts of specialization that will be useful in your future career later on.

Likewise, I think that what will lead to dominance in war is not just the ability to be really good at building drones, but a broad-based technological capacity, a flexibility, a flexibility at the level of strategy and tactics in the policymaking arm of the country.

in addition to the actual ability to build the technology.

Does drone era make nuclear conflict more likely?

I don't think so.

I really don't think that once you have a nuclear bomb, it's that difficult to deliver it.

They're blunt instruments, right?

You don't need really pinpoint control.

The great thing about the drone era is you can pinpoint your small-scale attacks.

It kind of isn't necessary for nuclear war.

I think the nuclear proliferation is definitely making nuclear conflict more likely.

I certainly don't think that drones make warfare in general less likely.

I think that there's this sort of longstanding hope that if war becomes more terrible, people will stop doing it.