The message of "Slaughterbots" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA) seems both more prescient and more urgent than ever given this news. Our continued reckless development and deployment of autonomous weaponry without thought to the consequences is deplorable, and its consequences could be staggering.
No one is going to stop development for fear the other will have the advantage.
For controls on this to work, there would have to be a treaty governing development among the big nuclear powers —then they with their big sticks dictate the rules to the rest.
In the vacuum of that everyone will feel they have to develop or get left behind.
Additionally something like this (the enabling of political “decapitations”) is only seriously countered by MAD. So nothing would keep Colombia from developing their own and taking out Maduro for example if they were reasonably sure a better alternative would rise in VZ.
Not the big nuclear powers — they should be relatively easy to get onboard, because preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons is comparatively easy compared to preventing proliferation of drones. The ones to watch are the smaller countries who have in effect lost their sovereignty to the nuclear powers: maybe Colombia, but also Taiwan, Canada, Ukraine, Spain, Brazil, Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Bangladesh.
More worryingly: Daesh, Baruch Goldstein's fan club, the next Anders Breivik, the janjaweed, Boko Haram, Voluntad Popular, antifa groups, the collectively fired Minneapolis Police Department, the Hells Angels, MS-13, etc.
I agree there, except for the domestic organizations. They could develop crude drones but not the hypersonic loitering kind —I’m not even sure they’d need that. Hypersonics only make sense when you need to penetrate stiff air defenses and get to destination to neutralize the big armament from reaching altitude.
They could be used by the US, Russia, China, India, Pak, Israel to “decapitate” “rouge” regimes incapable of retribution.
Mexican and ukranian drug orgs? maybe crude non hypersonic for whatever political purpose.
Or imagine the ndraghetta having the crude variety during the time they tried offing magistrates quicker than the state was able to convict the perps... or the Italian red brigades...
Agreed, it would be surprising if the Zetas were able to develop hypersonic drones. But I don't think the hypersonic part is vital to their political assassination capacities.
I was thinking of this video, why don’t they just give all the gamers a replaceable robot to control from far away. Or why electronics are all? Literally just use an EMP and level the playing field. Mechanical>Electronic in this instance
Current cruise missiles are optimised for long range but not for final target accuracy, they actually use onboard offline terrain data to cruise to their target. Accuracy of 99% is considered bad as it might mean collateral damage. Also final target is predefined and aborting or changing target is non-trivial.
With these so called "suicide drones", human operators can actions based on current situation, like, pinpoint the target based on realtime images, that actually means limiting collateral damage because of machine errors. which also gives them ability to abort if situations have changed substantially.
> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.
Tell it to the Zulus who got massacred by early machine-guns or the Congolese who couldn't successfully rebel against the atrocities of King Leopold's machine-gun-armed forces, the atrocities that inspired Heart of Darkness. Even before the opposing side caught up (around 1965, by my reckoning) the effect of the machine-gun was precisely the opposite of "exposure to battle and disease [being] greatly diminished". Some would argue especially before that time.
I made no implication on justice or fairness. My implication is that the side with the upper hand afforded by this machinery would enjoy less battle induced disease and losses. It’s not a revelation.
What it can do though is make the possessor overconfident and while the battle numbers are in your favor, you may yet not have the stamina to win the war—unless you’re completely ruthless.
The reason I brought up those situations is not that they were unfair — although they were, that wasn't the point. It's because Gatling predicted that his wonderful invention would diminish exposure to battle and disease overall, reducing the total of harm done by warfare to humanity — not just to the winning side.
He was spectacularly, world-changingly wrong about that.
In the same way, praveen9920 is predicting that "suicide drones…actually means limiting collateral damage". "Collateral damage" is a euphemism for mass-murdering civilians on the side of the military you are nominally fighting against, which is a war crime if done intentionally.
Praveen9920's optimistic predictions are likely to turn out to be catastrophically mistaken, like Gatling's, and for very much the same reason.
Right so my point is Gatling was right but not completely right. He was right that it could minimize the need for military personnel on the possessors side, rather than overall reduction (which is more or less fantasy, but may have some truth if the foe gives up earlier than they would if they thought they had some chance at winning, though like I said overconfidence can result in difficulties incurred by going further than prudent —for your side).
These drones can actually take away control from machines and give it to humans. Learning from history, it is not a good thing in long run. Humans are good at judging the situation but they come with bias and emotions
To the extent that those of us who are making a positive contribution to society can slow down and impede the progress of those who are working to put more and more power in the hands of trained killers with more advanced weapons, we will have a better future with less destructive conflicts. Of course it is better to impede the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at you than the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at them.
Tip: If you can't win the peace you're weak no matter how many weapons you have.
I'm half a century old. The US hasn't managed to win the peace in my lifetime. Every attempt to impose it's will by force has left it weaker not stronger.
“Strength is paradoxical. I am not strong because I can force others to do what I wish as a result of my play with them, but because I can allow them to do what they wish in the course of my play with them.”
― James P. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility
Missiles like Brahmos or P800 Oniks (on which the former is based) have 1-1.5 meter CEP accuracy. They can also hit a moving target using mid course navigation. They are accurate alright, though a bit overkill for scenarios where drone attacks could be used. Agreed with rest of the points.
So what you're saying is that two-way communication right up until the final strike is kind of a recent thing? I wouldn't argue with the value of that, but most people don't really have the proper context to evaluate.
Your information is outdated. The latest Tomahawk missiles support GPS guidance in addition to digital scene matching. And they do allow retargeting in flight.
Accuracy is typically quoted in CEP, not percentage.
Military tech almost always has redundant systems for navigation. The reason why missiles don't prefer GPS or any other radio-based navigation as primary is that it is not reliable and not secure enough. An enemy can disrupt or worse alter the signals to re-target the missile.
yeah, probably my info is outdated. I am not an expert on military tech.
The materials science development going into hypersonic vehicles is going to pay dividend in future space travel. Seems like that’s still the most dicey part of building five digit cycle reusable spacecraft.
As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962.
Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?
The B in ICBM stands for ballistic. That means they are mainly bound by gravity for most of their travel. Hypersonic drones on the other hand are far more steerable. Curious droid has a great video on the difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0t06EkZJcM
I definitely don't intend to deprecate modern precision-guided munitions. They obsolete nuclear-tipped ICBMs as thoroughly as ICBMs obsolete muzzle-loaded rifles. My complaint was strictly that the article's title, unbelievably, failed to mention any of the attributes that constitute that difference. It was like seeing a chimpanzee describe a sniper rifle as a fast rock thrower.
The word "loitering" distinguishes it pretty far from that. It's also important that, unlike ICBMs, this is positioned to be something which would be used in more than theory.
ICBMs were definitely intended to be used more than in theory in the 1950s; they likely will be if we aren't careful. Modern drones make them obsolete, of course, but some combatants are likely to have only ICBMs.
It could be a tactical ballistic missile (MLRS/HIMARS launched) payload because the slide's 100k-200k target can't include the launch missile (ATACMS missile 800k each, cruise missiles too expensive as well). Not necessarily just a kinetic one since ISR is mentioned. Surveillance platform that's sometimes a bomb, under an unclear amount of human control? Quite a terrifying idea.
At least one similar looking drone delivery project from the 2000s with an ICBM was terminated because it couldn't be guaranteed that it wouldn't look like a nuclear launch.
The difference is that ballistic missiles go up and then come down on their target. The "loitering munitions" basically get delivered by a cruise missile and the fly around until triggered, at which point they basically turn from drone mode back into missiles.
So it's a one time use drone with a high speed delivery system.
It would be even more misleading to say an ICBM wasn't a drone, but that the "Vintage Racer" munition was a drone. As the article points out, some "drones" have better survivability than ICBMs do, but those aren't the ones the article is about.
The "Snark" had essentially the same capabilities at the start of the cold war. It was "pilotless bomber" that promised to be cheaper than bomber crews. Basically, it was a giant cruise missile that could return home if the mission was aborted. The big runway at Cape Canaveral was built specifically for it, because it landed with skids rather than wheels.
It did actually reach operational status but was quickly withdrawn.
British Aerospace delivered an anti-radiation / air-defense suppression missile called ALARM in 1990: it is capable of flying up to 40,000 feet, deploying a parachute and then waiting for the target radar to come online as it floats down.
At that time, it initiates a secondary boost motor and attacks.
We didn’t used to call this a suicide drone; we called it a loitering munition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto looks both like an amazing idea and something super over-engineered. It looks like it would be relatively easy to spot too... and possibly shot down?
Really strange the 'suicide drone' branding, given this War of Terror and Suicide Bombing, or WWII and Kamikaze attacks. I wouldn't have thought the US military would want to be associated with the word. Maybe they don't, but the media isn't happy with 'loitering'. I guess 'loitering' isn't much better now I think of it, with the term mostly used regarding prostitution.
A missile than can fly from a home far away, hover (or really probably loiter, flying in circles) not too far away from a target area, then accelerate to 5000 mph after receiving a specific target. The benefit being the lag between targeting to delivery being much shorter meaning higher mission success rates, lower collateral damage, and just more flexibility.
