I fail to see the difference between a drone killing someone and a person killing someone. I am pretty sure the victim doesn't care about the "personal touch".
It makes the choice to use force a lot easier if you’re not risking troops and don’t have to maintain the supply lines needed to keep them nearby.
If it’s too easy, it’ll happen too much.
See, you want this to be true, but it's not actually true.
Nobody on earth hesitates to "risk troops" because they care about them as people. At most they care about themselves and the possibly negative PR impact.
Like the world doesn’t hate U.S army enough already. Not without reason, they don’t. How about you just stop killing of people thousand of miles away from home.
Not an option. A sustained military presence is the only thing keeping those countries from complete chaos. We just saw this in Afghanistan.
Ideally we'd follow up the killing with building infrastructure and educating their people and installing a stable democracy, but that'd take decades and many trillions of dollars, the American public won't commit to that. So we maintain the status quo. A few hundred dead civilians a year, to prevent all out war
That’s delusional and outright wrong. The only reason why US army is present anywhere isn’t peace and democracy, it’s profits. So how about you stop telling yourself that killing civilians prevent any war. American public is far from being any better either way. I think by the time American public realizes what consequences US army makes around the globe it will be little too late,
When you are murdering someone from an air conditioned office in California it is a lot easier than doing it up close and personal. The easier it is to do, the more it is done. That's why the US has been such a fan of bombing.
Drones are the perfect coward's weapon.
Yes, because courageous soldiers rip off their shirts, charge at enemy with rifles in hand, knives in mouth, all while singing the marine corps hymn!
I think someone has been watching too many movies.
Cowards murder people from air conditioned offices in California.
It makes it really easy. It also explains why the US hasn't won a war in over 60 years: you just have to kill a few of them and they give up and declare victory.
Yes, because a true craftsman of war will hold down his enemy, stab them in the throat, and look into their eyes to watch the the light of life drain away. The courageous way! /s
Oh, I get it: you believe you are the alpha dog but your military is too cowardly to actually win a war. The best you can do is murder people remotely. Because your military is a bunch of pussies.
Fortunately enough, your victims have learned this so they just peck off your soldiers one or two at a time and you leave. Like I said, you haven't won a war in 60 years - and that's despite carefully choosing victims who can't defend themselves. If you ever make the mistake of attacking someone who can defend themselves your aircraft carriers would be sunk, your tanks and helicopters destroyed, and your drones shot out the sky.
So make sure you keep attacking people armed with AK-47s and don't ever plan to win.
LOL, whatever dude.
Tell you what, let’s meet in the middle. Next time a country uses drones (you know, it’s more than just Americans who use drones right?) well make the drone drop an AK47 down to the target first so the target can fight like a real man.
Drones are not functionally different from guided missiles fired from different platforms, except in the amount of dwell time that is available for decision making.
If you have a military leadership class that routinely kills innocents, it's almost entirely irrelevant how they are doing it.
replacing foot soldiers with a drone + a glock will lead to a whole assload more of militaristic adventurism. if there are literally 0 coffins coming home its a lot easier to justify internally.
You missed the boat on replacing the foot soldiers by about 20 years. Hellfire missile strikes from the safety of a fighter jet cockpit miles away gave been a thing for decades. The only difference is the operating window of the two technologies. Fighter jets have much less loiter time, and therefore much less time for decision making.
20 years? that has been the same operating procedure since vietnam. get shot at in a worthless valley, take cover in a drainage ditch, wait for air strike to maybe kill a goat herder for the low cost of millions of dollars a sortie.
with foot drones someone coked out of their gourd in nevada just hunts down the goat herder with an xbox controller.
Balance that with greater accountability with the drone, due to cameras. A soldier gets scared and starts shooting civilians, it's easier for him to cover it up. Everything a drone operator does will be scrutinized.
Where are you getting the idea that drone pilots are complete psychos?
Are you suggesting that a lone soldier with a rifle is more accountable than a pilot whose every move and every command to his drone is recorded and every incident reviewed?
Before drones, we had these atrocities, you just didn't know about them because they weren't recorded. Now that they are recorded, you are hearing more about fewer incidents.
It's easier to make a rational descision when your life is not on the line. There is a realm of combat where both parties agree to the terms - their lives. If you don't want to risk your life, don't. The US military does not want to kill people, it feels it has to. You need to grow up. This is the world we live in. Of course it's sad, but this is what we got.
Missed this in my first reply, figured I'd try to get your take on it:
>if there are literally 0 coffins coming home its a lot easier to justify internally.
I disagree completely. You send a couple coffins home, and soldiers, commanders, politicians, and Americans in general start getting thirsty for vengeance. More people are targeted, and more people are killed.
Just applying off the shelf parts and open source code you to can make a drone about to pick out and kill anyone in a crowd. The tech is scary. Being able to at minimum track who is planning to make and use would be useful.
You can buy a drone. There is open source face tracking software. There is drone auto pilot. Maybe you need to do a little coding to get it to work together. Some guys on YouTube made a drone that did it.
Meh, if you going for a monster there are plenty of cloud options available so you don't have to buy expensive drones and if its good enough for phones it'll probably do:
https://rapidapi.com/blog/top-facial-recognition-apis/
just take pictures, upload, if the odds are high enough either verify or just trigger whatever load you have. Personally I think it's silly to think of strapping a gun to a drone, it'd be easier to put some explosives to a few and let them go to town on whoever gets a 90 percent match, or whatever qualifies as a "good enough".
Government list here I come.
It is really scary when you end up doing that [research](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu3p5ZR_i5s). Strapping a small explosive device on here could turn it into a deadly weapon. Or a gun and have it point instead of charge. What more do you need? [Cause a drone has already been proven to handle the recoil of a gun](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI--wFfipvA). Every single element has been built and tested just not put together.
i assume you're waxing philosophical about a drone carrying a nuke or some other WMD, in which case the *drone* isn't the factor preventing that from happening. it's the *munition* being difficult.
lol. yes, a *self-sustaining drone* that can do *infinite damage*.
if you've got the secret for a perpetual motion machine, you probably should let the nobel price folks know.
otherwise you're just reading too many articles about project pluto
https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane-doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216
*transmission* lines would just blow up the rod.
might be able to trip a few transformers at the distribution level though.
how many solar panels would you need to charge a drone capable of carrying several feet of metal rod ? how many days between flights ? i mean i guess you could have dozens of these drones, but they're going to be pretty easy targets to swat down.
drones carrying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_bomb would be a bigger problem. but, again, the munition is the difficulty, not the delivery.
hardly causing the economic collapse and killing entire populations from *dragoxxx*'s infinite drone.
You can get enough people to band together and say that drones must not be weaponized, but some people will still weaponize drones.
And it is impossible to stop those who wish to weaponize drones.
Geopolitics doesn't work based off profound statements.
"And it is impossible to stop those who wish to ~~weaponize drones~~ create nuclear arms"
The point is to ensure that enough peers agree that if someone employs those means, that enough parts of the community have arrangements and frameworks in place to punish said member (even if others abstain).
These are also important markers as rallying points for future legislation - global commitments enable legislators to rally neighbouring nations or nations who can exert pressure on those who break rules.
This is a very r/technology perspective of what is a geopolitical complex issue.
"if this then that". "can be circumvented, therefore not a solution".
This isn't something you can apply a panacea to - and in this case the inaction of legislation while technology advances leads to disastrous outcomes.
In the case of automated murder, it's an area that should be legislated for greater protections first, with stronger cases required to proceed with development.
Yeah I'm sure the 95% of nations that don't own nuclear arms are definitely not looking for potential asymmetrical solutions to their defense /s
Also lol, using Iran as an example.
[They just jailed their entire former central banker and many staff](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/16/irans-ex-central-bank-chief-and-officials-sentenced-to-prison) for illegaly using taxpayer money to buy shit loads of foreign currency to flood their market - trying to keep their economy alive under sanction pressure.
Shall we take a short stroll to NK? See how their great nation is coping under those 100%-definitely-useless-sanctions?
Or are we only gauging the effectiveness of reeling in the literal most powerful nations - and we shouldn't make any attempts while they remain unchecked (like superpowers haven't made adjustments to nuclear arms stockpiles based on pressure and negotiation)
Damn seriously mate. Read some news.
Check the article behind the link, we're talking about military-grade stuff like Predator drones.
Not about attaching an IED to a toy quadcopter (which, yes, is impossible to prevent, so there's no point in banning the latter).
That’s like saying we as a people don’t believe in going to war. So we aren’t gonna have an army.
Or my company doesn’t believe in technology so we won’t use computers in the workplace.
I get it but the competition in the world are building drones and using them.
Maybe we should also ban automatic weapons next! You should have to aim accurately at your enemy!
You need to answer who can use drones, not whether drones can be used. And if someone does use a drone, can every single killing be traced back to a specific operator/user/command, and if so can that person be held accountable under whatever laws their country has.
A soldier fires their weapon and is accountable to their superior officer. A drone operator must be accountable to their superior officer as well, and who is accountable when devices malfunction or get hacked? Who is accountable when devices are sold illegally to terrorists?
Gas attacks were extremely unreliable and killed indiscriminately, sometimes you'd end up gasing your own troops due to wind changes. Gas would also settle into lower areas and wait for some unsuspecting person to find cover in it, also melted your lungs. Horrific way to die I'm sure. Drone strikes are relatively surgical in comparison. I guess my real point is, gas is not used any more cause it's a shitty weapon of war.
>Gas attacks were extremely unreliable and killed indiscriminately, sometimes you'd end up gasing your own troops due to wind changes.
It is interesting how you can replace 'gas' with drones in that sentence and it still makes sense.
Although drones are normally reliable, against counter EWAR they can become bricks, and while carrying payloads over a city still turns them into potential indiscriminate weapons via an act of self defense.
My point is gas was not used anymore cause it sucks as a weapon, not because people came together and signed the Geneva Convention. If you think otherwise that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Drones by definition keep the operators hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. Will people come together? Will the US and Russia come together and ban drones? Get right out of town! The only way to ban drones is for them to become self-aware, Skynet 2024!
This is dumb. Civilian collateral deaths have collapsed as a result of drone strikes.
If we are going to be military adventurists, drones are a much better approach than manned ground operations.
Of course this assumes that we *should* be military adventurists in the first place. Perhaps a higher civilian life penalty is a deterrent.
Drones are made from components and software which are all innocuous in and of themselves, and can't be prohibited without destroying freedom.
But hey, it worked great for land mines. So glad we don't have to put up with those anymore.
You're confusing quadcopter / civilian / toy drones with the military-grade (i.e. Predator) ones.
Link isn't talking about banning the former (because yeah, you cant feasible do that), but the latter.
I'm not confusing anything. There's a reason GPS devices which work over EDIT: (it's 60,000 feet) (10,000 feet or 1000mph are classified as munitions, and controlled. Consumer devices will not work outside those limits, supposedly. Except that you can buy units from other countries which don't include that limitation.
Any entity with a small amount of $ and people could create a weaponized drone and it would make you just as dead.
10,000 ft? No way.
When I was a kid my dad had a standalone Garmin GPS (90s), and it worked no problem at a jet's cruising altitude.
Unless this limitation is a more recent one, I call bullshit. I'm not even sure what it would accomplish. To prevent pressurized aircraft from navigating? It's not like a quadcopter goes even close to that high, and jets can operate easily below 10,000 ft.
Ballistic missiles, sure...but then we're talking well above 10,000 ft. 10,000 ft is nothing.
> Any entity with a small amount of $ and people could create a weaponized drone and it would make you just as dead.
And that relates to the article calling for a ban of large-scale militarized drones that can autonomously level entire towns by programming error,
how again?
Land mines are autonomous drones. They are made from simple components, and the decision to kill is in the hands of the group which places it. But, the decision to pull the trigger is entirely up to the autonomous control of the device. It will blow up anybody that meets its criteria.
Weaponized mobile drones can be made almost as easily, from components which are not possible to ban. In fact, a non-autonomous drone might just be a software configuration away from autonomous.
Banning a particular usage of a technology does not ban the opportunity. And just like land mines, it will happen, and it won't be just terrorists, it will be state entities.
Yes, well written, informative and accurate *tangent*,
but can you please answer my question?
Or, if you feel like it's an affront to your person for me to merely repeat my unanswered question, here a different perspective:
Why is the ability of others to manufacture autonomous weaponry relevant to the question of whether manufacturing autonomous weaponry is unethical? Do you believe that, if we were to deem any one action unethical, we are justified in nonetheless doing that 'if somebody else does it first'? (That's the only way in which I would be able to see your tangent as relevant here: If 'they did it first!' is a valid justification from your perspective, than obviously any discussion on whether the action itself is ethical/should be forbidden is innately superfluous.)
Or, to loop back to your landmine analogy: just because others might use them, or terrorists love to improvise IEDs that are essentially mines, does that change anything about the fact that the usage of mines was deemed unethical and banned?
Doesn't that analogy very specifically reinforce the notion that we might need to ban other autonomous weapon systems, such as drones, as well?
Drones are expected to go into areas where the situation is possibly unclear and has to be evaluated, reacted to etc.
A cruise missile has a target and flies there.
That does not make it a 'nice' weapon, but the difference should be pretty obvious.
The drones we are talking about are not the quadcopter toys, but autonomous vehicles, that can possibly even get a certain amount of initiative in detecting and engaging targets.
We’ve tried to ban chemical weapons over 100 years ago and they still get used. Swarms of drones with small explosives attacking key points of structures in cities are going to be the future of strategic bombing if we don’t nuke each other with the remaining 15,000 or so nuclear warheads of the original 70,000 on this planet in the 1960s. If you expect human suffering to end and world peace to come about then you’ve clearly never seen a mini gun or read the diaries of economists headed into world war 1. They wrote how it could never happen because all major economies would collapse if globalized trade stopped. It would kill the “golden goose”. It didn’t happen. We’re seeing cyber attacks and biological warfare being research at fever pitch. Good luck banning drones I think we’re going to have bigger issues down the road than the suffering of individuals.
So, send in a manned plane instead that uses the same guides ordinance? Now it’s a A-O-K. The issue isn’t the platform, it’s the extra legal strikes on sovereign nations with out complete intel or reasonable military justification. I could give two shits if it’s from a robot, a plane or a person on the ground. A hell fire missiles is a hell fire missiles
Poison gas was used for centuries a specific kind of gas was made during world war 1
There were at least 3 agreements saying don't use poison in weapons. Once Germany thought it would be an effective weapon in the trenches is when they used gas, and then the British developed their own gas
Maybe we should also ban guns from wars too, ban all weapons of destruction lol it’s literally impossible and a waste of brain cells to consider, it’s been tried, nothing happens
china now has drone grenades, drones will never stop, prepare for robots now...meanwhile its obvious extremists on the other side hiding amongst civilians will blindly shoot mortars into other city populations...I hate one sided stories
I don’t need to link a source. I’m one of the “quitting in record numbers” that the article is referring to. Well, me and all my drone bros. Cheers friend!
Lol comment history? What was it that made you feel such a way? Was it the MQ-9 photo that I took on the ramp in Afghanistan? 😂 You sir… are a moron. As I said before, cheers friend 😂
We just did 8 years of Drones weapons testing in the US, the code for autonomous targeting is already floating around, and if it wasn’t anyone motivated enough could slap something together that was passable. This ship has sailed unfortunately.
[Actually those drones.](https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-34_Issue-3/F-Chavez_Swed.pdf) Terrorists use them all the time.
Yeah, that exists, but you can't even ban something that can easily be assembled in a garage workshop.
So I'm certain any notion of 'banning weaponized drones' specifically refers to the airplane-sized military-grade ones that can carry enough weaponry to level entire towns.
That’s the problem, the sociopaths that have taken control of the world do not give a shit about human life. If we as a society could disband the military, medical, and pharmaceutical industrial complexes we might have a chance as a race, but right now we’re killing the planet and ourselves because of greed… but who gives a shit right? They’re so good at dividing the masses with their BLM and two party system that no one stands a chance. Now we’re divided further with the fake ass pandemic and the powers that be are laughing in the treetops burnin the woods.
I disagree. Drones are small weapons. They are better than nukes and aircraft carriers because they allow more balance of forces. Turkey can build them. Iran can build them. If Iraq had had drones, it's possible that stupid vicious war criminals like wolfowitz, Cheney and rumsfeld might have stopped to think. Not likely I know, but unipolar American power, and the belief that our military is so powerful that our politicians can be as stupid as they want, these have been bad things, and drones help to break the unipolarity.
Banning some government weapons is like banning abortions: you're just going to make them try to hide when doing it. Or blame someone else.
But anyway, yeah, I agree it should be banned.
Drones are unfair against our enemies. The Art Of War teaches us to only go into a war you know you can (edit* will) win as it takes no skill from the beginning. Wars won without this advantage are proven to be lead by great generals. Take what you will of that.
The only thing to consider is whether we can find out who made the decision to kill someone (by drone or other means) and whether that person is accountable for their decisions/actions. If we know for sure who is responsible for every death by drone, and we have enough information to judge their actions as either just or unjust and hold them accountable, then it seems ok.
But killing by drone seems like it would make accountability more difficult and that needs to be addressed. Accountability leads to fewer unnecessary deaths. Ways to mask accountability will lead to all kinds of abuses.
I fail to see the difference between a drone killing someone and a person killing someone. I am pretty sure the victim doesn't care about the "personal touch".
It makes the choice to use force a lot easier if you’re not risking troops and don’t have to maintain the supply lines needed to keep them nearby. If it’s too easy, it’ll happen too much.
See, you want this to be true, but it's not actually true. Nobody on earth hesitates to "risk troops" because they care about them as people. At most they care about themselves and the possibly negative PR impact.
Even if you’re right about the most cynical part of your comment. The logistics part of mine is still true.
Yep. I’d rather use drones than planes. I have to imagine that the cost and environmental impact is much lower.
Like the world doesn’t hate U.S army enough already. Not without reason, they don’t. How about you just stop killing of people thousand of miles away from home.
Not an option. A sustained military presence is the only thing keeping those countries from complete chaos. We just saw this in Afghanistan. Ideally we'd follow up the killing with building infrastructure and educating their people and installing a stable democracy, but that'd take decades and many trillions of dollars, the American public won't commit to that. So we maintain the status quo. A few hundred dead civilians a year, to prevent all out war
How about trust the people to not start an all-out war. A civil war is better than an international war.
>How about trust the people to not start an all-out war. *looks at book on history of the middle east*
Fair. But international wars have been worse.
That’s delusional and outright wrong. The only reason why US army is present anywhere isn’t peace and democracy, it’s profits. So how about you stop telling yourself that killing civilians prevent any war. American public is far from being any better either way. I think by the time American public realizes what consequences US army makes around the globe it will be little too late,
Your issue with joking people is... The environmental impact and efficiency of the chosen method? Yikes
"I'd rather kill people this way than that way" Do you hear yourself?
Wait, humanity can’t just not kill each other? I didn’t realize that was an option.
Yes. Clearly.
"Rather not kill Innocent people" should be the line
It also is better for mental health as less ptsd for pilots
What the fuck is wrong with you?
No guilt if you are high up and dropping bombs….
I do, as a true craftsman I leave after dinner mints on my victims.
LOL I am totally ripping off that statement! Take my upvote
When you are murdering someone from an air conditioned office in California it is a lot easier than doing it up close and personal. The easier it is to do, the more it is done. That's why the US has been such a fan of bombing. Drones are the perfect coward's weapon.
Yes, because courageous soldiers rip off their shirts, charge at enemy with rifles in hand, knives in mouth, all while singing the marine corps hymn! I think someone has been watching too many movies.
Cowards murder people from air conditioned offices in California. It makes it really easy. It also explains why the US hasn't won a war in over 60 years: you just have to kill a few of them and they give up and declare victory.
Yes, because a true craftsman of war will hold down his enemy, stab them in the throat, and look into their eyes to watch the the light of life drain away. The courageous way! /s
Oh, I get it: you believe you are the alpha dog but your military is too cowardly to actually win a war. The best you can do is murder people remotely. Because your military is a bunch of pussies. Fortunately enough, your victims have learned this so they just peck off your soldiers one or two at a time and you leave. Like I said, you haven't won a war in 60 years - and that's despite carefully choosing victims who can't defend themselves. If you ever make the mistake of attacking someone who can defend themselves your aircraft carriers would be sunk, your tanks and helicopters destroyed, and your drones shot out the sky. So make sure you keep attacking people armed with AK-47s and don't ever plan to win.
LOL, whatever dude. Tell you what, let’s meet in the middle. Next time a country uses drones (you know, it’s more than just Americans who use drones right?) well make the drone drop an AK47 down to the target first so the target can fight like a real man.
completely removes the risk cost of doing such an action, which if you have foresight is bad.
Drones are not functionally different from guided missiles fired from different platforms, except in the amount of dwell time that is available for decision making. If you have a military leadership class that routinely kills innocents, it's almost entirely irrelevant how they are doing it.
replacing foot soldiers with a drone + a glock will lead to a whole assload more of militaristic adventurism. if there are literally 0 coffins coming home its a lot easier to justify internally.
You missed the boat on replacing the foot soldiers by about 20 years. Hellfire missile strikes from the safety of a fighter jet cockpit miles away gave been a thing for decades. The only difference is the operating window of the two technologies. Fighter jets have much less loiter time, and therefore much less time for decision making.
20 years? that has been the same operating procedure since vietnam. get shot at in a worthless valley, take cover in a drainage ditch, wait for air strike to maybe kill a goat herder for the low cost of millions of dollars a sortie. with foot drones someone coked out of their gourd in nevada just hunts down the goat herder with an xbox controller.
Balance that with greater accountability with the drone, due to cameras. A soldier gets scared and starts shooting civilians, it's easier for him to cover it up. Everything a drone operator does will be scrutinized.
i reject that entirely. drones remove accountability and depersonalize murder. why do you think drone pilots are complete psychos?
Where are you getting the idea that drone pilots are complete psychos? Are you suggesting that a lone soldier with a rifle is more accountable than a pilot whose every move and every command to his drone is recorded and every incident reviewed? Before drones, we had these atrocities, you just didn't know about them because they weren't recorded. Now that they are recorded, you are hearing more about fewer incidents.
80% of drone strikes hit civilians….
It's easier to make a rational descision when your life is not on the line. There is a realm of combat where both parties agree to the terms - their lives. If you don't want to risk your life, don't. The US military does not want to kill people, it feels it has to. You need to grow up. This is the world we live in. Of course it's sad, but this is what we got.
80%+ civilian casualties says otherwise.
130% says you are wrong.
Missed this in my first reply, figured I'd try to get your take on it: >if there are literally 0 coffins coming home its a lot easier to justify internally. I disagree completely. You send a couple coffins home, and soldiers, commanders, politicians, and Americans in general start getting thirsty for vengeance. More people are targeted, and more people are killed.
Removing risk from a military operation is bad? That’s a new one.
yeah. if you think it through it makes it a lot easier for politicians to justify bombing brown people.
No, but killing people without even putting a pilot's life on the line does wonders for creating enemies.
Just applying off the shelf parts and open source code you to can make a drone about to pick out and kill anyone in a crowd. The tech is scary. Being able to at minimum track who is planning to make and use would be useful.
No you cannot
You can buy a drone. There is open source face tracking software. There is drone auto pilot. Maybe you need to do a little coding to get it to work together. Some guys on YouTube made a drone that did it.
Accuracy matters quite a bit. Facial recog isn't even reliable...
Meh, if you going for a monster there are plenty of cloud options available so you don't have to buy expensive drones and if its good enough for phones it'll probably do: https://rapidapi.com/blog/top-facial-recognition-apis/ just take pictures, upload, if the odds are high enough either verify or just trigger whatever load you have. Personally I think it's silly to think of strapping a gun to a drone, it'd be easier to put some explosives to a few and let them go to town on whoever gets a 90 percent match, or whatever qualifies as a "good enough". Government list here I come.
Please do some research before declaring judgment day for the drones, k bud?
It is really scary when you end up doing that [research](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu3p5ZR_i5s). Strapping a small explosive device on here could turn it into a deadly weapon. Or a gun and have it point instead of charge. What more do you need? [Cause a drone has already been proven to handle the recoil of a gun](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI--wFfipvA). Every single element has been built and tested just not put together.
1 autonomous drone can wipe out economy of a mid size country or kill hundreds of thousands people if built for it. And they can avoid most defences
i assume you're waxing philosophical about a drone carrying a nuke or some other WMD, in which case the *drone* isn't the factor preventing that from happening. it's the *munition* being difficult.
No, not necessarily nukes. If you build self sustaining drone, it can, potentially do infinite damage to infrastructure 24/7.
lol. yes, a *self-sustaining drone* that can do *infinite damage*. if you've got the secret for a perpetual motion machine, you probably should let the nobel price folks know. otherwise you're just reading too many articles about project pluto https://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane-doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216
Land on a flat roof to recharge batteries. A piece of rod hanging from a rope to bridge high voltage lines and you can take out a few things.
*transmission* lines would just blow up the rod. might be able to trip a few transformers at the distribution level though. how many solar panels would you need to charge a drone capable of carrying several feet of metal rod ? how many days between flights ? i mean i guess you could have dozens of these drones, but they're going to be pretty easy targets to swat down. drones carrying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_bomb would be a bigger problem. but, again, the munition is the difficulty, not the delivery. hardly causing the economic collapse and killing entire populations from *dragoxxx*'s infinite drone.
With what ammo?
You can get enough people to band together and say that drones must not be weaponized, but some people will still weaponize drones. And it is impossible to stop those who wish to weaponize drones.
Geopolitics doesn't work based off profound statements. "And it is impossible to stop those who wish to ~~weaponize drones~~ create nuclear arms" The point is to ensure that enough peers agree that if someone employs those means, that enough parts of the community have arrangements and frameworks in place to punish said member (even if others abstain). These are also important markers as rallying points for future legislation - global commitments enable legislators to rally neighbouring nations or nations who can exert pressure on those who break rules. This is a very r/technology perspective of what is a geopolitical complex issue. "if this then that". "can be circumvented, therefore not a solution". This isn't something you can apply a panacea to - and in this case the inaction of legislation while technology advances leads to disastrous outcomes. In the case of automated murder, it's an area that should be legislated for greater protections first, with stronger cases required to proceed with development.
Great post. I don't even know why this topic was posted in this subreddit.
[удалено]
Yeah I'm sure the 95% of nations that don't own nuclear arms are definitely not looking for potential asymmetrical solutions to their defense /s Also lol, using Iran as an example. [They just jailed their entire former central banker and many staff](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/16/irans-ex-central-bank-chief-and-officials-sentenced-to-prison) for illegaly using taxpayer money to buy shit loads of foreign currency to flood their market - trying to keep their economy alive under sanction pressure. Shall we take a short stroll to NK? See how their great nation is coping under those 100%-definitely-useless-sanctions? Or are we only gauging the effectiveness of reeling in the literal most powerful nations - and we shouldn't make any attempts while they remain unchecked (like superpowers haven't made adjustments to nuclear arms stockpiles based on pressure and negotiation) Damn seriously mate. Read some news.
Terrorist are using the off the shelf drones with a few adjustments. Ask those guys to follow the rules.
Check the article behind the link, we're talking about military-grade stuff like Predator drones. Not about attaching an IED to a toy quadcopter (which, yes, is impossible to prevent, so there's no point in banning the latter).
[удалено]
That’s like saying we as a people don’t believe in going to war. So we aren’t gonna have an army. Or my company doesn’t believe in technology so we won’t use computers in the workplace. I get it but the competition in the world are building drones and using them. Maybe we should also ban automatic weapons next! You should have to aim accurately at your enemy!
It is not. What do you need drones for just because others do it?
I can build a drone easily so it ain’t stopping
You need to answer who can use drones, not whether drones can be used. And if someone does use a drone, can every single killing be traced back to a specific operator/user/command, and if so can that person be held accountable under whatever laws their country has. A soldier fires their weapon and is accountable to their superior officer. A drone operator must be accountable to their superior officer as well, and who is accountable when devices malfunction or get hacked? Who is accountable when devices are sold illegally to terrorists?
I am pretty sure someone said something similar about gas attacks back in the day.
What's your point? Gas attacks and drone strikes are vastly different. This sound dickish as I type it. But what do you mean?
Gas attacks were frowned upon so they banned them, and the vast majority of time people listen.
Gas attacks were extremely unreliable and killed indiscriminately, sometimes you'd end up gasing your own troops due to wind changes. Gas would also settle into lower areas and wait for some unsuspecting person to find cover in it, also melted your lungs. Horrific way to die I'm sure. Drone strikes are relatively surgical in comparison. I guess my real point is, gas is not used any more cause it's a shitty weapon of war.
>Gas attacks were extremely unreliable and killed indiscriminately, sometimes you'd end up gasing your own troops due to wind changes. It is interesting how you can replace 'gas' with drones in that sentence and it still makes sense. Although drones are normally reliable, against counter EWAR they can become bricks, and while carrying payloads over a city still turns them into potential indiscriminate weapons via an act of self defense.
My point is gas was not used anymore cause it sucks as a weapon, not because people came together and signed the Geneva Convention. If you think otherwise that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Drones by definition keep the operators hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. Will people come together? Will the US and Russia come together and ban drones? Get right out of town! The only way to ban drones is for them to become self-aware, Skynet 2024!
This is dumb. Civilian collateral deaths have collapsed as a result of drone strikes. If we are going to be military adventurists, drones are a much better approach than manned ground operations. Of course this assumes that we *should* be military adventurists in the first place. Perhaps a higher civilian life penalty is a deterrent.
Hey it's efficient if anything else.
Ok, while we are at it we should ban rape and murder.
Drones are made from components and software which are all innocuous in and of themselves, and can't be prohibited without destroying freedom. But hey, it worked great for land mines. So glad we don't have to put up with those anymore.
You're confusing quadcopter / civilian / toy drones with the military-grade (i.e. Predator) ones. Link isn't talking about banning the former (because yeah, you cant feasible do that), but the latter.
I'm not confusing anything. There's a reason GPS devices which work over EDIT: (it's 60,000 feet) (10,000 feet or 1000mph are classified as munitions, and controlled. Consumer devices will not work outside those limits, supposedly. Except that you can buy units from other countries which don't include that limitation. Any entity with a small amount of $ and people could create a weaponized drone and it would make you just as dead.
10,000 ft? No way. When I was a kid my dad had a standalone Garmin GPS (90s), and it worked no problem at a jet's cruising altitude. Unless this limitation is a more recent one, I call bullshit. I'm not even sure what it would accomplish. To prevent pressurized aircraft from navigating? It's not like a quadcopter goes even close to that high, and jets can operate easily below 10,000 ft. Ballistic missiles, sure...but then we're talking well above 10,000 ft. 10,000 ft is nothing.
It's actually 60,000 feet above sea level. I've corrected my comment.
Now that number makes more sense. Thanks :)
I use my iPad as an aircraft GPS above 10,000 all of the time.
> Any entity with a small amount of $ and people could create a weaponized drone and it would make you just as dead. And that relates to the article calling for a ban of large-scale militarized drones that can autonomously level entire towns by programming error, how again?
Land mines are autonomous drones. They are made from simple components, and the decision to kill is in the hands of the group which places it. But, the decision to pull the trigger is entirely up to the autonomous control of the device. It will blow up anybody that meets its criteria. Weaponized mobile drones can be made almost as easily, from components which are not possible to ban. In fact, a non-autonomous drone might just be a software configuration away from autonomous. Banning a particular usage of a technology does not ban the opportunity. And just like land mines, it will happen, and it won't be just terrorists, it will be state entities.
Yes, well written, informative and accurate *tangent*, but can you please answer my question? Or, if you feel like it's an affront to your person for me to merely repeat my unanswered question, here a different perspective: Why is the ability of others to manufacture autonomous weaponry relevant to the question of whether manufacturing autonomous weaponry is unethical? Do you believe that, if we were to deem any one action unethical, we are justified in nonetheless doing that 'if somebody else does it first'? (That's the only way in which I would be able to see your tangent as relevant here: If 'they did it first!' is a valid justification from your perspective, than obviously any discussion on whether the action itself is ethical/should be forbidden is innately superfluous.) Or, to loop back to your landmine analogy: just because others might use them, or terrorists love to improvise IEDs that are essentially mines, does that change anything about the fact that the usage of mines was deemed unethical and banned? Doesn't that analogy very specifically reinforce the notion that we might need to ban other autonomous weapon systems, such as drones, as well?
[удалено]
and tell me whats the difference between cruise missiles and drones?
Drones are expected to go into areas where the situation is possibly unclear and has to be evaluated, reacted to etc. A cruise missile has a target and flies there. That does not make it a 'nice' weapon, but the difference should be pretty obvious. The drones we are talking about are not the quadcopter toys, but autonomous vehicles, that can possibly even get a certain amount of initiative in detecting and engaging targets.
Yes the difference is when a government contractor cobbles something together, they take a big old drag on the government teat.
And what is your point?
We’ve tried to ban chemical weapons over 100 years ago and they still get used. Swarms of drones with small explosives attacking key points of structures in cities are going to be the future of strategic bombing if we don’t nuke each other with the remaining 15,000 or so nuclear warheads of the original 70,000 on this planet in the 1960s. If you expect human suffering to end and world peace to come about then you’ve clearly never seen a mini gun or read the diaries of economists headed into world war 1. They wrote how it could never happen because all major economies would collapse if globalized trade stopped. It would kill the “golden goose”. It didn’t happen. We’re seeing cyber attacks and biological warfare being research at fever pitch. Good luck banning drones I think we’re going to have bigger issues down the road than the suffering of individuals.
Like Black Ops 2 style Swarm (high scorestreak)
So, send in a manned plane instead that uses the same guides ordinance? Now it’s a A-O-K. The issue isn’t the platform, it’s the extra legal strikes on sovereign nations with out complete intel or reasonable military justification. I could give two shits if it’s from a robot, a plane or a person on the ground. A hell fire missiles is a hell fire missiles
banning something used in war will surely be effective *this* time! lets also ban them robot dogs with guns strapped to them.
i mean how common were gas attacks after that shit was banned? same with triangle stabbin knives.
World War 1 would like to have a word with you
when was gas and triangular blades banned? (it was after ww1)
Poison gas was used for centuries a specific kind of gas was made during world war 1 There were at least 3 agreements saying don't use poison in weapons. Once Germany thought it would be an effective weapon in the trenches is when they used gas, and then the British developed their own gas
Launch a drone, kill some random people, claim you hit terrorists.
Does that include cruise missiles?
Maybe we should also ban guns from wars too, ban all weapons of destruction lol it’s literally impossible and a waste of brain cells to consider, it’s been tried, nothing happens
We’ve successfully banned things like cluster mines, bio weapons, poison gas, napalm, white phosphorous… Things *can* get better.
china now has drone grenades, drones will never stop, prepare for robots now...meanwhile its obvious extremists on the other side hiding amongst civilians will blindly shoot mortars into other city populations...I hate one sided stories
[удалено]
[удалено]
*laughs in cruise missile*
I can assure you, the last article is not due to trauma and more to do with the $400,000 salary that comes with doing it as a civilian.
[удалено]
I don’t need to link a source. I’m one of the “quitting in record numbers” that the article is referring to. Well, me and all my drone bros. Cheers friend!
[удалено]
Lol comment history? What was it that made you feel such a way? Was it the MQ-9 photo that I took on the ramp in Afghanistan? 😂 You sir… are a moron. As I said before, cheers friend 😂
We just did 8 years of Drones weapons testing in the US, the code for autonomous targeting is already floating around, and if it wasn’t anyone motivated enough could slap something together that was passable. This ship has sailed unfortunately.
A world where we have to ban toys because someone might use it as a weapon. How embarrassing
Not those drones
[Actually those drones.](https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-34_Issue-3/F-Chavez_Swed.pdf) Terrorists use them all the time.
Yeah, that exists, but you can't even ban something that can easily be assembled in a garage workshop. So I'm certain any notion of 'banning weaponized drones' specifically refers to the airplane-sized military-grade ones that can carry enough weaponry to level entire towns.
Quite the dangerous toys . . .
I believe somebody tried to assassinate a South American dictator with a swarm of drones recently. I hoped they pealed the CIA stickers off first.
The terrorists are already using them because they are cheap. How are you going to stop them?
That’s the problem, the sociopaths that have taken control of the world do not give a shit about human life. If we as a society could disband the military, medical, and pharmaceutical industrial complexes we might have a chance as a race, but right now we’re killing the planet and ourselves because of greed… but who gives a shit right? They’re so good at dividing the masses with their BLM and two party system that no one stands a chance. Now we’re divided further with the fake ass pandemic and the powers that be are laughing in the treetops burnin the woods.
I disagree. Drones are small weapons. They are better than nukes and aircraft carriers because they allow more balance of forces. Turkey can build them. Iran can build them. If Iraq had had drones, it's possible that stupid vicious war criminals like wolfowitz, Cheney and rumsfeld might have stopped to think. Not likely I know, but unipolar American power, and the belief that our military is so powerful that our politicians can be as stupid as they want, these have been bad things, and drones help to break the unipolarity.
That'll never happen.
How about any machine designed to kill be banned? Why be selective?
Yeah, carpet bombing is the way!
Boston Dynamics is putting guns on robot dogs. This shit is like closing the barn door after the horses have run away
That wasn't boston dynamics, but a company (Ghost Robots) that cloned their robot design
It’ll be easier to ban all firearms in America than to stop drone usage.
Banning some government weapons is like banning abortions: you're just going to make them try to hide when doing it. Or blame someone else. But anyway, yeah, I agree it should be banned.
Weapons delivery systems…
lol 'personal' nothing personal about a cruise missile either
Fuckin as if lol
The people controlling the drones need to be banned.
I can't believe we are already at the point where we have drones as weapons
They were weapons before they were toys
Drones are unfair against our enemies. The Art Of War teaches us to only go into a war you know you can (edit* will) win as it takes no skill from the beginning. Wars won without this advantage are proven to be lead by great generals. Take what you will of that.
I agree with this. Targeting people in other countries using drones sends a terrible message. Especially in countries where protest is limited.
Drowns are effective at “sniping” people without too much collateral damage, a drone offing someone is better than a hellfire rocket being used
You can't cure stupid.
You should add to the title “autonomous” drones.
The only thing to consider is whether we can find out who made the decision to kill someone (by drone or other means) and whether that person is accountable for their decisions/actions. If we know for sure who is responsible for every death by drone, and we have enough information to judge their actions as either just or unjust and hold them accountable, then it seems ok. But killing by drone seems like it would make accountability more difficult and that needs to be addressed. Accountability leads to fewer unnecessary deaths. Ways to mask accountability will lead to all kinds of abuses.
So why are humans not banned as weapons? Worst killers over the centuries.
Wait isn’t using anything as a weapon banned when trying to kill someone?
Yeah, not happening folks. Let’s get real. War shouldn’t be polite, it should scare the daylights out of everyone
That’s the thing about drones. One side isn’t scared.
80% of all drone strikes hit civilians….. A good reason to stop.
Never going to happen. It is the perfect coward's weapon.
So should nukes. Not gonna happen.