13 ms·

Veil of secrecy lifted on Pentagon office planning micro-drone swarms

144 points by wyclif 11y ago

jackgavigan 11y ago
“We don’t have to develop new planes,” Roper said. “We don’t have to develop fundamentally new weapons. But we have to work the integration and the concept of operation. And then you have a completely new capability, but you don’t have to wait long at all.” Whilst this is simply common sense, it's actually pretty radical thinking for the military. The big military contractors will be worried about this idea gaining widespread acceptance.
- ipsin 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm going to assume that the billions still slated for the F-35 and B-21 bomber will still be spent.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  There are issues. 1. Power source - battery, or something else? 2. Clean-up - do the drones self-destruct, or do they (literally) fall into enemy hands? 3. Range 4. Payload - HE? Are these flying mines/grenades? 5. Security - EMP, jamming, comm-layer hacks. The defensive applications are probably stronger than the offensive ones.
- patcheudor 11y ago
  I recently built an acrobatic FPV hexacopter and given its abilities to carry a payload as well as quick flight in close quarters it stuck me as the perfect weapon. Even without cellular or satellite communication to it, the thing has a 1.5 km line of sight range. Why spend billions on the F-35 when you could drop a swarm of these on some insurgents, each with a few grams of explosive. Have a pilot direct the swarm then once close enough to the target(s) have other pilots pick-up quadrants or even individual drones. Get close to the target(s) and trigger the explosives on the drone. It's likely possible to get the component cost easily below $1000 each. Even at $10,000 or $100,000 each, it would be a cheaper alternative to programs like the F-35. If the US isn't developing them, then others will. The thing that is quite scary is that this technology is available and here today with all the components necessary shipped from China.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    The F35 isn't being developed solely to combat insurgents, though it'll likely fill that role at some point.
    - tobltobs 11y ago
      The also plan a urban warfare module for the F35? At least the vertical take off module would make some sense then.
  - zby 11y ago
    Poisonous stings instead of explosives
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    I'm constantly reminded of "Kill decision" by Daniel Suarez that I read last year based on a recommendation here. It plays these ideas (cheap, autonomous) out for some quite interesting reading, only it is the bad guys who are in control.
    - artursapek 11y ago
      "Bad guys" is based on perspective anyway
      - unit91 11y ago
        Hardly. "Enemy" is a matter of perspective, but there are actual "bad guys", regardless of what side I'm on. As a simple illustration, if you were a holocaust victim at Auschwitz, the Nazi regime is your enemy, even if you're passive in your resistance, as many were. The Nazis are also the bad guys. Even though you are the Nazis' enemy, you are not the bad guy. The bad guys are the ones murdering millions. Often in conflicts, both sides are bad guys (for example, warring criminal gangs). The term "bad guys" doesn't necessarily mean there are "good guys" opposing them.
        11y ago
flexie 11y ago
If American military develops micro drones that have cameras and other sensors and carry enough firepower to kill a man, they have the key to win gorilla wars like the ones they have had trouble with in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. It will be much cheaper to send in 100 tiny drones to kill one enemy soldier than to send in an American soldier. And it will be safe for Americans. Once you have enough of the drones and they are small enough, you can launch swarms of them inside, outside, over ground, under ground, in daylight and at night. The enemy might be able to shoot down 99 percent of them, but you only need one drone to take out the enemy. You can chase down the enemy soldiers, one by one. You can even avoid civilian casualties by spending enough time to establish who's enemy soldiers and then take them out with precision. Even - to a high degree - if the enemy hides among civilians. Once the target is eliminated (or has surrendered), you can return any surviving drones or have them destroy themselves. Once war becomes safe and clean for Americans, there will probably be less objections against war. Another Afghanistan will take a few weeks or months, not 15 years. Americans will actually be able to win the peace, not just the wars like today. When the enemy realises that there is no-where to hide, they will surrender. Americans can basically engage anyone, anywhere, at all time and in no time, with no apparent risk at at little cost. Of course, the threat of a nuclear retaliation would be the most effective defense against such drone based wars, so I would expect more of the dictatorships to attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.
- T-zex 11y ago
  >Americans will actually be able to win the peace, not just the wars like today. Sincerely hope you are being sarcastic here.
- teekert 11y ago
  If the drones swarm, carrying orders without further communication one can even start and win wars without revealing one's identity.
- liotier 11y ago
  Do you realize that all this amounts to unavoidable proliferation of autonomous guided ordnance ? Expect narco drone assassinations in Mexico soon and don't think your homeland is immune to the employment of cheap widely available technological artifacts...
infinite8s 11y ago
If you couple a swarm of these micro-drones and an AlphaGo like planner then you'll basically have a mini SkyNet.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ohitsdom 11y ago
Are the drones disposable? I would think so since I bet their range is limited. How do they handle concerns of this tech falling into the enemy's hands? I realize it's mostly simple (3-D printed and lightweight) but there's still value there (in camera/weaponry and software).
- iphoneseventeen 11y ago
  Self destruct after X hours?
  - jjwiseman 11y ago
    The Syrian Airlift Project, which used drones to send aid to refugees and besieged civilians in Syria, added a "self-destruct mechanism that destroys the autopilot if a crash is imminent in Syria, reducing the risk of later weaponization by bad actors" and the potential leak of sensitive information.
    - adamtheterrible 11y ago
      Unfortunately we never got to actually operate jjwiseman, though that was our goal. Lots of lessons learned and definitely brought out the best in each of us. Thanks for sharing on HN!
      - jjwiseman 11y ago
        That's too bad. Is there a writeup of the conclusion of the project?
- usrusr 11y ago
  A sufficiently locked bootloader and a maybe even a disposable battery will reduce the effective finder's value to a few grams of rare earth magnets. At this size, I would not expect too many fancy area-51-grade sensors, just OTS webcam class stuff that gets the job done. With the massed deployment model of dropping a whole container of these things, the nominal cost woult probably be measured in money per tonne, not money per airframe...
zby 11y ago
The biggest problem with this is that this is perfect for political assasinations. It can be precise enough and it can be probably leave little traces or be made hard to identify who was controlling the weapon - just like now we have problem with identifying the sources of internet attacks. I remember reading, many years ago, a very short SF story about a robot built specificially to kill targeted people and leave false traces. I think even now it would not be too difficult to built a small bug-like (or wasp-like) robot with a poisonous sting that could autonomously navigate a few hundred meters to reach a bed of a politician (or activist) - how are you going to protect your leaders against an attack like this?
- adam12 11y ago
  That is terrifying.
- tjl 11y ago
  Dune hunter/killer drones? Although, those weren't actually autonomous.
- jjwiseman 11y ago
  The Unreconstructed M, by Philip K. Dick: https://books.google.com/books?id=R7rALwfN6pYC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=the+unreconstructed+m&source=bl&ots=bYuTuMNwXQ&sig=PV8bEX5iPTDadyfu1XHq5NJim44&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiclt-k17bLAhUN8mMKHe3KCoIQ6AEIQTAG#v=onepage&q=the%20unreconstructed%20m&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=R7rALwfN6pYC&pg=PA117&lpg=...
  - zby 11y ago
    Yeah - that was it. Apparently it is in public domain now: http://www.sffaudio.com/the-unreconstructed-m-by-philip-k-dick-is-public-domain/ http://www.sffaudio.com/the-unreconstructed-m-by-philip-k-di... so you can read it here: http://www.sffaudio.com/podcasts/TheUnreconstructedMByPhilipK.Dick.pdf http://www.sffaudio.com/podcasts/TheUnreconstructedMByPhilip...
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  You'd have the same problem identifying the source of a sniper's bullet, in the context of a world where the government is willing to take people out like this.
sj4nz 11y ago
This is some especially scary stuff. These drones won't be carrying bullets. They'll be carrying tiny payloads of VX nerve agent to be "effective detterent." Since the LD50 is 10 mg, "legally" _any_ country could stockpile 100g of VX (the amount they can produce annually without reporting to the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and maintain a swarm of death-drones 10,000-strong. Yesterday's "smart" bombs with thousands of pounds of high explosives are now quaint, like cannons made out of bronze. Countries willing to report can maintain a tonne of VX and a drone swarm 100-million devices strong. If you can swarm 100,000 drones at a force and they can only stop 99%, it still kills a thousand people--but in reality, once a swarm attack begins, you're going to see the enemy flail uselessly against these drones in defense. War has now fundamentally changed and standing armies don't even realize it yet. Activism is now even more dangerous. If you thought political opposition was dangerous now, imagine the ease of a State aiming a single drone at an a singularly unpopular voice leading the the crowd. Holy shit--that person just dropped dead on the stage! What happened? Drone. If you attended Obama's last inauguration on the steps of the Capitol on the National Mall, hold fast to that memory. The next, and all future, presidential inaugurations may just be indoor affairs. Or perhaps... under a giant lexan rotunda.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > Since the LD50 is 10 mg, "legally" _any_ country could stockpile 100g of VX (the amount they can produce annually without reporting to the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and maintain a swarm of death-drones 10,000-strong. If I wanted to assassinate someone with poison, I'd use a higher dose than the LD50.
  - sj4nz 11y ago
    There you go, you're denying the enemy a sporting chance. :/
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    But if you were paying attention he was talking about being able to stockpile chemicals without having to tell anyone.
shele 11y ago
And this is how the world ends according to Stanisław Lem, 1964, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible .
- btbuildem 11y ago
  He's refined (?) that concept in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)
- gambiting 11y ago
  My favourite book of all time actually, deeply recommend :-)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
coldcode 11y ago
History has always shown that for every new offensive weapon someone will one-up it with a defensive one or find some way to render it useless; then the cycle continues. Also for every technology you think you control, someone will find a way to take it from you.
- abledon 11y ago
  what was the defensive weapon against the Atomic Bomb? Political Sanctions?
  - jjn2009 11y ago
    More atomic bombs
  - rtkwe 11y ago
    For all the bad that it did mutually assured destruction seemed to do the job.
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      Barely...
- brandmeyer 11y ago
  I don't think that's been true for several decades. Missiles and torpedoes have completely trumped armor in naval warfare. Even today, anti-submarine warfare systems are nearly useless against the offensive capabilities of submarines. Similarly for tank armor - modern tanks' armor are only effective against weapons that aren't otherwise designed for the purpose of penetrating them. Anti-tank weapons easily destroy tanks today.
- Gustomaximus 11y ago
  If you take WWI for example which is considered the largest technology warfare shift in mankind, the technology cycle of counter measure held true but came at terrible cost. Our 're-balancing' could come at the cost of billions of lives. Think about that. Also if you like at history, you'd know typically the few control the many and use a gained advantage to be fairly brutal to anyone else. I'm not so confident this will work well out if people simply let the natural evolution of events happen without putting in altruistic controls and agreements within and between nations.
dogma1138 11y ago
How exactly is this scarier than a 20m wing span MQ-9 Reaper with 4 Hellfire Missiles or an over the counter DJi-Phantom packed with C4 for that matter? These drones might be useful for some EW/Cyber warfare and maybe as advanced counter measures but assassinations? pffttt the US and many other countries have[0] loitering munitions that could be much more effective at those tasks than a drone that wont survive a collision with a house fly from the look of it. The whole swarm thing is also overblown, the USAF is looking into swarm configuration for manned and unmanned aircraft mostly to counter contested airspaces due to the proliferation of advanced AA platforms, the whole idea is to send a swarm of low cost UAV's that could either saturate the airspace and either make the AA tracking systems ineffective or actually use EW or act like anti-radiation platforms them selves and just ram the radar arrays of the enemy missile systems. The delivery method reported for this particular one is also quite ineffective dumping 100's of those out of the back of a transport aircraft seems to me a much more effective method which also has been tested by the US many time before to deliver loitering munitions mostly Anti-Radiation platforms. [0]http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/08/uk-complex-weapons-part-6-fire-shadow-loitering-munition/ http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/08/uk-complex-weapons-par... [0]http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/armedUAVs_8.htm http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/armedUAVs_8.htm
- task_queue 11y ago
  Because they're small, cheap, easily made, easily replaceable and easily deployed.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    They aren't nearly as effective as the countless other types of autonomous munitions that the US has deployed over the years they aren't going to be used as "weapons" the US has suicide drones which are much better suited for that task.
alvern 11y ago
Moving past the nerve gas or explosive payloads, it would be rather easy to equip tasers or other non-violent riot measures on a swarm of micro drones. Like a swarm of wasps that can be targeted and controlled.
- jjwiseman 11y ago
  "Watch this drone taser a guy until he collapses": http://time.com/19929/watch-this-drone-taser-a-guy-until-he-collapses/ http://time.com/19929/watch-this-drone-taser-a-guy-until-he-...
ondrae 11y ago
We'll just need our own swarm of drones to protect us from these ones. In Neal Stephenson's [Diamond Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age) each neighborhood has an invisible border of these murder drones that won't let you pass.
rsync 11y ago
"Depending upon the species, mosquitoes can fly at about 1 to 1.5 miles per hour. Mosquito species preferring to breed around the house, like the Asian Tiger Mosquito, have limited flight ranges of about 300 feet. Most species have flight ranges of 1-3 miles." So ... you're probably not going to beat ~billions of years of evolution, in terms of power to weight ratio and efficiency, right ? So let's use the mosquito as a baseline and stipulate that what you gain by stripping away the reproductive and digestive systems, you lose back by adding an offensive payload, so that's a wash. And you end up with something that has a range of ~2 miles and can fly about 1 mph. And also we're already evolved to hear and see objects of this size (and smaller). If you make them larger, to carry more payload, not only do you start down this vicious cycle of greater size to support more payload (see: adding more battery weight to an electric car to increase the range, but diminishing returns because you added more weight...) but you also end up with a larger "bug" that's even easier to notice. Or you could make them smaller, but now your range/speed drops even further. This is not to mention the issue of predators - albeit confused ones that probably just spit the drone out.
- linkregister 11y ago
  I'm not clear about where you got the idea that the drones were the size of mosquitoes. The article mentioned that each one was propelled by a single 1-inch (2 1/2 cm) propeller and weigh about one pound (1/2 kg). The picture in the article showed a small fixed-wing aircraft. It looks like aircraft of that nature would have far less maneuverability and far greater range than a natural organism that size. But I am glad you contributed this comment; I agree that objects that small are more vulnerable to gusts of wind and predators.
  - abrookewood 11y ago
    Someone further up was talking about making insect-sized drones ... presumably this was a response to that.
arippberger 11y ago
My god. They are well on their way to creating a real Protoss Carrier.

144 points by wyclif 11y ago

“We don’t have to develop new planes,” Roper said. “We don’t have to develop fundamentally new weapons. But we have to work the integration and the concept of operation. And then you have a completely new capability, but you don’t have to wait long at all.” Whilst this is simply common sense, it's actually pretty radical thinking for the military. The big military contractors will be worried about this idea gaining widespread acceptance.

ipsin 11y ago
Yeah, I'm going to assume that the billions still slated for the F-35 and B-21 bomber will still be spent.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
There are issues. 1. Power source - battery, or something else? 2. Clean-up - do the drones self-destruct, or do they (literally) fall into enemy hands? 3. Range 4. Payload - HE? Are these flying mines/grenades? 5. Security - EMP, jamming, comm-layer hacks. The defensive applications are probably stronger than the offensive ones.
patcheudor 11y ago
I recently built an acrobatic FPV hexacopter and given its abilities to carry a payload as well as quick flight in close quarters it stuck me as the perfect weapon. Even without cellular or satellite communication to it, the thing has a 1.5 km line of sight range. Why spend billions on the F-35 when you could drop a swarm of these on some insurgents, each with a few grams of explosive. Have a pilot direct the swarm then once close enough to the target(s) have other pilots pick-up quadrants or even individual drones. Get close to the target(s) and trigger the explosives on the drone. It's likely possible to get the component cost easily below $1000 each. Even at $10,000 or $100,000 each, it would be a cheaper alternative to programs like the F-35. If the US isn't developing them, then others will. The thing that is quite scary is that this technology is available and here today with all the components necessary shipped from China.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  The F35 isn't being developed solely to combat insurgents, though it'll likely fill that role at some point.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    The also plan a urban warfare module for the F35? At least the vertical take off module would make some sense then.
- zby 11y ago
  Poisonous stings instead of explosives
- reitanqild 11y ago
  I'm constantly reminded of "Kill decision" by Daniel Suarez that I read last year based on a recommendation here. It plays these ideas (cheap, autonomous) out for some quite interesting reading, only it is the bad guys who are in control.
  - artursapek 11y ago
    "Bad guys" is based on perspective anyway
    - unit91 11y ago
      Hardly. "Enemy" is a matter of perspective, but there are actual "bad guys", regardless of what side I'm on. As a simple illustration, if you were a holocaust victim at Auschwitz, the Nazi regime is your enemy, even if you're passive in your resistance, as many were. The Nazis are also the bad guys. Even though you are the Nazis' enemy, you are not the bad guy. The bad guys are the ones murdering millions. Often in conflicts, both sides are bad guys (for example, warring criminal gangs). The term "bad guys" doesn't necessarily mean there are "good guys" opposing them.
      - 11y ago

flexie 11y ago

If American military develops micro drones that have cameras and other sensors and carry enough firepower to kill a man, they have the key to win gorilla wars like the ones they have had trouble with in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. It will be much cheaper to send in 100 tiny drones to kill one enemy soldier than to send in an American soldier. And it will be safe for Americans. Once you have enough of the drones and they are small enough, you can launch swarms of them inside, outside, over ground, under ground, in daylight and at night. The enemy might be able to shoot down 99 percent of them, but you only need one drone to take out the enemy. You can chase down the enemy soldiers, one by one. You can even avoid civilian casualties by spending enough time to establish who's enemy soldiers and then take them out with precision. Even - to a high degree - if the enemy hides among civilians. Once the target is eliminated (or has surrendered), you can return any surviving drones or have them destroy themselves. Once war becomes safe and clean for Americans, there will probably be less objections against war. Another Afghanistan will take a few weeks or months, not 15 years. Americans will actually be able to win the peace, not just the wars like today. When the enemy realises that there is no-where to hide, they will surrender. Americans can basically engage anyone, anywhere, at all time and in no time, with no apparent risk at at little cost. Of course, the threat of a nuclear retaliation would be the most effective defense against such drone based wars, so I would expect more of the dictatorships to attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

T-zex 11y ago
>Americans will actually be able to win the peace, not just the wars like today. Sincerely hope you are being sarcastic here.
teekert 11y ago
If the drones swarm, carrying orders without further communication one can even start and win wars without revealing one's identity.
liotier 11y ago
Do you realize that all this amounts to unavoidable proliferation of autonomous guided ordnance ? Expect narco drone assassinations in Mexico soon and don't think your homeland is immune to the employment of cheap widely available technological artifacts...

infinite8s 11y ago

If you couple a swarm of these micro-drones and an AlphaGo like planner then you'll basically have a mini SkyNet.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ohitsdom 11y ago

Are the drones disposable? I would think so since I bet their range is limited. How do they handle concerns of this tech falling into the enemy's hands? I realize it's mostly simple (3-D printed and lightweight) but there's still value there (in camera/weaponry and software).

iphoneseventeen 11y ago
Self destruct after X hours?
- jjwiseman 11y ago
  The Syrian Airlift Project, which used drones to send aid to refugees and besieged civilians in Syria, added a "self-destruct mechanism that destroys the autopilot if a crash is imminent in Syria, reducing the risk of later weaponization by bad actors" and the potential leak of sensitive information.
  - adamtheterrible 11y ago
    Unfortunately we never got to actually operate jjwiseman, though that was our goal. Lots of lessons learned and definitely brought out the best in each of us. Thanks for sharing on HN!
    - jjwiseman 11y ago
      That's too bad. Is there a writeup of the conclusion of the project?
usrusr 11y ago
A sufficiently locked bootloader and a maybe even a disposable battery will reduce the effective finder's value to a few grams of rare earth magnets. At this size, I would not expect too many fancy area-51-grade sensors, just OTS webcam class stuff that gets the job done. With the massed deployment model of dropping a whole container of these things, the nominal cost woult probably be measured in money per tonne, not money per airframe...

zby 11y ago

The biggest problem with this is that this is perfect for political assasinations. It can be precise enough and it can be probably leave little traces or be made hard to identify who was controlling the weapon - just like now we have problem with identifying the sources of internet attacks. I remember reading, many years ago, a very short SF story about a robot built specificially to kill targeted people and leave false traces. I think even now it would not be too difficult to built a small bug-like (or wasp-like) robot with a poisonous sting that could autonomously navigate a few hundred meters to reach a bed of a politician (or activist) - how are you going to protect your leaders against an attack like this?

adam12 11y ago
That is terrifying.
tjl 11y ago
Dune hunter/killer drones? Although, those weren't actually autonomous.
jjwiseman 11y ago
The Unreconstructed M, by Philip K. Dick: https://books.google.com/books?id=R7rALwfN6pYC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=the+unreconstructed+m&source=bl&ots=bYuTuMNwXQ&sig=PV8bEX5iPTDadyfu1XHq5NJim44&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiclt-k17bLAhUN8mMKHe3KCoIQ6AEIQTAG#v=onepage&q=the%20unreconstructed%20m&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=R7rALwfN6pYC&pg=PA117&lpg=...
- zby 11y ago
  Yeah - that was it. Apparently it is in public domain now: http://www.sffaudio.com/the-unreconstructed-m-by-philip-k-dick-is-public-domain/ http://www.sffaudio.com/the-unreconstructed-m-by-philip-k-di... so you can read it here: http://www.sffaudio.com/podcasts/TheUnreconstructedMByPhilipK.Dick.pdf http://www.sffaudio.com/podcasts/TheUnreconstructedMByPhilip...
13thLetter 11y ago
You'd have the same problem identifying the source of a sniper's bullet, in the context of a world where the government is willing to take people out like this.

sj4nz 11y ago

This is some especially scary stuff. These drones won't be carrying bullets. They'll be carrying tiny payloads of VX nerve agent to be "effective detterent." Since the LD50 is 10 mg, "legally" _any_ country could stockpile 100g of VX (the amount they can produce annually without reporting to the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and maintain a swarm of death-drones 10,000-strong. Yesterday's "smart" bombs with thousands of pounds of high explosives are now quaint, like cannons made out of bronze. Countries willing to report can maintain a tonne of VX and a drone swarm 100-million devices strong. If you can swarm 100,000 drones at a force and they can only stop 99%, it still kills a thousand people--but in reality, once a swarm attack begins, you're going to see the enemy flail uselessly against these drones in defense. War has now fundamentally changed and standing armies don't even realize it yet. Activism is now even more dangerous. If you thought political opposition was dangerous now, imagine the ease of a State aiming a single drone at an a singularly unpopular voice leading the the crowd. Holy shit--that person just dropped dead on the stage! What happened? Drone. If you attended Obama's last inauguration on the steps of the Capitol on the National Mall, hold fast to that memory. The next, and all future, presidential inaugurations may just be indoor affairs. Or perhaps... under a giant lexan rotunda.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Since the LD50 is 10 mg, "legally" _any_ country could stockpile 100g of VX (the amount they can produce annually without reporting to the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and maintain a swarm of death-drones 10,000-strong. If I wanted to assassinate someone with poison, I'd use a higher dose than the LD50.
- sj4nz 11y ago
  There you go, you're denying the enemy a sporting chance. :/
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  But if you were paying attention he was talking about being able to stockpile chemicals without having to tell anyone.

shele 11y ago

And this is how the world ends according to Stanisław Lem, 1964, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible .

btbuildem 11y ago
He's refined (?) that concept in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)
gambiting 11y ago
My favourite book of all time actually, deeply recommend :-)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

coldcode 11y ago

History has always shown that for every new offensive weapon someone will one-up it with a defensive one or find some way to render it useless; then the cycle continues. Also for every technology you think you control, someone will find a way to take it from you.

abledon 11y ago
what was the defensive weapon against the Atomic Bomb? Political Sanctions?
- jjn2009 11y ago
  More atomic bombs
- rtkwe 11y ago
  For all the bad that it did mutually assured destruction seemed to do the job.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Barely...
brandmeyer 11y ago
I don't think that's been true for several decades. Missiles and torpedoes have completely trumped armor in naval warfare. Even today, anti-submarine warfare systems are nearly useless against the offensive capabilities of submarines. Similarly for tank armor - modern tanks' armor are only effective against weapons that aren't otherwise designed for the purpose of penetrating them. Anti-tank weapons easily destroy tanks today.
Gustomaximus 11y ago
If you take WWI for example which is considered the largest technology warfare shift in mankind, the technology cycle of counter measure held true but came at terrible cost. Our 're-balancing' could come at the cost of billions of lives. Think about that. Also if you like at history, you'd know typically the few control the many and use a gained advantage to be fairly brutal to anyone else. I'm not so confident this will work well out if people simply let the natural evolution of events happen without putting in altruistic controls and agreements within and between nations.

dogma1138 11y ago

How exactly is this scarier than a 20m wing span MQ-9 Reaper with 4 Hellfire Missiles or an over the counter DJi-Phantom packed with C4 for that matter? These drones might be useful for some EW/Cyber warfare and maybe as advanced counter measures but assassinations? pffttt the US and many other countries have[0] loitering munitions that could be much more effective at those tasks than a drone that wont survive a collision with a house fly from the look of it. The whole swarm thing is also overblown, the USAF is looking into swarm configuration for manned and unmanned aircraft mostly to counter contested airspaces due to the proliferation of advanced AA platforms, the whole idea is to send a swarm of low cost UAV's that could either saturate the airspace and either make the AA tracking systems ineffective or actually use EW or act like anti-radiation platforms them selves and just ram the radar arrays of the enemy missile systems. The delivery method reported for this particular one is also quite ineffective dumping 100's of those out of the back of a transport aircraft seems to me a much more effective method which also has been tested by the US many time before to deliver loitering munitions mostly Anti-Radiation platforms. [0]http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/08/uk-complex-weapons-part-6-fire-shadow-loitering-munition/ http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/08/uk-complex-weapons-par... [0]http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/armedUAVs_8.htm http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/armedUAVs_8.htm

task_queue 11y ago
Because they're small, cheap, easily made, easily replaceable and easily deployed.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  They aren't nearly as effective as the countless other types of autonomous munitions that the US has deployed over the years they aren't going to be used as "weapons" the US has suicide drones which are much better suited for that task.

alvern 11y ago

Moving past the nerve gas or explosive payloads, it would be rather easy to equip tasers or other non-violent riot measures on a swarm of micro drones. Like a swarm of wasps that can be targeted and controlled.

jjwiseman 11y ago
"Watch this drone taser a guy until he collapses": http://time.com/19929/watch-this-drone-taser-a-guy-until-he-collapses/ http://time.com/19929/watch-this-drone-taser-a-guy-until-he-...

ondrae 11y ago

We'll just need our own swarm of drones to protect us from these ones. In Neal Stephenson's [Diamond Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age) each neighborhood has an invisible border of these murder drones that won't let you pass.

rsync 11y ago

"Depending upon the species, mosquitoes can fly at about 1 to 1.5 miles per hour. Mosquito species preferring to breed around the house, like the Asian Tiger Mosquito, have limited flight ranges of about 300 feet. Most species have flight ranges of 1-3 miles." So ... you're probably not going to beat ~billions of years of evolution, in terms of power to weight ratio and efficiency, right ? So let's use the mosquito as a baseline and stipulate that what you gain by stripping away the reproductive and digestive systems, you lose back by adding an offensive payload, so that's a wash. And you end up with something that has a range of ~2 miles and can fly about 1 mph. And also we're already evolved to hear and see objects of this size (and smaller). If you make them larger, to carry more payload, not only do you start down this vicious cycle of greater size to support more payload (see: adding more battery weight to an electric car to increase the range, but diminishing returns because you added more weight...) but you also end up with a larger "bug" that's even easier to notice. Or you could make them smaller, but now your range/speed drops even further. This is not to mention the issue of predators - albeit confused ones that probably just spit the drone out.

linkregister 11y ago
I'm not clear about where you got the idea that the drones were the size of mosquitoes. The article mentioned that each one was propelled by a single 1-inch (2 1/2 cm) propeller and weigh about one pound (1/2 kg). The picture in the article showed a small fixed-wing aircraft. It looks like aircraft of that nature would have far less maneuverability and far greater range than a natural organism that size. But I am glad you contributed this comment; I agree that objects that small are more vulnerable to gusts of wind and predators.
- abrookewood 11y ago
  Someone further up was talking about making insect-sized drones ... presumably this was a response to that.

arippberger 11y ago

My god. They are well on their way to creating a real Protoss Carrier.