5 ms·

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 l

by 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...
- ihsw 11y ago
  Vehicle-based counter-air systems will simply be added presidential motorcades, and they would be sold as stand-alone systems. Current counter-air technologies can be scaled down (eg: Iron Dome, S-400, etc) and the preferred method of interception will more than likely be laser-based.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Will you put anti-aircraft weapons at every airport, school, stadium, etc.?
    - ihsw 11y ago
      Do we station troops at every airport, school, stadium? No. Do we put video cameras outside of every person's home? No. Security is needs-based. If there is a high risk of attack then yes, otherwise no.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        Do we put video cameras outside of every person's home? No. Not yet. And in some countries there are already plenty of street CCTV cameras.
- flexie 11y ago
  Yes, just like guns are a cheap, widely available technology and used by criminals and dictators already. I am not advocating drone wars, just saying it will happen; the US finds itself engaged in wars already - often several at a time - although it leads to both American losses and local civilian casualties. Which president would rather send in troops than robots? Unlike the Americans, who have the planes, helicopters, rockets, tanks, carriers etc to launch these drones from a safe distance, it would be hard for terrorists to use it against Americans. Americans would try to keep the technology to themselves for a while with usual non-proliferation laws and by using encryption on the deployed drones.
  - 11y ago
ucaetano 11y ago
>gorilla wars I see what you did there...
stanmancan 11y ago
And what happens when the enemy gets similar technology?
- ihsw 11y ago
  Current anti-air defense systems can eat Predator and Reaper drones for breakfast, and still ask for seconds. New anti-air defense systems defending against drone swarms will be developed.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    That's because the Predator, Reaper et. al. were designed to operate in areas where AA isn't a threat.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    So, one of the IRA attacks on the British government involved parking a van with a mortar launcher in the back within range of Downing Street. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack The 21st century of that would be a van releasing bomb-carrying small drones that would then fly to their target at street level. This presents a serious problem for attempting to intercept them, as any detonation along the way would also have civilian casualties.
- jqm 11y ago
  I don't think that will be a problem. Gorillas probably aren't going to be able to keep a drone fleet running.
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Do you mean "Guerilla" or are you using a metaphor for less advanced countries?
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      The OP (flexie) said "gorilla" rather than "guerilla". Probably either a typo or not native English, though it could have been intentional. jqm merely copied it.
ceejayoz 11y ago
> 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. Until such a swarm targets something like a Presidential inauguration, or a busy shopping mall at Christmas, or the Super Bowl. > Americans will actually be able to win the peace, not just the wars like today. I suspect that statement was said in the mid-to-late 1940s about nuclear weapons.
Retric 11y ago
A dirty secret is we can't actually tell who is a terrorist even inside the US. How do you expect to notice in another country? EX: [Has gun] is not enough. EX: [Someone says is a terrorist] is not enough. If we start tracking people 24/7 with drones we can make a lot of terrorists. But, we don't have enough people to have large numbers of people watched 24/7. So, sure we can kill a lot of people with a new weapon, but we often just classify people as insurgents after we bombed them.
- lqdc13 11y ago
  features: has_gun looks_like_ak47 wears_camo_gear decision: fire Oops, I guess it was a child with a toy gun... I guess we should have trained on more of those.
  - golergka 11y ago
    Do you honestly think that a real soldier would be better at telling apart a child with a toy gun from a child soldier in a conflict zone? A real soldier would be making this decision while being afraid for his life and life of his comrades. A drone operator or AI would be making this decision while being afraid for a cheap (especially by military standards) machine. Guess which decision process produces more false positives?
    - Retric 11y ago
      A real soldier can't watch 100 drones at the same time. The problem with false positives is if you increase accuracy, but dramatically increase testing you end up with more false positives. So, we can trade 1 snap second judgment by a person, with 100 rapid judgments from an overworked person. A 10% chance of killing one person is better than a 1% chance of killing 100 people.
      - golergka 11y ago
        > A 10% chance of killing one person is better than a 1% chance of killing 100 people. It's only true if you forget about the original objective: killing bad guys. This objective is in place not because of some sports, but because bad guys actually kill other innocent people. So if you calculate how many innocent lives you save in the second option, it still looks quite better.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
That's a scenario for a horrific dystopian future movie.
- datr 11y ago
  This is basically the premise for Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez.
sametmax 11y ago
Basically turning the US into the Earth bully noone can stop. And then, theu will be used on US to soil keep the peace inside the country's border as well. For surveillance. Protecion. Then crowd control. Then more. And after being the world wosrt nightmare you will taste, but too late, the biterness of this idea. And everybody will be in a sad state.
- golergka 11y ago
  Any government or quasi-government agent is a "bully". But these bullies are worst when they compete with one another or move from place to place. When these kinds of bullies get (1) stationary and (2) feel safe from competition, that's when you actually get prosperity and safety. And if you destroy the big old lazy bully, it just means that thousand of small ones start fighting over his place.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Any government or quasi-government agent is a "bully". Yeah, but in Asia or Africa for example you seldom fear or are annoyed by Chile or Canada. Whereas certain bullies annoy (and worse) all over the world.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      I don't see how this is a valid rebuttal to the above.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        I don't see one can't see that it's not meant to be a rebuttal -- especially since it starts with "Yeah", which implies it agrees in principle. In any case, not all responses are or are meant to be "rebuttals" (valid or not). This one was meant to add some more context: that even if all government are bullies, not all bullies are equally bad.
    - golergka 11y ago
      You seem to be keen to apply "good/bad" axis, but I don't see what's the use of it on this scale.
dragandj 11y ago
Of course, US is not the only one who could do that.
noam87 11y ago
And what happens when the US decides that Hitler and Mussolini are actually pretty great guys, and that fascism must spread through Europe whether by "persuasion or force" (1); or that a democratically elected leader must be replaced by a brutal military dictatorship (2); or redefines "threat to national security" to mean any country that interferes with the US's "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources" (3); and that "economic nationalism" (i.e: any other nation's right to profit from its own natural resources) must be "eliminated at all costs" (4). What then? It's astounding how strong the propaganda machine is, and how ignorant of their own whitewashed history even some of the most educated Americans are. Though it's not unprecedented: just a century ago, the world's most brilliant minds supported (and helped) Germany in the first and second world wars (e.g: the design of chemical weapons)... only five scientists signed an anti-war petition (led by Einstein), while the rest cheered on this new, "more civilized" age of warfare. Nobody elected the USA world police. If it wishes to aid in peacekeeping, it is free to do so within the confines of international law. --- 1) http://amzn.com/080781766X http://amzn.com/080781766X 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... and almost every other country in South america: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f... 3) http://fas.org/man/docs/qdr/sec3.html http://fas.org/man/docs/qdr/sec3.html 4) http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-02-26a.html http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-02-26a.html
- megalodon 11y ago
  This. The rhetoric of the post above is not very different from the fundamentalist forces America is currently waging wars against.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
riskable 11y ago
> 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. 100 tiny drones... So cute. Try 100,000 or more like 10,000,000 if the military "gets serious" about these things. If these things are effective then why not make large drones with the sole purpose of deploying as many as possible? 10,000 large drones carrying a payload of 1,000 tiny drones. They come back, pick up 1,000 more, and fly again. After a few weeks or months you've got hundreds of thousands covering an area. It won't be long before tiny drones like this can be powered by photovoltaic panels indefinitely (we have medium sized ones that can do that already). It could be quite a while though before that capability is available for drones that can actually kill people (assuming they don't have enough mass to be used as single-target missiles).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
hellbanner 11y ago
Nukes? Why not just hack the drones.. jam their sensors.. take hostages? "Another Afghanistan".. by "win the peace" you do mean, "everyone alive is on our side", right? (I'm not implying you support pro-war politics, just clarifying for the viewers) Nukes only work if they are asymmetrical (suitcase) style. If Country X decides to "Nuke the USA".. guess what, USA will Nuke X right back. Pretty useless, unless X is launching because Y forced or tricked them to..
laen 11y ago
>Once war becomes safe and clean for Americans, there will probably be less objections against war. Definitely already there in terms of counterinsurgency wars. The biggest objection to war in America is the cost-benefit, not necessarily the safety of our troops. I say this because historically casualty rates have never been lower for war, ever. Interesting to think how this attitude will play out in large scale conflicts. What will be the red line for WMD? You'd hope some international law would spell out those red lines, removing any ambiguity before introduction of this technology.
DominikR 11y ago
> ... they have the key to win gorilla wars like the ones they have had trouble with in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. To me this sounds very naive. After all they killed 3-4 million Vietnamese during that war. The only way to win a war on such a scale is to commit genocide, since an enemy willing to keep fighting after losing many millions will not stop fighting unless you kill them all. But yes, technically you are right, you would "win the peace" if you exterminate the enemy population.
pjc50 11y ago
Americans will actually be able to win the peace Americans will not be able to win guerilla warfare because they do not understand it. Partly due to trying to operate an empire while refusing to realise they are doing so. America has by some metrics not even won its own civil war - or at least not brought its ethnic conflict to a conclusion. There is still the occasional church burning http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/charleston-shooting-black-churches-bombings-attacks-history http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/charleston-shoo... or mass shooting. It is not a matter of how many people you can kill. The Belgians killed 18 million people in the Congo and eventually gave up on it as a colony. The end game of US occupations is alleged to be "democracy". This involves not just elections and parties but a whole stack of legal and political rights. One of those rights is the right to justice: i.e. not arbitrary execution from the sky. You can kill the martyr, but what do you do with the crowd of demonstrators carrying pictures of him? Open fire on them too? The risk to the US from drone murder warfare is not that it is too hard but that it is too easy. It has the potential to be a morally corrosive weapon like the One Ring: used more and more often in more situations with higher and higher body counts. Once the first million are dead (arguably this number was passed somewhere in the Iraq war) it's much easier to kill the next ten million.
maxxxxx 11y ago
The current political climate won't probably allow this but I would like to see an effort to outlaw this kind of weapons internationally like biological and chemical weapons got banned. I would add landmines to that list too. War should be hard and have a cost. If a country can wage war on the cheap we'll have a scary world.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by flexie 11y ago

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...

ihsw 11y ago
Vehicle-based counter-air systems will simply be added presidential motorcades, and they would be sold as stand-alone systems. Current counter-air technologies can be scaled down (eg: Iron Dome, S-400, etc) and the preferred method of interception will more than likely be laser-based.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Will you put anti-aircraft weapons at every airport, school, stadium, etc.?
  - ihsw 11y ago
    Do we station troops at every airport, school, stadium? No. Do we put video cameras outside of every person's home? No. Security is needs-based. If there is a high risk of attack then yes, otherwise no.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Do we put video cameras outside of every person's home? No. Not yet. And in some countries there are already plenty of street CCTV cameras.
flexie 11y ago
Yes, just like guns are a cheap, widely available technology and used by criminals and dictators already. I am not advocating drone wars, just saying it will happen; the US finds itself engaged in wars already - often several at a time - although it leads to both American losses and local civilian casualties. Which president would rather send in troops than robots? Unlike the Americans, who have the planes, helicopters, rockets, tanks, carriers etc to launch these drones from a safe distance, it would be hard for terrorists to use it against Americans. Americans would try to keep the technology to themselves for a while with usual non-proliferation laws and by using encryption on the deployed drones.
- 11y ago

ucaetano 11y ago

>gorilla wars I see what you did there...

stanmancan 11y ago

And what happens when the enemy gets similar technology?

ihsw 11y ago
Current anti-air defense systems can eat Predator and Reaper drones for breakfast, and still ask for seconds. New anti-air defense systems defending against drone swarms will be developed.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  That's because the Predator, Reaper et. al. were designed to operate in areas where AA isn't a threat.
- pjc50 11y ago
  So, one of the IRA attacks on the British government involved parking a van with a mortar launcher in the back within range of Downing Street. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack The 21st century of that would be a van releasing bomb-carrying small drones that would then fly to their target at street level. This presents a serious problem for attempting to intercept them, as any detonation along the way would also have civilian casualties.
jqm 11y ago
I don't think that will be a problem. Gorillas probably aren't going to be able to keep a drone fleet running.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Do you mean "Guerilla" or are you using a metaphor for less advanced countries?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    The OP (flexie) said "gorilla" rather than "guerilla". Probably either a typo or not native English, though it could have been intentional. jqm merely copied it.

ceejayoz 11y ago

> 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. Until such a swarm targets something like a Presidential inauguration, or a busy shopping mall at Christmas, or the Super Bowl. > Americans will actually be able to win the peace, not just the wars like today. I suspect that statement was said in the mid-to-late 1940s about nuclear weapons.

Retric 11y ago

A dirty secret is we can't actually tell who is a terrorist even inside the US. How do you expect to notice in another country? EX: [Has gun] is not enough. EX: [Someone says is a terrorist] is not enough. If we start tracking people 24/7 with drones we can make a lot of terrorists. But, we don't have enough people to have large numbers of people watched 24/7. So, sure we can kill a lot of people with a new weapon, but we often just classify people as insurgents after we bombed them.

lqdc13 11y ago
features: has_gun looks_like_ak47 wears_camo_gear decision: fire Oops, I guess it was a child with a toy gun... I guess we should have trained on more of those.
- golergka 11y ago
  Do you honestly think that a real soldier would be better at telling apart a child with a toy gun from a child soldier in a conflict zone? A real soldier would be making this decision while being afraid for his life and life of his comrades. A drone operator or AI would be making this decision while being afraid for a cheap (especially by military standards) machine. Guess which decision process produces more false positives?
  - Retric 11y ago
    A real soldier can't watch 100 drones at the same time. The problem with false positives is if you increase accuracy, but dramatically increase testing you end up with more false positives. So, we can trade 1 snap second judgment by a person, with 100 rapid judgments from an overworked person. A 10% chance of killing one person is better than a 1% chance of killing 100 people.
    - golergka 11y ago
      > A 10% chance of killing one person is better than a 1% chance of killing 100 people. It's only true if you forget about the original objective: killing bad guys. This objective is in place not because of some sports, but because bad guys actually kill other innocent people. So if you calculate how many innocent lives you save in the second option, it still looks quite better.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

That's a scenario for a horrific dystopian future movie.

datr 11y ago
This is basically the premise for Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez.

sametmax 11y ago

Basically turning the US into the Earth bully noone can stop. And then, theu will be used on US to soil keep the peace inside the country's border as well. For surveillance. Protecion. Then crowd control. Then more. And after being the world wosrt nightmare you will taste, but too late, the biterness of this idea. And everybody will be in a sad state.

golergka 11y ago
Any government or quasi-government agent is a "bully". But these bullies are worst when they compete with one another or move from place to place. When these kinds of bullies get (1) stationary and (2) feel safe from competition, that's when you actually get prosperity and safety. And if you destroy the big old lazy bully, it just means that thousand of small ones start fighting over his place.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Any government or quasi-government agent is a "bully". Yeah, but in Asia or Africa for example you seldom fear or are annoyed by Chile or Canada. Whereas certain bullies annoy (and worse) all over the world.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    I don't see how this is a valid rebuttal to the above.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      I don't see one can't see that it's not meant to be a rebuttal -- especially since it starts with "Yeah", which implies it agrees in principle. In any case, not all responses are or are meant to be "rebuttals" (valid or not). This one was meant to add some more context: that even if all government are bullies, not all bullies are equally bad.
  - golergka 11y ago
    You seem to be keen to apply "good/bad" axis, but I don't see what's the use of it on this scale.

dragandj 11y ago

Of course, US is not the only one who could do that.

noam87 11y ago

And what happens when the US decides that Hitler and Mussolini are actually pretty great guys, and that fascism must spread through Europe whether by "persuasion or force" (1); or that a democratically elected leader must be replaced by a brutal military dictatorship (2); or redefines "threat to national security" to mean any country that interferes with the US's "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources" (3); and that "economic nationalism" (i.e: any other nation's right to profit from its own natural resources) must be "eliminated at all costs" (4). What then? It's astounding how strong the propaganda machine is, and how ignorant of their own whitewashed history even some of the most educated Americans are. Though it's not unprecedented: just a century ago, the world's most brilliant minds supported (and helped) Germany in the first and second world wars (e.g: the design of chemical weapons)... only five scientists signed an anti-war petition (led by Einstein), while the rest cheered on this new, "more civilized" age of warfare. Nobody elected the USA world police. If it wishes to aid in peacekeeping, it is free to do so within the confines of international law. --- 1) http://amzn.com/080781766X http://amzn.com/080781766X 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... and almost every other country in South america: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f... 3) http://fas.org/man/docs/qdr/sec3.html http://fas.org/man/docs/qdr/sec3.html 4) http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-02-26a.html http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-02-26a.html

megalodon 11y ago
This. The rhetoric of the post above is not very different from the fundamentalist forces America is currently waging wars against.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

riskable 11y ago

> 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. 100 tiny drones... So cute. Try 100,000 or more like 10,000,000 if the military "gets serious" about these things. If these things are effective then why not make large drones with the sole purpose of deploying as many as possible? 10,000 large drones carrying a payload of 1,000 tiny drones. They come back, pick up 1,000 more, and fly again. After a few weeks or months you've got hundreds of thousands covering an area. It won't be long before tiny drones like this can be powered by photovoltaic panels indefinitely (we have medium sized ones that can do that already). It could be quite a while though before that capability is available for drones that can actually kill people (assuming they don't have enough mass to be used as single-target missiles).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

hellbanner 11y ago

Nukes? Why not just hack the drones.. jam their sensors.. take hostages? "Another Afghanistan".. by "win the peace" you do mean, "everyone alive is on our side", right? (I'm not implying you support pro-war politics, just clarifying for the viewers) Nukes only work if they are asymmetrical (suitcase) style. If Country X decides to "Nuke the USA".. guess what, USA will Nuke X right back. Pretty useless, unless X is launching because Y forced or tricked them to..

laen 11y ago

>Once war becomes safe and clean for Americans, there will probably be less objections against war. Definitely already there in terms of counterinsurgency wars. The biggest objection to war in America is the cost-benefit, not necessarily the safety of our troops. I say this because historically casualty rates have never been lower for war, ever. Interesting to think how this attitude will play out in large scale conflicts. What will be the red line for WMD? You'd hope some international law would spell out those red lines, removing any ambiguity before introduction of this technology.

DominikR 11y ago

> ... they have the key to win gorilla wars like the ones they have had trouble with in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. To me this sounds very naive. After all they killed 3-4 million Vietnamese during that war. The only way to win a war on such a scale is to commit genocide, since an enemy willing to keep fighting after losing many millions will not stop fighting unless you kill them all. But yes, technically you are right, you would "win the peace" if you exterminate the enemy population.

pjc50 11y ago

Americans will actually be able to win the peace Americans will not be able to win guerilla warfare because they do not understand it. Partly due to trying to operate an empire while refusing to realise they are doing so. America has by some metrics not even won its own civil war - or at least not brought its ethnic conflict to a conclusion. There is still the occasional church burning http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/charleston-shooting-black-churches-bombings-attacks-history http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/charleston-shoo... or mass shooting. It is not a matter of how many people you can kill. The Belgians killed 18 million people in the Congo and eventually gave up on it as a colony. The end game of US occupations is alleged to be "democracy". This involves not just elections and parties but a whole stack of legal and political rights. One of those rights is the right to justice: i.e. not arbitrary execution from the sky. You can kill the martyr, but what do you do with the crowd of demonstrators carrying pictures of him? Open fire on them too? The risk to the US from drone murder warfare is not that it is too hard but that it is too easy. It has the potential to be a morally corrosive weapon like the One Ring: used more and more often in more situations with higher and higher body counts. Once the first million are dead (arguably this number was passed somewhere in the Iraq war) it's much easier to kill the next ten million.

maxxxxx 11y ago

The current political climate won't probably allow this but I would like to see an effort to outlaw this kind of weapons internationally like biological and chemical weapons got banned. I would add landmines to that list too. War should be hard and have a cost. If a country can wage war on the cheap we'll have a scary world.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]