7 ms·
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." Si
by 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 agoThere you go, you're denying the enemy a sporting chance. :/
- CyberDildonics 11y agoBut if you were paying attention he was talking about being able to stockpile chemicals without having to tell anyone.
- mseebach 11y agoWell, a charitable reading would try to deduce SOME topical relevance to the article being discussed, which is probably how your parent arrived at the conclusion that perhaps the comment had something to do with micro-drones. But no, you're right, when you pay attention, it's mostly a totally off-topic rant on chemical weapons.
- bkeroack 11y agoAlso the concentration goes down with the cube of the distance from where it's released into the air, so if a drone is carrying 10mg it's very unlikely to be able to harm even a single person. Unless it fires a dart or something like that.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- roymurdock 11y agoIs there any reason an EMP/large radio scrambling gun [1] would not be effective against a large swarm of drones? [1] http://www.gizmag.com/anti-uav-defense-system-radio-beam-drones/39778/ http://www.gizmag.com/anti-uav-defense-system-radio-beam-dro...
- sj4nz 11y agoAim an EMP beam at the enemy's anti-drone EMP's... then unleash hell.
- 542458 11y agoI believe that an EMP is impractical due to the crazy power draw. Non-nuclear EMPs are typically explosively pumped and have a very short range. Jammers (which is what the radio gun is) could work, but are civilian-illegal.
- hackuser 11y agoThe Russians apparently used electronic warfare (maybe not EMP in particular) very effectively against the Ukrainians. One U.S. officer described the Russians' capabilties as "eye watering".
- api 11y agoIf these things become commonplace I could see a second amendment challenge against the illegality of counter-drone weapons.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoThe second amendment is being gutted every day. Along with most the rest of the amendments.
- __jal 11y agoOff topic, but what are you talking about? Heller, which is when the supreme court first noticed an individual right in the 2nd amendment in over 200 years, was decided in 2008. Since that is currently the high-water mark in 2nd amendment rights on the pro-side, I assume you can point us to reversals since then, apparently occurring on a daily basis? Please, share your sources with the group.
- Ntrails 11y ago>the amount they can produce annually without reporting to the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) I'm probably ok with saying I'm not producing whether I am or not...
- CapitalistCartr 11y agoYou and most governments on Earth. During the Cold War, reporting agreements were only as good as their verifiability. Drones, fighting bots, and their weapons aren't controllable once the World knows how to make them. 3D printing prototypes, comparing software tries via the Internet as any other OSS project and we have great "hobbyist micro-RC planes".
- tome 11y ago> 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. They didn't need a drone to kill a political opponent.
- nether 11y agoPlus you'd see this 1-foot wide conspicuous object hovering in front of them, since you can't project a toxic gas in a targeted way from afar. You don't need swarms to release vaporized agents. Just one low flying crop duster. That's the whole point of gas, it spreads everywhere so that you don't need to target. HN has gone off the deep end with defense articles. Can't wait for the next headline to just say IT'S HAPPENING.
- Mikeb85 11y agoNot all drones 'hover', or are quad-copters. Most drone-swarms have been demonstrated using drones that fly like airplanes. 20 years ago when I started building RC planes, the smallest RC planes were about 6 inches wide. Many people are working on drones today that are insect-sized. A mosquito-sized drone carrying a neurotoxin certainly would be used to carry out assassinations, crowd control, etc... And certainly would be a scary prospect.
- 13thLetter 11y agoAgain, if the government is willing to use a mosquito drone full of neurotoxin to assassinate someone, why wouldn't they be willing to just send a man round with a pistol? The problem (in this example) is a government willing to assassinate political opponents, not that they have access to some fancy cyberpunk way of carrying out the hit.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- yesco 11y agoCertainly makes it easier.
- daveguy 11y ago>These drones won't be carrying bullets. They'll be carrying tiny payloads of VX nerve agent to be "effective detterent." Seriously? I don't know how this comment is at the top of my list. I have never seen a citation more needed. A single bullet fired at close range from one of these drones would be much more effective than dropping some nerve agent. If you can aim effectively and have 20 of these - only one of which needs to get within 10 feet then the target is much more surely dead than an LD50 nerve bomb. If you are going to do that and not give a crap about collateral then just fire a missile from the plane or a big drone. Mini drones are much more likely to be used for recon than attack.
- jerf 11y agoWhat's really more important than size of the drones is quantity. How do you stop a plane? You shoot it down. How do you stop 100 planes? You shoot them down, but it's a lot harder. How do you stop 100,000 drones, who are deliberately doing things to make them hard to shoot down all at once? Just about the only two answers are A: with another 100,000 drones of your own shooting back or B: a very, very big EMP, or a lot of EMPs of significant power. Both of these have problems of their own. There are other problems; for instance, you need a delivery platform because small drones can't carry enough energy to transport themselves long distances. Always the real world interferes with the dream (nightmare or otherwise). But what you potentially end up with is another phase transition in warfare, such as occurred in the industrial era, where there were militaries that were industrial, and there were the militaries that would have saved a lot of time and lives if they just surrendered immediately, because they never stood a chance.
- plaguuuuuu 11y ago>how do you stop 100,000 drones Another 100,000 drones carrying rare earth magnets on strings :D
- trhway 11y ago> How do you stop 100,000 drones, who are deliberately doing things to make them hard to shoot down all at once? this is where those laser systems come into play. US Navy has already deployed some and Israel has Iron Beam.
- 13thLetter 11y ago> 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 the evil, cackling villains running the US government (did you vote for the ruling party last election, by the way? Are you planning on voting to re-elect the same party this November?) are willing to have a drone float down out of the sky and spray a political opposition figure with nerve gas in front of a thousand people, why wouldn't they be willing to just have some thugs kick in their door in the middle of the night? I don't know what's worse about this attitude, the paranoia or the inconsistency. The only reason the government hasn't given in completely to its evil impulses is because they're waiting to develop and deploy some fancy bleeding-edge cyberpunk technology that's going to be less effective, less cheap, and less deniable than a couple of dudes with lead pipes... that viewpoint baffles me.
- Crito 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." What are you going to do, fly the drone down the guy's throat?
- CapitalistCartr 11y agoActually, that's worth considering. Micro-drones are inherently disposable anyway. If you're using a 3-4 mm drone, you don't care that the opposition knows it was a drone; they're tiny, not invisible, and not a secret. If a dozen drones all tried for the mouth (or the drone is a skin-penetrating dart), one is sure to get through. Until we all have counter-drone tech.
- Crito 11y agoIf the drone is going to get up close and personal with the target, there are any number of toxins and venoms that would be more practical than nerve gas.
- CapitalistCartr 11y agoAnd I expect the researchers will consider each and every one. Which deadly weapon they settle on is less important than that micro-drones can be weaponized.
- shostack 11y ago>"Or perhaps... under a giant lexan rotunda." Or just make sure to do it on a windy day?
- abrookewood 11y agoOr string up a lot of nets ... assuming small drones of course.
- whatnotests 11y agoTake. Your. Meds.