3 ms·

"It seems that this is one of those devices that you can not fight with, especially if they are deployed in great numbers. What do you do, stay inside if the U.

by kiiski 17y ago

"It seems that this is one of those devices that you can not fight with, especially if they are deployed in great numbers. What do you do, stay inside if the U.S has deemed you a threat? Hack it to try to take control of it? That seems like a scarier proposition and one that is much more likely." Logically you just build an automated robotic anti-sniper system that shoots down any of these as soon as they get in range. That shouldn't be much of a problem for any military force with decent recourses nowadays.

ghotli 17y ago
A good point, yet that again causes an escalation of an "arms race" of this kind of weaponry. It's also a matter of logistics, where do you deploy the anti-sniper drone equipment? Around everywhere a sensitive target may go? I suppose I'm not arguing that these things won't continue to be built and countermeasures won't be adapted to that kind of warfare. It was merely meant as an expression of the general concern that our modern societies keep working toward very efficient and accurate ways to kill one another. It was stated more out of the depression that I know that just posting my thoughts to the internet won't do much good. Yet it's something that's worth mentioning in between the cacophony of other shouting voices wishing that things were this way or that. At least a subset of individuals I consider my peers have seen it, and thought about it at least once today.
- roboneal 17y ago
  "Our modern societies keep working toward very efficient and accurate ways to kill one another" We could always go back to the less accurate ways of killing each other like a good old fashion Viking raid, barbarian hordes, firebombing cities Dresden style, concentration camps, and let's not forget Fatman & Little Boy.
  - ghotli 17y ago
    I'd say it's not mutually exclusive. The sudden ability to take out those whom your government feels is "doing wrong" without being concerned about potential collateral damage is a new thing indeed. It makes war more palatable, less like the atrocities you describe above. That said, access to this kind of small, accurate technology considerably lowers the threshold between deciding to kill someone, and implementing that decision. At least I like to assume that the probability of wide spread collateral damage makes the decision harder to make. The problem lies in the fact that "both sides" will eventually have this technology, and that the notion of "doing wrong" is unfortunately subjective.

by kiiski 17y ago

ghotli 17y ago

A good point, yet that again causes an escalation of an "arms race" of this kind of weaponry. It's also a matter of logistics, where do you deploy the anti-sniper drone equipment? Around everywhere a sensitive target may go? I suppose I'm not arguing that these things won't continue to be built and countermeasures won't be adapted to that kind of warfare. It was merely meant as an expression of the general concern that our modern societies keep working toward very efficient and accurate ways to kill one another. It was stated more out of the depression that I know that just posting my thoughts to the internet won't do much good. Yet it's something that's worth mentioning in between the cacophony of other shouting voices wishing that things were this way or that. At least a subset of individuals I consider my peers have seen it, and thought about it at least once today.

roboneal 17y ago
"Our modern societies keep working toward very efficient and accurate ways to kill one another" We could always go back to the less accurate ways of killing each other like a good old fashion Viking raid, barbarian hordes, firebombing cities Dresden style, concentration camps, and let's not forget Fatman & Little Boy.
- ghotli 17y ago
  I'd say it's not mutually exclusive. The sudden ability to take out those whom your government feels is "doing wrong" without being concerned about potential collateral damage is a new thing indeed. It makes war more palatable, less like the atrocities you describe above. That said, access to this kind of small, accurate technology considerably lowers the threshold between deciding to kill someone, and implementing that decision. At least I like to assume that the probability of wide spread collateral damage makes the decision harder to make. The problem lies in the fact that "both sides" will eventually have this technology, and that the notion of "doing wrong" is unfortunately subjective.