4 ms·
I feel the headline is too attention-seeking. It is natural that if one side starts to develop a new technology and employs it successfully, that the other par
by erikb 9y ago
I feel the headline is too attention-seeking.
It is natural that if one side starts to develop a new technology and employs it successfully, that the other parties will follow as well. This changes the landscape, sure. But it's not threatening. That's the normal process of development.
Every army is better of if they can use machines to do their attacks for them. At least between both armies this should also decrease the overall casualties I hope. I'm not so naive to assume that this would decrease civilian casualties, though.
- mattmanser 9y agoReduces soldier casualties, increase civilian ones. It's pretty disgusting when you actually thinks about it. I don't want bad newspaper headlines about soldier deaths, so I'll use a robot that kills a bunch of civilians as collateral.
- nextlevelwizard 9y agoAsymmetric is the keyword in the article. Unless US military comes up with relieable and cheap solution they will eventually starve themselves as the parts to make attack drones gets cheaper and cheaper. Like the stinger missiles in the article, they cost almost $200k while a drone costs $2k + whatever they are dropping. Obviously US has money to spend, but for how long? There are plenty of examples of asymmetric warfare like what happened to US in Vietnam or what happened to Russians in Finland.