3 ms·

I think there is a big difference though between a nuclear weapon, which is very hard to procure unless you're a nation-state, and a programmable drone, which c

by cronix 8y ago

I think there is a big difference though between a nuclear weapon, which is very hard to procure unless you're a nation-state, and a programmable drone, which can be procured at Best Buy by anyone. Mutually Assured Destruction has kept nation-states in check in terms of nuclear weapons, yes. There is no such barrier to individuals purchasing drones, which have many purposes, unlike a nuclear weapon. There are many more crazy individuals in the world that can afford cheap drones than there are crazy nation-states willing to use their nuclear weapons against a foreign population. You can retaliate against a nation-state because it will be obvious who it was. Missiles are easily trackable and immediately detectable upon launch, unlike small hobby-sized drones.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Important thing is, you can't really do a MAD scenario with drones. MAD requires the destruction to be assured - e.g. once missiles are in the air, everyone's done. The destruction is immediate and can't be stopped by last-minute negotiations; there's no option of attacking "only a little" with nukes.
- dmurray 8y ago
  > The destruction is immediate and can't be stopped by last-minute negotiations; there's no option of attacking "only a little" with nukes. Of course there is: you could attack only battlefield targets, or only strategic military targets, or only one of the enemy's cities. MAD requires two things: first, the technology for mass destruction, second, the geopolitical conditions where either side can credibly threaten complete annihilation if provoked. Nuclear weapons provide the first by themselves, but the second only incidentally: the nuclear powers have come to a credible mutual understanding that they won't use nukes in their various border skirmishes, and that any use of nukes represents an escalation which risks MAD. World leaders could hypothetically come to the same understanding regarding drones: use them anywhere in the world and you will start a nuclear war.
  - cronix 8y ago
    > World leaders could hypothetically come to the same understanding regarding drones: use them anywhere in the world and you will start a nuclear war. Yes, except for one big difference that I see: individuals can't go purchasing a nuke like they can a drone. So while the MAD concept works with nukes, because only nation states have them, the same isn't true for drones, where individuals can have an unlimited number, in addition to governments. World leaders can agree re: drones and attacking each other, but that won't stop an intent individual. I think people might be quite surprised what you can do with a consumer grade drone purchased for a few hundred bucks hooked up to lidar, multiple gps sources, swarm technology so they communicate with each other and object recognition. Now just rig up an explosive device, chemical weapons or a gun. You can even drop items (bombs), or pick items up using retractable claws. You can do an awful lot with a consumer/hobby-grade drone hooked up to some cheap sensors using something even as basic as an arduino with open-source software like ArduPilot, which is so advanced (and cool) even Nasa uses it.

by cronix 8y ago

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Important thing is, you can't really do a MAD scenario with drones. MAD requires the destruction to be assured - e.g. once missiles are in the air, everyone's done. The destruction is immediate and can't be stopped by last-minute negotiations; there's no option of attacking "only a little" with nukes.

dmurray 8y ago
> The destruction is immediate and can't be stopped by last-minute negotiations; there's no option of attacking "only a little" with nukes. Of course there is: you could attack only battlefield targets, or only strategic military targets, or only one of the enemy's cities. MAD requires two things: first, the technology for mass destruction, second, the geopolitical conditions where either side can credibly threaten complete annihilation if provoked. Nuclear weapons provide the first by themselves, but the second only incidentally: the nuclear powers have come to a credible mutual understanding that they won't use nukes in their various border skirmishes, and that any use of nukes represents an escalation which risks MAD. World leaders could hypothetically come to the same understanding regarding drones: use them anywhere in the world and you will start a nuclear war.
- cronix 8y ago
  > World leaders could hypothetically come to the same understanding regarding drones: use them anywhere in the world and you will start a nuclear war. Yes, except for one big difference that I see: individuals can't go purchasing a nuke like they can a drone. So while the MAD concept works with nukes, because only nation states have them, the same isn't true for drones, where individuals can have an unlimited number, in addition to governments. World leaders can agree re: drones and attacking each other, but that won't stop an intent individual. I think people might be quite surprised what you can do with a consumer grade drone purchased for a few hundred bucks hooked up to lidar, multiple gps sources, swarm technology so they communicate with each other and object recognition. Now just rig up an explosive device, chemical weapons or a gun. You can even drop items (bombs), or pick items up using retractable claws. You can do an awful lot with a consumer/hobby-grade drone hooked up to some cheap sensors using something even as basic as an arduino with open-source software like ArduPilot, which is so advanced (and cool) even Nasa uses it.