3 ms·

Similar to chemical warfare. There needs to be a UN resolution to ban these types of weapons. Make it so use of them constitutes war crimes.

philwelch 8y ago
Chemical weapons aren't used because they're not worth the risk. There was virtually zero battlefield use of chemical weapons in the Second World War, which was otherwise as "no holds barred" as you can imagine.
- gotocake 8y ago
  It’s not really risk that’s an issue, it’s a combination of expensive production, dangerous and expensive storage, and expensive deployment contrasted with a total lack of efficacy in killing the intended target. Unless your goal is to murder untrained and unequipped civilians, chemical weapons are just not very good weapons. Soldiers are trained, have vehicles with overpressure seals, masks and MOPP suits, detectors and a command structure. The real use for chemical weapons is to terrify civilians and poorly organized/equipped militias. Most of all it’s a way to murder a large number of civilians without destroying infrastructure. Needless to say that’s not something you’d typically do in a war, where destruction of infrastructure is typically step one! As a result most countries recognize the economic and social burden of chemical weapons and their use, and strongly oppose them.
  - coolspot 8y ago
    > The real use for chemical weapons is to terrify civilians and poorly organized/equipped militias. See Vietnam War, Napalm, Agent Orange etc.
    - gotocake 8y ago
      By that definition explosives are chemical weapons, and you know that isn’t what’s meant by the term. Napalm is an incendiary and equally effective against military and civilians. Agent Orange is a defoliant, and while it’s long term effects are horrendous, it’s not effective as a chemical weapon; you don’t want to sit around and wait for people to develop cancers.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        Hell, by that standard, bullets are chemical weapons because they can cause lead poisoning.
Datenstrom 8y ago
A large issue with this is that like the DARPA ALIAS project[1], and another project which I do not have a reference to but saw a demonstration of last year which made a traditional helicopter autonomous with just a bolt on avionics box, it is entirely possible to have "manned" systems that are made autonomous with a bolt on. This means that any country could develop autonomous warfare systems entirely in secret and then convert everything to unmanned overnight just before an attack. You can't see software. [1]: http://www.aurora.aero/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALIAS-Brochure_X8.pdf http://www.aurora.aero/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALIAS-Broc... Edit, found a reference for the autonomous helicopter: https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103769 https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103769
- binarymax 8y ago
  I don't understand your argument. Laws are created irregardless of the potential for illegal circumvention. Nobody ever decided "we shouldn't bother to outlaw theft because shoplifting is too easy". Creating the law provides the teeth to prosecute someone found to be breaking it.
  - Datenstrom 8y ago
    Agreed, the threat I am concerned about is development and preparation of deployment in secret of these systems by a country in secret. If outlawed and other countries obey the laws, and a bad actor develops in secret and waits for the tech to become sufficiently advanced, they could launch a __very__ effective blitzkrieg. Unlike chemical/nuclear warfare, no factories, material transportation, etc. out of the ordinary observable by other countries. Sensors needed for the systems would be entirely justified for other reasons and software to change behavior can be loaded invisibly. There would be no way to police it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Here it is in flight and a shot of the interior as well as the sensor array bolted onto the nose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfNChMNQyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfNChMNQyM

philwelch 8y ago

Chemical weapons aren't used because they're not worth the risk. There was virtually zero battlefield use of chemical weapons in the Second World War, which was otherwise as "no holds barred" as you can imagine.

gotocake 8y ago
It’s not really risk that’s an issue, it’s a combination of expensive production, dangerous and expensive storage, and expensive deployment contrasted with a total lack of efficacy in killing the intended target. Unless your goal is to murder untrained and unequipped civilians, chemical weapons are just not very good weapons. Soldiers are trained, have vehicles with overpressure seals, masks and MOPP suits, detectors and a command structure. The real use for chemical weapons is to terrify civilians and poorly organized/equipped militias. Most of all it’s a way to murder a large number of civilians without destroying infrastructure. Needless to say that’s not something you’d typically do in a war, where destruction of infrastructure is typically step one! As a result most countries recognize the economic and social burden of chemical weapons and their use, and strongly oppose them.
- coolspot 8y ago
  > The real use for chemical weapons is to terrify civilians and poorly organized/equipped militias. See Vietnam War, Napalm, Agent Orange etc.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    By that definition explosives are chemical weapons, and you know that isn’t what’s meant by the term. Napalm is an incendiary and equally effective against military and civilians. Agent Orange is a defoliant, and while it’s long term effects are horrendous, it’s not effective as a chemical weapon; you don’t want to sit around and wait for people to develop cancers.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      Hell, by that standard, bullets are chemical weapons because they can cause lead poisoning.

Datenstrom 8y ago

A large issue with this is that like the DARPA ALIAS project[1], and another project which I do not have a reference to but saw a demonstration of last year which made a traditional helicopter autonomous with just a bolt on avionics box, it is entirely possible to have "manned" systems that are made autonomous with a bolt on. This means that any country could develop autonomous warfare systems entirely in secret and then convert everything to unmanned overnight just before an attack. You can't see software. [1]: http://www.aurora.aero/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALIAS-Brochure_X8.pdf http://www.aurora.aero/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALIAS-Broc... Edit, found a reference for the autonomous helicopter: https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103769 https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103769

binarymax 8y ago
I don't understand your argument. Laws are created irregardless of the potential for illegal circumvention. Nobody ever decided "we shouldn't bother to outlaw theft because shoplifting is too easy". Creating the law provides the teeth to prosecute someone found to be breaking it.
- Datenstrom 8y ago
  Agreed, the threat I am concerned about is development and preparation of deployment in secret of these systems by a country in secret. If outlawed and other countries obey the laws, and a bad actor develops in secret and waits for the tech to become sufficiently advanced, they could launch a __very__ effective blitzkrieg. Unlike chemical/nuclear warfare, no factories, material transportation, etc. out of the ordinary observable by other countries. Sensors needed for the systems would be entirely justified for other reasons and software to change behavior can be loaded invisibly. There would be no way to police it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jacquesm 8y ago
Here it is in flight and a shot of the interior as well as the sensor array bolted onto the nose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfNChMNQyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfNChMNQyM