8 ms·
Some Cautionary Notes on the New ‘Knife Missile’
- sundvor 8y agoCulture fans: These are not the knife missiles you were thinking about. The topic of kinetic drone launched hellfire missiles seems highly problematic. Usage scenarios are when there'd just be too much collateral damage from explosive munitions, but where do you draw the line to something that would do vastly more damage than a sniper rifle hit? I guess it could help protect local intelligence assets who might be armed with nothing but a cell phone. (I have no real qualifications on this topic, but I do like to read about military ops. And Iain Banks).
- 0_gravitas 8y ago> Culture fans: These are not the knife missiles you were thinking about. Bummer
- semi-extrinsic 8y agoIf we were on a less civilised messaging board I would leave a comment noting the (non-)coincidence that your username is in fact remarkably appropriate for your comment.
- 0_gravitas 8y ago;)
- tempguy9999 8y agoI think Banks might have been quite pleased with 'semi-extrinsic', actually.
- hugofirth 8y agoI suspect you will thoroughly enjoy this twitter account: https://twitter.com/cultureshipname?lang=en https://twitter.com/cultureshipname?lang=en
- sundvor 8y agoSubbed. One of my favourite fictive ship name would be an Adams one: GSV Mostly Harmless. Was great to see the replies, user names. :) Also the number of votes tells there's a large number of people who must really miss Banks (RIP). It's been a while so I will start re-reading the Culture series soon, chronologically this time. A number were lost paperbacks, but will just add them to my Kindle collection.
- 0_gravitas 8y agoIf you hadn't yet, I recommend picking up his book of poetry that was posthumously released along side his longtime friend Ken MacLeod's poems. A lot of it is Banks to the core, including the humor. My favorite is cynically titled "Love Poem": Serene, In a world full of troubles. i.e. doing nothing about it.
- chrisweekly 8y agoFTR, "Culture" here refers to a terrific set of sci fi novels by Iain M Banks. They can be read in any order. "Player of Games" is probably my favorite.
- turk73 8y agoDid they hold a trial or are these extra-judicial killings, as usual?
- hugofirth 8y ago> Culture fans: These are not the knife missiles you were thinking about. Though I'm not sure the US having access to those would make me feel any better :)
- huffmsa 8y agoIt has been limited in use and will continue to be because it takes up valuable pylon space for a single use. Unless the MQ-1 is being deployed for a specific assassination, it makes sense to equip it with the AP hellfire, so it can possibly take action against an unexpected target of opportunity while loitering. You're probably not going to fire one of these against a Toyota Hilux or APC.
- frozen11b 8y agoHaving served in the infantry in Afganistan you are dead wrong, and APC ot a technical ( heavy machine gun mounted on a pickup, traditionally a Toyota helix) a Helfire would definatly be fired at one.
- ourmandave 8y agoThere's a Knife Missile testing video and the target is a test dummy in a remotely driven pickup on some strip of desert. (I can't find a link. =( ) The missile goes through the driver's side roof and wedges out the passenger side floor. The pickup was driven at variable speeds and it was just a crazy accurate as a standard hellfire.
- 8y ago
- gmueckl 8y agoThe fact that the US military has no qualms with killing random innocent civilians - including children - in their strikes against (assumed) terrorists is maddening to me. I understand that there are people who cannot be stopped from harming others with non-violent means. But how does it justfy that extra random murdering that the US military performs? At which point does this become a war crime?
- devoply 8y agoIt's because the myth of freedom is used to sell America's own version of a religion which justifies acts of wholesale violence. Just like the Islamist use the myth of Islam to justify their violence. Either side is willing to kill civilians using violence to further its supposed ideological cause... which neither side actually serves. Each side claims that the civilians will benefit from establishing its religion. The civilians lose either way... see Iraq for an example of American freedom and Afghanistan for an example of Islam.
- mortehu 8y agoThe other way to look at it is that enemy combatants have no problems using innocent civilians as human shields. If US decided it would not harm human shields, the world would find out, and US would never win another battle again.
- Udik 8y agoI think we should be really careful in telling apart real cases of civilians used as human shields from simple propaganda used against the enemies. Accusing the enemy of using human shields is very handy for at least two purposes: de-humanising them and justifying a high number of civilian casualties. Also remember that in highly asymmetric warfare, clearly separating yourself from civilians effectively means hanging a target sign from your neck and asking to be killed. Those who have the most advanced technologies and weaponry at their disposal cannot be serious in asking that a poorly armed enemy fight on the same terms: a bit too cavalier when they have Kalashnikovs and you have semi-autonomous drones piloted from half the world away.
- 8y ago
- SlipperySlope 8y agoAmbush robots are an obvious way forward. Set up a spread-spectrum mesh network in the hostile living space, and use passive facial, gait, voice or behavior recognition to ID the human target. The drones would be expendable single shot killers. Hard to see and numerous. If the territory is controlled, then the China method of automated surveillance and round-up of targets is apparently working. I, for one, see a future without much "collateral damage" but its not necessarily a good future.
- _bohm 8y ago> whereas a unit equipped with only explosive Hellfires would be forbidden from making strikes in, say, a very crowded city thoroughfare, the same environment might be open season for a team with the R9X. Leads me to wonder what kind of psychological damage we will (and already do) inflict upon populations with targets in their midst. Can you imagine living in a scenario in which your community is regularly bombarded by explosives falling from the sky, let loose by a supposed enemy which you will probably never even see? Horrible.
- pr_nik 8y agoExtensive Stanford/NYU study on the severe psychological consequences of 'Living Under Drones': https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Stanford-NYU-Living-Under-Drones.pdf https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/...
- tempguy9999 8y agoI'm no US apologist and thankfully I've never been in such situations but civilians at risk of these might well be living in situations where they have some very nasty, oppressive people mixed in with them and being an even greater risk to them than such (supposedly) carefully used weapons. In such cases they might feel grateful that the US is doing this. Might. Maybe. 'Terrorists' is such a useful word.
- Juliate 8y agoThat's not the point. The point is, someone you don't know precisely about, neither their real motivations, neither its actual consistency, has the actual ability to kill anyone (more or less precisely) from a distance, as it decides, without fearing any other obstacle than its own will. Like, an imperfect yet powerful god. You don't know how to "please it" or "have mercy", but by very proxy methods that may not even apply consistently on the long term.
- gmueckl 8y agoAnd then this entity strikes a loved one who you know was innocent. It is suddenly much easier to pick sides out of a deep conviction... An enemy that isn't showing its face and explaining itself well will likely create more adversity.