7 ms·

Everytime someone says: "Our robot/drone can be used for finding hidden people in hard to reach locations" the cynic in me thinks that these are just codewords

Everytime someone says: "Our robot/drone can be used for finding hidden people in hard to reach locations" the cynic in me thinks that these are just codewords for: "Our killbots will revolutionize the urban battlefield. DoD please fund us". Can someone please prove me wrong?

frozenport 4y ago
Not obvious if tiny drones pack enough heat to be relevant in an urban battlefield scenario or if they are actually useful compared to conventional approaches.
- edf13 4y ago
  A swam of tiny drones could easily overwhelm an enemy.... Lots of options. If against personel they just kamikaze in... if against armoured targets a small explosive charge on a hundred or so drones could easily destroy a target.
  - frozenport 4y ago
    What if they run against a wall?
- flir 4y ago
  Swarm of cheap drones blankets area. When an individual drone finds a target it requests an artillery strike (or similar) on its own location. There's something about the swarming nature of these things that makes them even more unsettling.
- jl6 4y ago
  They’re big enough to carry a blinding laser and a computer capable of face recognition. Expect urban defence to feature a lot of nets in the near future.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Do a Google search for drone propeller injuries. Those are accidental; now envision 20 of them working intentionally to slice you apart with the props. They don’t really need armament to maim and kill.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
I can't prove you wrong I'm afraid, because the only difference between the two is a weapon. But this is the two-sided sword in a lot of technological advancements; advances in medical science can be used to create bioweapons for example; advances in nuclear physics allowed both the nuclear fission and fusion generator, but also the nuke, and spaceflight evolved from long distance missiles and alongside ICBMs, the push was for both scientific and military progress simultaneously.
tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
Slaughterbots was meant to be a video against such technology, but I'm 100% sure there are plenty of companies who are pointing at it and saying "This. Exactly this. This is what we want."
- RealityVoid 4y ago
  Is it really more terrifying somehow than a guy with a machine gun going and mowing down civilians? Or a maniac in a truck plowing in pedestrians. In effect, the other approaches are a lot more accessible to anyone.
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    Yes, because it can scale massively and it removes even the chance of a moral reconsideration on the part of the killer. With a human soldier there's at least a chance they'll decide to disobey an order to murder innocent people.
    - jrimbault 4y ago
      Isn't it the case that only 1 in X soldiers actually fires their weapon ? I think vaguely remember something to that effect.
      - RealityVoid 4y ago
        If you refer to the WW1 claim floating around, then it is most likely false. If you are talking about the fact modern military has many nore support ropes than combat roles, then... yeah, but that tells nothing about the willingness to fire a gun.
      - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
        Yeah about 8:1 in 2005 for the US https://acoup.blog/2022/04/22/fireside-friday-april-22-2022/ https://acoup.blog/2022/04/22/fireside-friday-april-22-2022/
      - 4y ago
chinathrow 4y ago
You're not wrong, but at least some SAR (search and rescue) efforts are already leading to better response times in bad weather and thus saved lives. Example from REGA, a swiss SAR provider. https://www.rega.ch/en/our-missions/cutting-edge-technology/rega-drone https://www.rega.ch/en/our-missions/cutting-edge-technology/...
alexalx 4y ago
There is nothing wrong with using killing robots to defend your country. Once you are attacked and your family is in danger of rape and murder you will ask the gov to use any means available. Would you prefer them to use artisanal swords? Its the new dawn, the danger is real, there is no place for conspiracies ( that's probably when skynet will be created, oh well everyone wants to survive now not later in ideal future)
- adrianN 4y ago
  Unfortunately the same technology can be used to attack people. The world would maybe be a safer place if weapons technology hadn't evolved from sticks and stones.
  - vt85 4y ago
    Ask American Natives about that
  - beaker52 4y ago
    Longer sticks, bigger stones, further arrows, thicker armour, pointier tips, faster horses, gatling bullets, heavier tanks, distant artillery and hypersonic missiles.
  - Ancapistani 4y ago
    It would be a safer place for the physically strong, perhaps. It would be a far more dangerous place for a slender 18-year-old girl.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      I think most slender 18 year old girls rely on the protection offered by strong (or strongly armed) people regardless of far advanced weapons technology is.
      - Ancapistani 4y ago
        Most people rely on others for their own safety. That’s not the point that I’m trying to make here. Rather, I’m saying that weapons technology is the only thing that has freed the individual from being subject to the whims of those physically stronger than themselves.
N19PEDL2 4y ago
You could also read it as: "Our search and rescue drones can help you find a child who is lost in the woods".
- emerged 4y ago
  Seems like it should be read both ways as both are inevitable with the tech.
deepsun 4y ago
Watching the current war, I think those drones are not that useful: slow, short-range, suspectible to bad weather and visibility, and carrying too small warhead. So it's like using a laptop to hammer a nail. There are way more deadliest, simplest and reliable solutions, unfortunately.
- nikita2206 4y ago
  I think this war shows how useful they are in urban combat, not a place where ballistic missile speeds and range are relevant. Small warhead would be a feature in close combat.
  - deepsun 4y ago
    In modern wars, Russians solve the urban problem by converting urban landscape to rural (aka groznyfication). See Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol. And ballistic missiles are not for the task -- too funky and expensive, they are used to strike fuel/amunition storages. For urban warfare they use howitzers, mortars and 500/1000/2000kg air bombs.
- qiskit 4y ago
  Guns/muskets weren't that useful initially either. But the potential was there. Bows and arrows proved to be more effective for 100+ years before guns eventually won out. > So it's like using a laptop to hammer a nail. No. It's like using a nail gun rather than a hammer. > There are way more deadliest, simplest and reliable solutions, unfortunately. But none with the potential of drones and swarms. Cheap, easy to replace units that could fly, provide recoissance along with offensive/defensive capabilities. And it's just the beginning. I suspect most armies, law enforcement, private mercenaries, mall cops, etc will be using drones in the future.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > Watching the current war, I think those drones are not that useful I'm going to copy an analogy I saw elsewhere: what we're seeing now is the equivalent of how planes were used in WWI; slow, not very effective, with limited range and roles. By the time WWII came around, there was technological and strategic improvements leading to to high-alt bombers, fighter escorts, dive bombers and jet engines. Nothing a WWI pilot would recognize. Drones will likely evolve in ways that would make their current use seem quaint.
teeray 4y ago
These are basically Manhacks from Half Life 2
NoPicklez 4y ago
I agree, but there is always a cynical angle to everything.

frozenport 4y ago

Not obvious if tiny drones pack enough heat to be relevant in an urban battlefield scenario or if they are actually useful compared to conventional approaches.

edf13 4y ago
A swam of tiny drones could easily overwhelm an enemy.... Lots of options. If against personel they just kamikaze in... if against armoured targets a small explosive charge on a hundred or so drones could easily destroy a target.
- frozenport 4y ago
  What if they run against a wall?
flir 4y ago
Swarm of cheap drones blankets area. When an individual drone finds a target it requests an artillery strike (or similar) on its own location. There's something about the swarming nature of these things that makes them even more unsettling.
jl6 4y ago
They’re big enough to carry a blinding laser and a computer capable of face recognition. Expect urban defence to feature a lot of nets in the near future.
ceejayoz 4y ago
Do a Google search for drone propeller injuries. Those are accidental; now envision 20 of them working intentionally to slice you apart with the props. They don’t really need armament to maim and kill.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

I can't prove you wrong I'm afraid, because the only difference between the two is a weapon. But this is the two-sided sword in a lot of technological advancements; advances in medical science can be used to create bioweapons for example; advances in nuclear physics allowed both the nuclear fission and fusion generator, but also the nuke, and spaceflight evolved from long distance missiles and alongside ICBMs, the push was for both scientific and military progress simultaneously.

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago

Slaughterbots was meant to be a video against such technology, but I'm 100% sure there are plenty of companies who are pointing at it and saying "This. Exactly this. This is what we want."

RealityVoid 4y ago
Is it really more terrifying somehow than a guy with a machine gun going and mowing down civilians? Or a maniac in a truck plowing in pedestrians. In effect, the other approaches are a lot more accessible to anyone.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  Yes, because it can scale massively and it removes even the chance of a moral reconsideration on the part of the killer. With a human soldier there's at least a chance they'll decide to disobey an order to murder innocent people.
  - jrimbault 4y ago
    Isn't it the case that only 1 in X soldiers actually fires their weapon ? I think vaguely remember something to that effect.
    - RealityVoid 4y ago
      If you refer to the WW1 claim floating around, then it is most likely false. If you are talking about the fact modern military has many nore support ropes than combat roles, then... yeah, but that tells nothing about the willingness to fire a gun.
    - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
      Yeah about 8:1 in 2005 for the US https://acoup.blog/2022/04/22/fireside-friday-april-22-2022/ https://acoup.blog/2022/04/22/fireside-friday-april-22-2022/
    - 4y ago

chinathrow 4y ago

You're not wrong, but at least some SAR (search and rescue) efforts are already leading to better response times in bad weather and thus saved lives. Example from REGA, a swiss SAR provider. https://www.rega.ch/en/our-missions/cutting-edge-technology/rega-drone https://www.rega.ch/en/our-missions/cutting-edge-technology/...

alexalx 4y ago

There is nothing wrong with using killing robots to defend your country. Once you are attacked and your family is in danger of rape and murder you will ask the gov to use any means available. Would you prefer them to use artisanal swords? Its the new dawn, the danger is real, there is no place for conspiracies ( that's probably when skynet will be created, oh well everyone wants to survive now not later in ideal future)

adrianN 4y ago
Unfortunately the same technology can be used to attack people. The world would maybe be a safer place if weapons technology hadn't evolved from sticks and stones.
- vt85 4y ago
  Ask American Natives about that
- beaker52 4y ago
  Longer sticks, bigger stones, further arrows, thicker armour, pointier tips, faster horses, gatling bullets, heavier tanks, distant artillery and hypersonic missiles.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  It would be a safer place for the physically strong, perhaps. It would be a far more dangerous place for a slender 18-year-old girl.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    I think most slender 18 year old girls rely on the protection offered by strong (or strongly armed) people regardless of far advanced weapons technology is.
    - Ancapistani 4y ago
      Most people rely on others for their own safety. That’s not the point that I’m trying to make here. Rather, I’m saying that weapons technology is the only thing that has freed the individual from being subject to the whims of those physically stronger than themselves.

N19PEDL2 4y ago

You could also read it as: "Our search and rescue drones can help you find a child who is lost in the woods".

emerged 4y ago
Seems like it should be read both ways as both are inevitable with the tech.

deepsun 4y ago

Watching the current war, I think those drones are not that useful: slow, short-range, suspectible to bad weather and visibility, and carrying too small warhead. So it's like using a laptop to hammer a nail. There are way more deadliest, simplest and reliable solutions, unfortunately.

nikita2206 4y ago
I think this war shows how useful they are in urban combat, not a place where ballistic missile speeds and range are relevant. Small warhead would be a feature in close combat.
- deepsun 4y ago
  In modern wars, Russians solve the urban problem by converting urban landscape to rural (aka groznyfication). See Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol. And ballistic missiles are not for the task -- too funky and expensive, they are used to strike fuel/amunition storages. For urban warfare they use howitzers, mortars and 500/1000/2000kg air bombs.
qiskit 4y ago
Guns/muskets weren't that useful initially either. But the potential was there. Bows and arrows proved to be more effective for 100+ years before guns eventually won out. > So it's like using a laptop to hammer a nail. No. It's like using a nail gun rather than a hammer. > There are way more deadliest, simplest and reliable solutions, unfortunately. But none with the potential of drones and swarms. Cheap, easy to replace units that could fly, provide recoissance along with offensive/defensive capabilities. And it's just the beginning. I suspect most armies, law enforcement, private mercenaries, mall cops, etc will be using drones in the future.
sangnoir 4y ago
> Watching the current war, I think those drones are not that useful I'm going to copy an analogy I saw elsewhere: what we're seeing now is the equivalent of how planes were used in WWI; slow, not very effective, with limited range and roles. By the time WWII came around, there was technological and strategic improvements leading to to high-alt bombers, fighter escorts, dive bombers and jet engines. Nothing a WWI pilot would recognize. Drones will likely evolve in ways that would make their current use seem quaint.

teeray 4y ago

These are basically Manhacks from Half Life 2

NoPicklez 4y ago

I agree, but there is always a cynical angle to everything.