4 ms·

In a cynical way, this would mean no more wars. Once the world sees a few wars where the drones win, every country on earth is going to get them. They are chea

In a cynical way, this would mean no more wars. Once the world sees a few wars where the drones win, every country on earth is going to get them. They are cheap, can be made by university students, can be weaponized in a myriad of ways and can be deployed from far away (UAVs with a thousand drones, can deploy them thousands of kilometers) and they are disposable. Silent drones with autonomous instructions, will be the ultimate booby trap.

mach1ne 4y ago
A new weapon always begets new counter-weapons. They may provide sufficiently believable protection from the drones, though not all-encompassing. Wars may become somewhat bloodier and a lot scarier. In any case, I highly doubt drones would do much to end wars. Rifles, artillery and other super-killers of the 20th century certainly didn't.
- kumarvvr 4y ago
  > A new weapon always begets new counter-weapons Not always. The only counter weapon to a Nuke, is a similar sized or bigger Nuke, better delivery systems for the nuke and a large number of nukes.
  - ISL 4y ago
    Nuclear weapons can be countered by other WMDs, by cyberwarfare, by propaganda and misinformation, by economic warfare, and many more. Once launched, nuclear weapons are difficult, but not impossible (see ABM defense systems) to counter, but there are many ways to counter their unlaunched effects.
  - asdff 4y ago
    You can also use something like the NIKE missile system or the iron dome.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      NIKE was abandoned because it cost something like 10x more to shoot down an incoming missile than it took the Soviets to launch one. And the Israeli iron dome is in an entirely different class, its hundreds of times too slow. Like trying to use a sling to shoot down a cruise missile. Actually this is a very good example of why counter-drone systems will likely never deter expansion of drone capabilities. The costs to provide full protection are simply too lopsided. Why spend a billion dollars to protect against 100 million dollars worth of drones when you could simply buy a billion dollars worth of drones in the first place?
sitkack 4y ago
https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/565105 https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/... Not just wars. Every conflict should make a pact about RoE to not use autonomous drones. The asymmetry is too high. There is no defense. The cost is asymptotic to zero. We should outlaw war.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Sadly, drones are so cheap that they can be used by anyone for any purpose. We're lucky people haven't discovered yet how dangerous drone swarms can be. And as commercial delivery drones are allowed to fly the skies, many nameless drones can blend in among them. Really a very dangerous future. Then again we also have nuclear weapons and the collapse of ecosystems...
- cmonnow 4y ago
- marshray 4y ago
  If wars were instead fought by small battery-powered drones, they would probably greatly reduce civilian deaths in wars.

mach1ne 4y ago

A new weapon always begets new counter-weapons. They may provide sufficiently believable protection from the drones, though not all-encompassing. Wars may become somewhat bloodier and a lot scarier. In any case, I highly doubt drones would do much to end wars. Rifles, artillery and other super-killers of the 20th century certainly didn't.

kumarvvr 4y ago
> A new weapon always begets new counter-weapons Not always. The only counter weapon to a Nuke, is a similar sized or bigger Nuke, better delivery systems for the nuke and a large number of nukes.
- ISL 4y ago
  Nuclear weapons can be countered by other WMDs, by cyberwarfare, by propaganda and misinformation, by economic warfare, and many more. Once launched, nuclear weapons are difficult, but not impossible (see ABM defense systems) to counter, but there are many ways to counter their unlaunched effects.
- asdff 4y ago
  You can also use something like the NIKE missile system or the iron dome.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    NIKE was abandoned because it cost something like 10x more to shoot down an incoming missile than it took the Soviets to launch one. And the Israeli iron dome is in an entirely different class, its hundreds of times too slow. Like trying to use a sling to shoot down a cruise missile. Actually this is a very good example of why counter-drone systems will likely never deter expansion of drone capabilities. The costs to provide full protection are simply too lopsided. Why spend a billion dollars to protect against 100 million dollars worth of drones when you could simply buy a billion dollars worth of drones in the first place?

sitkack 4y ago

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/565105 https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/... Not just wars. Every conflict should make a pact about RoE to not use autonomous drones. The asymmetry is too high. There is no defense. The cost is asymptotic to zero. We should outlaw war.

EGreg 4y ago
Sadly, drones are so cheap that they can be used by anyone for any purpose. We're lucky people haven't discovered yet how dangerous drone swarms can be. And as commercial delivery drones are allowed to fly the skies, many nameless drones can blend in among them. Really a very dangerous future. Then again we also have nuclear weapons and the collapse of ecosystems...
cmonnow 4y ago
marshray 4y ago
If wars were instead fought by small battery-powered drones, they would probably greatly reduce civilian deaths in wars.