5 ms·

The Ukrainian-Russo war has shown the military the power of offensive drones. You think they are going to allow civilians to own such powerful potential weapons

The Ukrainian-Russo war has shown the military the power of offensive drones. You think they are going to allow civilians to own such powerful potential weapons in the future? I think offensive drone warfare is just scratching the surface. I can think of a few modifications to drones, I've yet to see in Ukraine, that could increase their lethality 10x.

_kbh_ 4y ago
Some of the drones used by Ukraine have pretty wild so far, one ive seen rarely mentioned is this unknown larger drone that drops 10 grenades at a time, carpet bombing an area. https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1555657070245986309 https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1555657070245986309
- yrgulation 4y ago
  I imagine the ukranian weapons industry will make a killing post war. Some of their tools are impressive mvps that have a proven product market fit.
- brokenmachine 4y ago
  I saw a large one with eight rotors and two! anti-tank launchers strapped to it.
firecall 4y ago
Assault Rifles seem to be ok for the US government to place into the hands of US civilians.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  Agree. But I think the idea of flying a bomb into someone's car (the first thing that came to mind when I thought about it for a few seconds) is, to the powerful, a whole 'nother level of terror. Not to be so cynical/dark, but I'm surprised to have not yet heard of a targeted assassination done by an amateur with an off-the-shelf drone. I have to admit the idea is frightening.
  - andrei_says_ 4y ago
    Remember the D.C. Sniper attacks? Not sure if grenades are as available to the public as bullets and if I remember correctly bombs are illegal to make.
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      > bombs are illegal to make Tell that to Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, the Tsarnaev brothers and that guy that brought pipe bombs to the January 6th insurrection.
- maxwell 4y ago
  You have it backwards: the U.S. government is explicitly prohibited constitutionally from infringing the human right to bear arms.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    That's why everyone can buy sell and own nukes!
    - maxwell 4y ago
      Seems tactical nukes that can be fired by a single individual may constitutionally be held. Firing them appears extremely illegal, owning them is likely subject to physical monitoring, and motorized missile launchers and such are regulated by state regulations under the Tenth. cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258#31869185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258#31869185
- collegeburner 4y ago
  ^^^ this comment was posted by someone who does not know what an assault rifle is. it is very difficult and expensive to get ahold of a assault rifle these days and has been for almost 40 years. though yeah i think we should repeal that law, there is nothing wrong with civilians owning assault rifles. the federal government is literally not allowed to pass or enforce laws against this because it clearly infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms. we can only hope some time in the next few years the NFA, GCA and FOPA are struck down, along with all the asinine regulation that has forced so many small gun manufacturers out of business, increased gun prices for American consumers and retarded innovation in civilian small arms.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Yes same for tactical nukes
    - theodric 4y ago
      Legalize recreational nukes
      - collegeburner 4y ago
        legalize nuclear bombs... bees make honey
    - karambyt 4y ago
      I hate this argument because it's fucking stupid. I think we can draw a clear and logical line between "gun" and "doomsday device".
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        Yeah, there’s a line somewhere obviously, but it’s also not defined by “is it an arm? Okay then you have a right to bear it!” As technology advances, either we have to be comfortable with more and more destructive devices being in the hands of everyday people, or we have to be comfortable with restricting access to more and more devices that qualify as “arms.”
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  Please let me know how to buy one, they are forbidden since 1936 with very few exceptions and astronomic prices.
giantrobot 4y ago
The past thirty years of offensive drones has shown the military power offensive drones. The US fields drones from the size of passenger aircraft to tiny little palm sized ones. It's also been firing missiles from them for decades now. Drones in warfare are not new at all. Even the use of commercial drones is not new.
photochemsyn 4y ago
They're certainly an optimal delivery device for biological and chemical weapons, and I imagine it's only a matter of time before such programs are revived by various powers, given the current breakdown in international treaty regimes governing what I'd call the four horsepeople of the apocalypse: nuclear, chemical, biological and cyber warfare.
- dmos62 4y ago
  I know you were talking about conventional warfare, but unless your apocalypse-causing list includes inflation upfront, it's not complete.
- sofixa 4y ago
  How are they more optimal than the "traditional" (for the last few decades) method, a missile? Missiles have the advantages of bigger range, faster, different profiles (hypersonic cruise, ICBM). A drone might be harder to detect today, maybe, because anti-air systems didn't need to deal with them (while they did have to deal with missiles, so are optimised for that use case), but that's about it?
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    Availability is much higher, so that opens the door to use by non-state actors. Stealth is probably also higher. I suppose the combination, i.e. missiles delivering cluster-type munitions (releasing hundreds of drones instead of hundreds of bomblets) is what state-level militaries would pursue. Little-known fact: cluster munitions (essentially, hot-water-heater-size cylinders packed with hundreds of small devices) were originally developed for the dispersal of chemical and biological warfare munitions over wide areas.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
There is nothing to allow. The cat is already out of the bag. Best you can hope for is regulation, which is what FAA is attempting to do and mitigation ( some companies have ideas on how to counter 'bad' drones ). In a sense, it is no different than it was before. People can still drive cars. People can still use RC toys. And people will do all sorts of horrible things will all manner of technology. << I can think of a few modifications to drones, I've yet to see in Ukraine, that could increase their lethality 10x. I don't know this, but I suspect we are only seeing some rather selective footage ( as with most warfare propaganda ). Just thinking what one could do with coordinating drones makes me shiver a little. Still, as a species we are oddly adaptable. Here is to hope permanent drone sky will not become our new normal.
thriftwy 4y ago
Both sides are purchasing these specific DJI drones in large quantities to be used by personnel on the ground to spot each other. It is a commodity not unlike binoculars were a century ago.
- pxtail 4y ago
  But the obvious difference is that binoculars were not sold with citizen from the other country attached who would stand near and occasionally would peer through and also report to office worker exact position of the binoculars owner AND also recite content of his personal notebook. Quite difference isn't it?
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    AFAIK, soldiers flash a custom firmware on these drones before they are deployed to the battlefield. I imagine it has phoning home and tracking features removed. It's not like the battlefield will have reliable wi-fi/4g coverage anyway.

_kbh_ 4y ago

Some of the drones used by Ukraine have pretty wild so far, one ive seen rarely mentioned is this unknown larger drone that drops 10 grenades at a time, carpet bombing an area. https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1555657070245986309 https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1555657070245986309

yrgulation 4y ago
I imagine the ukranian weapons industry will make a killing post war. Some of their tools are impressive mvps that have a proven product market fit.
brokenmachine 4y ago
I saw a large one with eight rotors and two! anti-tank launchers strapped to it.

firecall 4y ago

Assault Rifles seem to be ok for the US government to place into the hands of US civilians.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
Agree. But I think the idea of flying a bomb into someone's car (the first thing that came to mind when I thought about it for a few seconds) is, to the powerful, a whole 'nother level of terror. Not to be so cynical/dark, but I'm surprised to have not yet heard of a targeted assassination done by an amateur with an off-the-shelf drone. I have to admit the idea is frightening.
- andrei_says_ 4y ago
  Remember the D.C. Sniper attacks? Not sure if grenades are as available to the public as bullets and if I remember correctly bombs are illegal to make.
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    > bombs are illegal to make Tell that to Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, the Tsarnaev brothers and that guy that brought pipe bombs to the January 6th insurrection.
maxwell 4y ago
You have it backwards: the U.S. government is explicitly prohibited constitutionally from infringing the human right to bear arms.
- autoexec 4y ago
  That's why everyone can buy sell and own nukes!
  - maxwell 4y ago
    Seems tactical nukes that can be fired by a single individual may constitutionally be held. Firing them appears extremely illegal, owning them is likely subject to physical monitoring, and motorized missile launchers and such are regulated by state regulations under the Tenth. cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258#31869185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258#31869185
collegeburner 4y ago
^^^ this comment was posted by someone who does not know what an assault rifle is. it is very difficult and expensive to get ahold of a assault rifle these days and has been for almost 40 years. though yeah i think we should repeal that law, there is nothing wrong with civilians owning assault rifles. the federal government is literally not allowed to pass or enforce laws against this because it clearly infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms. we can only hope some time in the next few years the NFA, GCA and FOPA are struck down, along with all the asinine regulation that has forced so many small gun manufacturers out of business, increased gun prices for American consumers and retarded innovation in civilian small arms.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Yes same for tactical nukes
  - theodric 4y ago
    Legalize recreational nukes
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      legalize nuclear bombs... bees make honey
  - karambyt 4y ago
    I hate this argument because it's fucking stupid. I think we can draw a clear and logical line between "gun" and "doomsday device".
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      Yeah, there’s a line somewhere obviously, but it’s also not defined by “is it an arm? Okay then you have a right to bear it!” As technology advances, either we have to be comfortable with more and more destructive devices being in the hands of everyday people, or we have to be comfortable with restricting access to more and more devices that qualify as “arms.”
AdrianB1 4y ago
Please let me know how to buy one, they are forbidden since 1936 with very few exceptions and astronomic prices.

giantrobot 4y ago

The past thirty years of offensive drones has shown the military power offensive drones. The US fields drones from the size of passenger aircraft to tiny little palm sized ones. It's also been firing missiles from them for decades now. Drones in warfare are not new at all. Even the use of commercial drones is not new.

photochemsyn 4y ago

They're certainly an optimal delivery device for biological and chemical weapons, and I imagine it's only a matter of time before such programs are revived by various powers, given the current breakdown in international treaty regimes governing what I'd call the four horsepeople of the apocalypse: nuclear, chemical, biological and cyber warfare.

dmos62 4y ago
I know you were talking about conventional warfare, but unless your apocalypse-causing list includes inflation upfront, it's not complete.
sofixa 4y ago
How are they more optimal than the "traditional" (for the last few decades) method, a missile? Missiles have the advantages of bigger range, faster, different profiles (hypersonic cruise, ICBM). A drone might be harder to detect today, maybe, because anti-air systems didn't need to deal with them (while they did have to deal with missiles, so are optimised for that use case), but that's about it?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Availability is much higher, so that opens the door to use by non-state actors. Stealth is probably also higher. I suppose the combination, i.e. missiles delivering cluster-type munitions (releasing hundreds of drones instead of hundreds of bomblets) is what state-level militaries would pursue. Little-known fact: cluster munitions (essentially, hot-water-heater-size cylinders packed with hundreds of small devices) were originally developed for the dispersal of chemical and biological warfare munitions over wide areas.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

There is nothing to allow. The cat is already out of the bag. Best you can hope for is regulation, which is what FAA is attempting to do and mitigation ( some companies have ideas on how to counter 'bad' drones ). In a sense, it is no different than it was before. People can still drive cars. People can still use RC toys. And people will do all sorts of horrible things will all manner of technology. << I can think of a few modifications to drones, I've yet to see in Ukraine, that could increase their lethality 10x. I don't know this, but I suspect we are only seeing some rather selective footage ( as with most warfare propaganda ). Just thinking what one could do with coordinating drones makes me shiver a little. Still, as a species we are oddly adaptable. Here is to hope permanent drone sky will not become our new normal.

thriftwy 4y ago

Both sides are purchasing these specific DJI drones in large quantities to be used by personnel on the ground to spot each other. It is a commodity not unlike binoculars were a century ago.

pxtail 4y ago
But the obvious difference is that binoculars were not sold with citizen from the other country attached who would stand near and occasionally would peer through and also report to office worker exact position of the binoculars owner AND also recite content of his personal notebook. Quite difference isn't it?
- thriftwy 4y ago
  AFAIK, soldiers flash a custom firmware on these drones before they are deployed to the battlefield. I imagine it has phoning home and tracking features removed. It's not like the battlefield will have reliable wi-fi/4g coverage anyway.