2 ms·
> But aside from that hypothesis, I fail to see why destroying invading military technology would be "exactly what your opponent wants". You got it. There is n
by krisoft 4y ago
> But aside from that hypothesis, I fail to see why destroying invading military technology would be "exactly what your opponent wants".
You got it. There is no "aside". That is it.
Imagine you want to defeat a big powerful attack dog. You know the dog can only hurt you if it sees you. You send tiny mice towards the dog and you measure carefully how far they get before the dog kills them. If the dog is in the habit of killing every mice it sees then you can check exactly how well it can see, better than an eye-chart. And with that knowledge you can outmanoeuvre the dog.
If the dog chills out and only snaps at the mice which gets too brazen then the dog retained a strategic edge. Using this strategic edge during a real conflict the dog can surprise the attackers when the dog suddenly starts using their faculties to their fullest extent.
- crazygringo 4y agoExcept that's only the case for attack drones. If these are surveillance drones trying to find weaknesses in our radar and comms then we should be destroying these things as quickly as possible.
- krisoft 4y agoI don't know how to respond to you. You just repeated the same thing. If you do that, you destroy every surveillance drone you detect, then you just shipped your radar's specs to the enemy. Because you can not destroy drones you can not see. So every time the enemy's drone survives they know it is because it was small enough, or far enough, or stealthy enough to not be seen. If you do that you might as well invite your adversary to the proving ground and currier them the design specifications.