5 ms·

One has to wonder what incentive there is in publicising something like this. Indicating capabilities to potential adversaries seems to have utility in limited

by hiatus 3y ago

One has to wonder what incentive there is in publicising something like this. Indicating capabilities to potential adversaries seems to have utility in limited circumstances.

cheschire 3y ago
First of all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_of_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_of_force Also capabilities have to be made public to show what tax dollars are being spent on.
skyyler 3y ago
Understating capabilities could have utility, no?
binarymax 3y ago
Maybe not, since the Star Wars program taught us that propaganda of capability is a good enough deterrent.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
phendrenad2 3y ago
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
ultra_nick 3y ago
It changes the whole game. We were almost defenseless from swarms of flying grenades before. Now, the military can handle that threat.
yamazakiwi 3y ago
Most military missions are posturing, there many incentives.
paulddraper 3y ago
Same reason for knowing the U.S. defense budgets, number of aircraft carriers, fighter jets, etc. What's better than winning a war? Not having to fight one.
- regentbowerbird 3y ago
  And also accountability to the citizens who are financing all this. A 773$B black hole in the budget would be undemocratic and rife for embezzlement.
  - virgildotcodes 3y ago
    The DOD is unable to account for 61% of its 3.5 trillion in assets. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-sessions-open-probe-into-department-of-defense-after-failing-gao-audit-for-fifth-time%EF%BF%BC/#:~:text=“The%20Committee%20on%20Oversight%20and,its%20%243.5%20trillion%20in%20assets https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-sessions-open-prob....
    - nvy 3y ago
      >The DOD is unable to account for 61% of its 3.5 trillion in assets. I bet most of the circumstances behind this stat are mundane. I used to be in military SAR and we had a mule[0] randomly go missing. We were mystified because it's not like a work-issued Blackberry you could forget at a Subway or something. It's hard to lose track of a 20-ton piece of GSE, or at least you'd think so. It later turned up in Kandahar at the coalition base. These things happen; it's not malicious so much as the fact that mission success sometimes mean you take the wrong tow mule and "oh well". [0]https://www.google.com/search?q=sellick+aircraft+tug https://www.google.com/search?q=sellick+aircraft+tug
      - paulddraper 3y ago
        Reassuring
        3y ago
krapp 3y ago
We're letting the aliens know the next time they try to invade our airspace disguised as Chinese weather balloons, we'll be ready for them. It'll be like the Battle of Los Angeles for real this time.
ambicapter 3y ago
Seems to have pretty clear dissuasive capability.
yamtaddle 3y ago
Hard to say what's already known to be known by foreign intelligence. Doesn't hurt to publicize it if you already know that major potential adversaries know about it. Also hard to say exactly how cutting-edge anything we get to see is.
Robotbeat 3y ago
If a relatively small research project is going to mean adversaries have to spend twice as much on drones which have heavy metal mesh shielding, that’s pretty great return on investment even if the capability is totally negated by that countermeasure.
- MR4D 3y ago
  Also, nothing was said about the maximum design power of this device. For all we know, they could ramp it up to 10x the power with a different power unit.
CodeWriter23 3y ago
I think it was Truman who said “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. They have to see the stick for it to have any diplomatic effect. Then there was Reagan who collapsed the Soviet Union with a mostly bullshit space defense initiative called “Strategic Defense Initiaitive”, aka Star Wars and SDI. That proved if the enemy believes the stick exists you don’t need to actually have the stick.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  > I think it was Truman who said “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. Theodore Roosevelt, actually.
- MR4D 3y ago
  Reagan (or , at least his advisors) was essentially following Moore’s Law in the SDI effort. He knew that computers were getting faster at an increasing rate and the Soviets couldn’t catch up. Same thing happened in the space race in the 1960’s where the Russians had to build huge rockets because they didn’t have the miniaturization capabilities of the US.
nvy 3y ago
Over the last few years there was a lot of hay being made about how drone swarms have obsoleted $military_technology_du_jour and how there's no real way to defend against "drone zerg", etc. The USAF is probably publicizing this for two reasons: 1. To reassure domestic audiences that the USAF can counter these things to some extent and is working on it, and also probably to demonstrate return on investment for Congressional oversight reasons 2. As a form of soft deterrence; a reminder to unfriendly powers that "hey, we have this technology, imagine what else we have that we're not telling you about"
- dimmke 3y ago
  I remember the first time I learned about drone swarms was this YouTube video called Slaughterbots: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA Of course at this point, my country had been using drones to kill people since I was a small child, which I think is ironic. In the Slaughterbots scenario, each specific drone has sensors and AI good enough it can pilot itself and doesn’t need an external connection that can be detected or disrupted and is good enough to target individual people with facial recognition. I believe (this is not an area of expertise for me) that the drones depicted in that video are still far more advanced than what currently exists currently (but I think it could probably get there within the next 10-20 years), whereas the video linked shows a more realistic drone swarm attack where it’s targeting infrastructure and the blast radius is larger than being able to target an individual's head, but still smaller than traditional UAVs. It’s an upsetting watch, but the part of me that enjoys speculative science fiction (I love evaluating how realistic the apocalypse is in zombie movies) always found the attempted countermeasures employed to be silly and unrealistic. Covering windows and leaving only tiny circles so no drone can get through etc… But at the same time, the video struck a chord because as soon as I saw it, I knew some form of this was coming and likely within the next decade. But mitigations and countermeasures are being developed in tandem. I think that's the major thing the Slaughterbots video got wrong. And there's many different potential countermeasures, they don't all have to be 100% effective, but together they form a kind of "net" that will make these attacks a lot harder to pull off. For example, they now have a portable machine that can disrupt a drone swarm's sensors, which will at the very least require additional shielding (and increase cost per unit) which removes some of the benefits. It's possible the technology will prove even more fruitful after additional development and make drone swarms mostly untenable for warfare except in rare situations. This is a very direct countermeasure, but I could also imagine other indirect measures like regulating consumer drone manufacturers and forcing them to add/remove features that make it more difficult to turn them into a weapon. The same way printers can't just print currency and GPS won't work if it's moving too fast. Ultimately, for war it just makes it another type of weapon/tactic and there's already infrastructure for controlling how those things move between countries and intelligence groups that work to keep them away from terrorists etc... Which leaves the possibility of a sole actor or small group without state backing turning consumer drones into these swarms. Which could happen, it could be a new vector of terrorist attack. But they'd still have to source explosives which is already monitored, etc... In the Slaughterbots video, these swarm attacks are extremely efficient and effective, killing 5000+ people at a time. I think a similar attempt from a homegrown terror cell would not be more effective than a mass shooting or traditional bombing in terms of casualties (< 50.) I think for it to become more effective, it would have to be done many times and iterated on by the same group, building up institutional knowledge. It's just too complex. Like the idea of a "dirty bomb", I think it’s one of those things that is theoretically extremely dangerous but due to a mix of factors is unlikely to result in a situation like the one depicted in that video. A matrix of countermeasures will just make the juice not worth the squeeze. I think about it like guns. There is a lot of gun violence in the United States, but it stems more from ideological gridlock than the government not being able to stop it if they had the will to. The one thing that does worry me is the possibility of targeting individuals. So if you have a tiny drone that can explode and isn’t part of a larger swarm, then you could potentially murder someone in a way that is very hard to investigate. Much harder than a homicide involving a gun where someone had to pull the trigger. It could be the next evolution of SWATing someone.

by hiatus 3y ago

One has to wonder what incentive there is in publicising something like this. Indicating capabilities to potential adversaries seems to have utility in limited circumstances.

cheschire 3y ago

First of all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_of_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_of_force Also capabilities have to be made public to show what tax dollars are being spent on.

skyyler 3y ago

Understating capabilities could have utility, no?

binarymax 3y ago

Maybe not, since the Star Wars program taught us that propaganda of capability is a good enough deterrent.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

phendrenad2 3y ago

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

ultra_nick 3y ago

It changes the whole game. We were almost defenseless from swarms of flying grenades before. Now, the military can handle that threat.

yamazakiwi 3y ago

Most military missions are posturing, there many incentives.

paulddraper 3y ago

Same reason for knowing the U.S. defense budgets, number of aircraft carriers, fighter jets, etc. What's better than winning a war? Not having to fight one.

regentbowerbird 3y ago
And also accountability to the citizens who are financing all this. A 773$B black hole in the budget would be undemocratic and rife for embezzlement.
- virgildotcodes 3y ago
  The DOD is unable to account for 61% of its 3.5 trillion in assets. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-sessions-open-probe-into-department-of-defense-after-failing-gao-audit-for-fifth-time%EF%BF%BC/#:~:text=“The%20Committee%20on%20Oversight%20and,its%20%243.5%20trillion%20in%20assets https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-sessions-open-prob....
  - nvy 3y ago
    >The DOD is unable to account for 61% of its 3.5 trillion in assets. I bet most of the circumstances behind this stat are mundane. I used to be in military SAR and we had a mule[0] randomly go missing. We were mystified because it's not like a work-issued Blackberry you could forget at a Subway or something. It's hard to lose track of a 20-ton piece of GSE, or at least you'd think so. It later turned up in Kandahar at the coalition base. These things happen; it's not malicious so much as the fact that mission success sometimes mean you take the wrong tow mule and "oh well". [0]https://www.google.com/search?q=sellick+aircraft+tug https://www.google.com/search?q=sellick+aircraft+tug
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      Reassuring
      - 3y ago

krapp 3y ago

We're letting the aliens know the next time they try to invade our airspace disguised as Chinese weather balloons, we'll be ready for them. It'll be like the Battle of Los Angeles for real this time.

ambicapter 3y ago

Seems to have pretty clear dissuasive capability.

yamtaddle 3y ago

Hard to say what's already known to be known by foreign intelligence. Doesn't hurt to publicize it if you already know that major potential adversaries know about it. Also hard to say exactly how cutting-edge anything we get to see is.

Robotbeat 3y ago

If a relatively small research project is going to mean adversaries have to spend twice as much on drones which have heavy metal mesh shielding, that’s pretty great return on investment even if the capability is totally negated by that countermeasure.

MR4D 3y ago
Also, nothing was said about the maximum design power of this device. For all we know, they could ramp it up to 10x the power with a different power unit.

CodeWriter23 3y ago

I think it was Truman who said “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. They have to see the stick for it to have any diplomatic effect. Then there was Reagan who collapsed the Soviet Union with a mostly bullshit space defense initiative called “Strategic Defense Initiaitive”, aka Star Wars and SDI. That proved if the enemy believes the stick exists you don’t need to actually have the stick.

zabzonk 3y ago
> I think it was Truman who said “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. Theodore Roosevelt, actually.
MR4D 3y ago
Reagan (or , at least his advisors) was essentially following Moore’s Law in the SDI effort. He knew that computers were getting faster at an increasing rate and the Soviets couldn’t catch up. Same thing happened in the space race in the 1960’s where the Russians had to build huge rockets because they didn’t have the miniaturization capabilities of the US.

nvy 3y ago

Over the last few years there was a lot of hay being made about how drone swarms have obsoleted $military_technology_du_jour and how there's no real way to defend against "drone zerg", etc. The USAF is probably publicizing this for two reasons: 1. To reassure domestic audiences that the USAF can counter these things to some extent and is working on it, and also probably to demonstrate return on investment for Congressional oversight reasons 2. As a form of soft deterrence; a reminder to unfriendly powers that "hey, we have this technology, imagine what else we have that we're not telling you about"

dimmke 3y ago
I remember the first time I learned about drone swarms was this YouTube video called Slaughterbots: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA Of course at this point, my country had been using drones to kill people since I was a small child, which I think is ironic. In the Slaughterbots scenario, each specific drone has sensors and AI good enough it can pilot itself and doesn’t need an external connection that can be detected or disrupted and is good enough to target individual people with facial recognition. I believe (this is not an area of expertise for me) that the drones depicted in that video are still far more advanced than what currently exists currently (but I think it could probably get there within the next 10-20 years), whereas the video linked shows a more realistic drone swarm attack where it’s targeting infrastructure and the blast radius is larger than being able to target an individual's head, but still smaller than traditional UAVs. It’s an upsetting watch, but the part of me that enjoys speculative science fiction (I love evaluating how realistic the apocalypse is in zombie movies) always found the attempted countermeasures employed to be silly and unrealistic. Covering windows and leaving only tiny circles so no drone can get through etc… But at the same time, the video struck a chord because as soon as I saw it, I knew some form of this was coming and likely within the next decade. But mitigations and countermeasures are being developed in tandem. I think that's the major thing the Slaughterbots video got wrong. And there's many different potential countermeasures, they don't all have to be 100% effective, but together they form a kind of "net" that will make these attacks a lot harder to pull off. For example, they now have a portable machine that can disrupt a drone swarm's sensors, which will at the very least require additional shielding (and increase cost per unit) which removes some of the benefits. It's possible the technology will prove even more fruitful after additional development and make drone swarms mostly untenable for warfare except in rare situations. This is a very direct countermeasure, but I could also imagine other indirect measures like regulating consumer drone manufacturers and forcing them to add/remove features that make it more difficult to turn them into a weapon. The same way printers can't just print currency and GPS won't work if it's moving too fast. Ultimately, for war it just makes it another type of weapon/tactic and there's already infrastructure for controlling how those things move between countries and intelligence groups that work to keep them away from terrorists etc... Which leaves the possibility of a sole actor or small group without state backing turning consumer drones into these swarms. Which could happen, it could be a new vector of terrorist attack. But they'd still have to source explosives which is already monitored, etc... In the Slaughterbots video, these swarm attacks are extremely efficient and effective, killing 5000+ people at a time. I think a similar attempt from a homegrown terror cell would not be more effective than a mass shooting or traditional bombing in terms of casualties (< 50.) I think for it to become more effective, it would have to be done many times and iterated on by the same group, building up institutional knowledge. It's just too complex. Like the idea of a "dirty bomb", I think it’s one of those things that is theoretically extremely dangerous but due to a mix of factors is unlikely to result in a situation like the one depicted in that video. A matrix of countermeasures will just make the juice not worth the squeeze. I think about it like guns. There is a lot of gun violence in the United States, but it stems more from ideological gridlock than the government not being able to stop it if they had the will to. The one thing that does worry me is the possibility of targeting individuals. So if you have a tiny drone that can explode and isn’t part of a larger swarm, then you could potentially murder someone in a way that is very hard to investigate. Much harder than a homicide involving a gun where someone had to pull the trigger. It could be the next evolution of SWATing someone.