3 ms·

Considering we're looking at an adversarial nation state (famously full of script kiddies) which is absolutely hell-bent and motivated to tackle their drone pro

Considering we're looking at an adversarial nation state (famously full of script kiddies) which is absolutely hell-bent and motivated to tackle their drone problem, and not once has that state or its script kiddies commandeered a single drone - nevermind a fleet of them - (nor are the script kiddies even remotely in range?) I don't see this being a problem now or in the near future.

Eisenstein 2y ago
It isn't a problem until it is one, and the it can be a huge problem. I don't know anyone who was ever made to look foolish saying 'it is improbable, but let's prepare for it anyway' whereas plenty of graves are filled with people who said 'that will never happen'.
- SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  Sadly generals, or at least the high command, tend to fight the last war, and tend to be fairly conservative. WW2 was a classic example. Every nation except the US still had bolt-action rifles as the standard infantry weapon, on the belief that giving every infantryman semi-auto was a waste of ammo/too expensive/too heavy on logistics. Also motorization was not appreciated until late in the war, even in the German army - which despite all the attention devoted to the panzer/panzergrenadier divisions, was maybe 20% motorized at its peak. Mostly their soldiers marched from place to place, or used rail. There is kinda a reason for this, that there are counter examples were new tech wasn't all it was hyped to be. And until something is battle tested, its hard to say how it would perform. Like early in the Vietnam war, US infantrymen may have been better off with the old M1 garand, because early models of the M16 tended to jam in combat conditions.
- theelous3 2y ago
  > It isn't a problem until it is one > anyone who was ever made to look foolish saying[...] These are common throwaway sayings people with no concept of resources and an overly active aversion to risk often use. The reality of the situation is that nobody cares to invest in some insanely expensive and vulnerable platform to hijack drones, because 1. it will probably get taken out by a drone 2. it would cost orders of magnitude more than all of the drones and personnel it would take out. Furthermore, nobody would care to truly protect against such a counter, because the drones cost absolutely nothing. Saying "it's improbable but let's prepare anyway" isn't how the real world works. Look around you - the world is absolutely filled to the brim with problems, even ones quite probable, even ones inevitable, that nobody can or is willing to spare the resources to deal with. As a general rule, preparing for the improbable is a poor path to success, and worse still is preparing for the improbable, where the improbable event doesn't even impact you in any serious way. Also, ofc you don't hear about those people. Nobody is reporting on the non-event or the people who prepared for the non-event. Pure selection bias.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    You are telling me that the US has made plans for invading or defending against every scenario imaginable[1], but they wouldn't bother considering the 'our drones are being hijacked and used against us' scenario? Just because you are overly confident doesn't make caution an extreme position. [1] https://williamaarkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/arkins-contingency-plans-of-the-us-government.pdf https://williamaarkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/arkins-con...
    - theelous3 2y ago
      I wasn't telling you that. There is a huge difference in preparing on a meta level for national and international level events, and actually investing in countering specific tactical scenarios. The tactical scenario we are talking about is mid-flight hijack and use of sub $1k drones, by a state, and by civilian script kiddies. It's not a "what if china sits it's navy on a contested Philippine island".
guappa 2y ago
Yes, not a problem at all. It never has happened before. Oh wait! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...
- theelous3 2y ago
  Did you read that article? That drone was electronically taken out of the sky and rendered useless, it was not commandeered and used against the US. Where did I claim nobody's ever taken out a drone with ewar? Plus this action presumably took an entire squadron with extremely powerful ewar apparatus - a complete waste of time on an 800e drone that will be replaced before the one you've dropped even hits the ground.
  - guappa 2y ago
    Well Iran says they landed it, USA said they crashed it. I don't really know who's less believable between the 2.
    - theelous3 2y ago
      Even if they landed it (meaning it landed its self due to loss of control) that doesn't fit your criteria, and says absolutely nothing about the topic at hand - battlefield uno reversing mini drones.

Eisenstein 2y ago

It isn't a problem until it is one, and the it can be a huge problem. I don't know anyone who was ever made to look foolish saying 'it is improbable, but let's prepare for it anyway' whereas plenty of graves are filled with people who said 'that will never happen'.

SJC_Hacker 2y ago
Sadly generals, or at least the high command, tend to fight the last war, and tend to be fairly conservative. WW2 was a classic example. Every nation except the US still had bolt-action rifles as the standard infantry weapon, on the belief that giving every infantryman semi-auto was a waste of ammo/too expensive/too heavy on logistics. Also motorization was not appreciated until late in the war, even in the German army - which despite all the attention devoted to the panzer/panzergrenadier divisions, was maybe 20% motorized at its peak. Mostly their soldiers marched from place to place, or used rail. There is kinda a reason for this, that there are counter examples were new tech wasn't all it was hyped to be. And until something is battle tested, its hard to say how it would perform. Like early in the Vietnam war, US infantrymen may have been better off with the old M1 garand, because early models of the M16 tended to jam in combat conditions.
theelous3 2y ago
> It isn't a problem until it is one > anyone who was ever made to look foolish saying[...] These are common throwaway sayings people with no concept of resources and an overly active aversion to risk often use. The reality of the situation is that nobody cares to invest in some insanely expensive and vulnerable platform to hijack drones, because 1. it will probably get taken out by a drone 2. it would cost orders of magnitude more than all of the drones and personnel it would take out. Furthermore, nobody would care to truly protect against such a counter, because the drones cost absolutely nothing. Saying "it's improbable but let's prepare anyway" isn't how the real world works. Look around you - the world is absolutely filled to the brim with problems, even ones quite probable, even ones inevitable, that nobody can or is willing to spare the resources to deal with. As a general rule, preparing for the improbable is a poor path to success, and worse still is preparing for the improbable, where the improbable event doesn't even impact you in any serious way. Also, ofc you don't hear about those people. Nobody is reporting on the non-event or the people who prepared for the non-event. Pure selection bias.
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  You are telling me that the US has made plans for invading or defending against every scenario imaginable[1], but they wouldn't bother considering the 'our drones are being hijacked and used against us' scenario? Just because you are overly confident doesn't make caution an extreme position. [1] https://williamaarkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/arkins-contingency-plans-of-the-us-government.pdf https://williamaarkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/arkins-con...
  - theelous3 2y ago
    I wasn't telling you that. There is a huge difference in preparing on a meta level for national and international level events, and actually investing in countering specific tactical scenarios. The tactical scenario we are talking about is mid-flight hijack and use of sub $1k drones, by a state, and by civilian script kiddies. It's not a "what if china sits it's navy on a contested Philippine island".

guappa 2y ago

Yes, not a problem at all. It never has happened before. Oh wait! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

theelous3 2y ago
Did you read that article? That drone was electronically taken out of the sky and rendered useless, it was not commandeered and used against the US. Where did I claim nobody's ever taken out a drone with ewar? Plus this action presumably took an entire squadron with extremely powerful ewar apparatus - a complete waste of time on an 800e drone that will be replaced before the one you've dropped even hits the ground.
- guappa 2y ago
  Well Iran says they landed it, USA said they crashed it. I don't really know who's less believable between the 2.
  - theelous3 2y ago
    Even if they landed it (meaning it landed its self due to loss of control) that doesn't fit your criteria, and says absolutely nothing about the topic at hand - battlefield uno reversing mini drones.