6 ms·

These sorts of weapons move the balance of power to where the only reasonable defenses against the US are nuclear and bioweapons, and therefore that is where yo

These sorts of weapons move the balance of power to where the only reasonable defenses against the US are nuclear and bioweapons, and therefore that is where you should start investing your research efforts in if you are not an ally.

ghostfish 14y ago
How does this type of aircraft shift the balance of power? It doesn't appear to do anything "better" than a manned aircraft aside from not having a pilot to lose onboard.
- breidh 14y ago
  It can ostensibly disable an adversary's satellite.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Uhm, I might be off, but are you thinking of the X-37B? The US has had satellite shoot down capability for a while.
    - velodrome 14y ago
      However, disabling (or altering) the satellite without the adversary knowing about it is an even greater advantage.
    - breidh 14y ago
      Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of the x-37. However, I wasn't aware there was air-to-low-earth-orbit shoot down capability. Only ground launch capability.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        There was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Anti-satellite_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#An... and http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35015 http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35015
- mkaltenecker 14y ago
  The only consequences I can think of are that the cost for the military is potentially decreased and that advocating war gets easier. The first one is a maybe. I’m willing to bet that you still need a lot of people to make those things fly, they are also potentially more complicated machines and I’m not sure how the cost of pilots (and replacing them if one is killed) figures into this. The second one seems significant to me. It seems that drones already make it pretty sure you are nowhere safe if the US don’t like you – even if you are a relatively low priority. Presidents (especially Obama) have become extremely willing to use them for just about anything.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Dove 14y ago
  You can attempt a lot more of the type of mission in which both your target and your aircraft are destroyed. I've heard folks who work on drones say that once you've fired all your munitions, you have one munition left.
- mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
  1. With in-air refueling, a greatly increased time in the air vs manned aircraft. 2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit. 3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of). 4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error.
  - velodrome 14y ago
    5. Reconnaissance 6. Stealth 7. Autonomy 8. Cost of pilot death (human loss) 9. Reduced training time
    - antidoh 14y ago
      0. No risk of losing a human, which makes it easier to decide to attack or go to war, and so you look more bad ass in the balance of power. The increased willingness and ability to attack is a bad thing.
  - kiba 14y ago
    1. With in-air refueling, a greatly increased time in the air vs manned aircraft. Not unique to unmanned aircrafts. On the other hand, pilots need to go to the restroom, get hungry, and tired. 2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit. Only useful if human pilot have low latency access to aircraft, or if AI is good enough to fight. Otherwise, you're good as owned. 3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of). Useful, when nobody is trying to shoot down your drone. 4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error. In 30 years, maybe.
forgotusername 14y ago
These are still vulnerable to electronic countermeasures, not to mention plain old missile attacks on their requisite communications infrastructure (satellites presumably). I imagine if any modern power got into a real fight with the US, the first volley of missiles would be headed for space.
protomyth 14y ago
The US Navy has a massive superiority over every other navy in the world for a good many years. This is just the next step. The recently release radar information (tracking raindrops) was probably a bit of a warning telling others that their new generation of missiles was not going to work as well as they think. Probably much like NASA showing people underground rivers was designed to tell others hiding ICBMs was a waste.
- samstave 14y ago
  What is the underground rivers thing you mention?
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I remember an old story about NASA giving a detailed map of the underground parts of some river system via ground penetrating radar to a country thus telling the USSR that building large underground facilities was not really going to hide them. I thought it was the Nile and Egypt, but I am probably wrong on that. It was in one of the history books I was reading in the 90's and they are in a storage garage about 400miles away.
    - antidoh 14y ago
      "It was in one of the history books I was reading in the 90's and they are in a storage garage about 400miles away." As much as I hate ereaders, there's an excellent example of why ebooks are a good thing.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        e-readers are great, re-buying all the books is not so great.
        aerique 14y ago
        Since you already own them, why not torrent them?
mikeash 14y ago
WMD or insurgency has been the only realistic way to militarily oppose the US for a long, long time now. That's nothing new.
- gmrple 14y ago
  Least ways not in an offensive manner. Though that could be a faulty assumption, we (the US) haven't had any real military attacks on our soil in a while.
- molmalo 14y ago
  Actually, in conventional war, as Millennium Challenge 2002 clearly showed [1], using smart tactics a technologically inferior army can effectively defeat the US military. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
  - adventureful 14y ago
    No, that only works if the US can't keep coming at you. In that case, you have to be able to sustain massive damage to your economy and military and keep fighting indefinitely (which then guarantees a shift to guerrilla tactics).
    - molmalo 14y ago
      This is not 1945. This is what I think would happen if the events of MC2002 were real: If an entire fleet and more than 20000 people were killed in a single day of combat, I bet that the US would have a significant political turmoil, much worse than that of Vietnam, and massive protests. Moving an entire fleet to replace the one lost, could take months, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, loss of morale in troops, and an economic disaster (the markets would simply tank to the lowest). And of course, moving a fleet to replace the one lost, would mean that you have to lower your guard in another front, which itself introduces new kind of problems. Just as an example, moving the 7th fleet would pave the way for China to invade Taiwan. At the same time, China or Russia would be selling more equipment to the other party. Right-wing groups would ask for a full retaliation, or more possibly, asking for allies to get involved, but that could rapidly escalate to a regional or global conflict, as other countries would try to support the one playing "David" here. At that point, with the markets falling apart and clamoring for heads to roll, it would simply be unfeasible to continue. There's even the possibility that some allied economies (Germany?, France?) would probably refuse to help, as the balance of economy tips in their favor, while US markets tank. Wars are not only resolved with bullets today.
mixmax 14y ago
actually with the adversaries the US is currently engaged with the most reasonable defense (from the point of the adversaries) is terrorism. It's cheap and effective, and arguably no more unfair than bombing civilians that don't stand a fighting chance against a drone controlled by an operator thousand of miles away. This is the major downside of modern American one-sided warfare.
- mindslight 14y ago
  Not only from the point of the adversaries, but to anyone who's thought about the actual role each "side" is playing. But don't worry fellow Americans, just keep supporting the intractable and autonomous government.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  The most efficient military defense countries are engaging in is developing economic relationships. The number one reason why the US start a military war against China in the foreseeable future. Is not because of their super advanced autonomous airships. But because doing so would be shooting their own foot. As both US and China are highly dependent on one another. Plenty of small countries around the world have very little military but are completely safe from US attacks because of economic relationships. Modern economics are the most powerful weapon for peace. Not autonomous vehicles nor terrorism.
  - droithomme 14y ago
    China has a gigantic arsenal of functioning nuclear warheads sitting atop of maintained and ready ICBMs that are pretargetted at key american targets. Military action against China by the US is simply not possible. The US doesn't bully China. It bullies people who don't have working nukes and ICBMs. One of the main arguments against the US building a network of "star wars" missile defense stations capable of stopping mass ICBM attacks is it would dangerously shift the balance of power with China, requiring them to pursue other means of preventing the US from attacking them. The Chinese are extremely smart so targetted bioweapons that only infect people with smallpox who don't have asian ancestry are not out of the question as a reasonable project to look into next. It would be better for all of us if they do not pursue this line of research. Not having a missile defense system maintains the usefulness of their nuclear arsenal. It is therefore better than having a missile defense system which makes their nuclear arsenal useless.
ferringham 14y ago
oh really? Ever heard of tactics called terrorism? A pistol is not my weapon of preference when trying to kill a fly. Generals as usual are fighting the last (cold) war.
Gustomaximus 14y ago
I would think this is going to increase the push into cyber warfare. In the same way we saw a done being hijacked recently through GPS I would think taking more complete control of your enemies drones, or at the least disabling their sensors and ability to operate will become a big military push.
sien 14y ago
No, the reasonable defense against the US is already working. Debt.

ghostfish 14y ago

How does this type of aircraft shift the balance of power? It doesn't appear to do anything "better" than a manned aircraft aside from not having a pilot to lose onboard.

breidh 14y ago
It can ostensibly disable an adversary's satellite.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Uhm, I might be off, but are you thinking of the X-37B? The US has had satellite shoot down capability for a while.
  - velodrome 14y ago
    However, disabling (or altering) the satellite without the adversary knowing about it is an even greater advantage.
  - breidh 14y ago
    Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of the x-37. However, I wasn't aware there was air-to-low-earth-orbit shoot down capability. Only ground launch capability.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      There was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Anti-satellite_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#An... and http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35015 http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35015
mkaltenecker 14y ago
The only consequences I can think of are that the cost for the military is potentially decreased and that advocating war gets easier. The first one is a maybe. I’m willing to bet that you still need a lot of people to make those things fly, they are also potentially more complicated machines and I’m not sure how the cost of pilots (and replacing them if one is killed) figures into this. The second one seems significant to me. It seems that drones already make it pretty sure you are nowhere safe if the US don’t like you – even if you are a relatively low priority. Presidents (especially Obama) have become extremely willing to use them for just about anything.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Dove 14y ago
You can attempt a lot more of the type of mission in which both your target and your aircraft are destroyed. I've heard folks who work on drones say that once you've fired all your munitions, you have one munition left.
mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
1. With in-air refueling, a greatly increased time in the air vs manned aircraft. 2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit. 3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of). 4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error.
- velodrome 14y ago
  5. Reconnaissance 6. Stealth 7. Autonomy 8. Cost of pilot death (human loss) 9. Reduced training time
  - antidoh 14y ago
    0. No risk of losing a human, which makes it easier to decide to attack or go to war, and so you look more bad ass in the balance of power. The increased willingness and ability to attack is a bad thing.
- kiba 14y ago
  1. With in-air refueling, a greatly increased time in the air vs manned aircraft. Not unique to unmanned aircrafts. On the other hand, pilots need to go to the restroom, get hungry, and tired. 2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit. Only useful if human pilot have low latency access to aircraft, or if AI is good enough to fight. Otherwise, you're good as owned. 3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of). Useful, when nobody is trying to shoot down your drone. 4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error. In 30 years, maybe.

forgotusername 14y ago

These are still vulnerable to electronic countermeasures, not to mention plain old missile attacks on their requisite communications infrastructure (satellites presumably). I imagine if any modern power got into a real fight with the US, the first volley of missiles would be headed for space.

protomyth 14y ago

The US Navy has a massive superiority over every other navy in the world for a good many years. This is just the next step. The recently release radar information (tracking raindrops) was probably a bit of a warning telling others that their new generation of missiles was not going to work as well as they think. Probably much like NASA showing people underground rivers was designed to tell others hiding ICBMs was a waste.

samstave 14y ago
What is the underground rivers thing you mention?
- protomyth 14y ago
  I remember an old story about NASA giving a detailed map of the underground parts of some river system via ground penetrating radar to a country thus telling the USSR that building large underground facilities was not really going to hide them. I thought it was the Nile and Egypt, but I am probably wrong on that. It was in one of the history books I was reading in the 90's and they are in a storage garage about 400miles away.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    "It was in one of the history books I was reading in the 90's and they are in a storage garage about 400miles away." As much as I hate ereaders, there's an excellent example of why ebooks are a good thing.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      e-readers are great, re-buying all the books is not so great.
      - aerique 14y ago
        Since you already own them, why not torrent them?

mikeash 14y ago

WMD or insurgency has been the only realistic way to militarily oppose the US for a long, long time now. That's nothing new.

gmrple 14y ago
Least ways not in an offensive manner. Though that could be a faulty assumption, we (the US) haven't had any real military attacks on our soil in a while.
molmalo 14y ago
Actually, in conventional war, as Millennium Challenge 2002 clearly showed [1], using smart tactics a technologically inferior army can effectively defeat the US military. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- adventureful 14y ago
  No, that only works if the US can't keep coming at you. In that case, you have to be able to sustain massive damage to your economy and military and keep fighting indefinitely (which then guarantees a shift to guerrilla tactics).
  - molmalo 14y ago
    This is not 1945. This is what I think would happen if the events of MC2002 were real: If an entire fleet and more than 20000 people were killed in a single day of combat, I bet that the US would have a significant political turmoil, much worse than that of Vietnam, and massive protests. Moving an entire fleet to replace the one lost, could take months, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, loss of morale in troops, and an economic disaster (the markets would simply tank to the lowest). And of course, moving a fleet to replace the one lost, would mean that you have to lower your guard in another front, which itself introduces new kind of problems. Just as an example, moving the 7th fleet would pave the way for China to invade Taiwan. At the same time, China or Russia would be selling more equipment to the other party. Right-wing groups would ask for a full retaliation, or more possibly, asking for allies to get involved, but that could rapidly escalate to a regional or global conflict, as other countries would try to support the one playing "David" here. At that point, with the markets falling apart and clamoring for heads to roll, it would simply be unfeasible to continue. There's even the possibility that some allied economies (Germany?, France?) would probably refuse to help, as the balance of economy tips in their favor, while US markets tank. Wars are not only resolved with bullets today.

mixmax 14y ago

actually with the adversaries the US is currently engaged with the most reasonable defense (from the point of the adversaries) is terrorism. It's cheap and effective, and arguably no more unfair than bombing civilians that don't stand a fighting chance against a drone controlled by an operator thousand of miles away. This is the major downside of modern American one-sided warfare.

mindslight 14y ago
Not only from the point of the adversaries, but to anyone who's thought about the actual role each "side" is playing. But don't worry fellow Americans, just keep supporting the intractable and autonomous government.
vibrunazo 14y ago
The most efficient military defense countries are engaging in is developing economic relationships. The number one reason why the US start a military war against China in the foreseeable future. Is not because of their super advanced autonomous airships. But because doing so would be shooting their own foot. As both US and China are highly dependent on one another. Plenty of small countries around the world have very little military but are completely safe from US attacks because of economic relationships. Modern economics are the most powerful weapon for peace. Not autonomous vehicles nor terrorism.
- droithomme 14y ago
  China has a gigantic arsenal of functioning nuclear warheads sitting atop of maintained and ready ICBMs that are pretargetted at key american targets. Military action against China by the US is simply not possible. The US doesn't bully China. It bullies people who don't have working nukes and ICBMs. One of the main arguments against the US building a network of "star wars" missile defense stations capable of stopping mass ICBM attacks is it would dangerously shift the balance of power with China, requiring them to pursue other means of preventing the US from attacking them. The Chinese are extremely smart so targetted bioweapons that only infect people with smallpox who don't have asian ancestry are not out of the question as a reasonable project to look into next. It would be better for all of us if they do not pursue this line of research. Not having a missile defense system maintains the usefulness of their nuclear arsenal. It is therefore better than having a missile defense system which makes their nuclear arsenal useless.

ferringham 14y ago

oh really? Ever heard of tactics called terrorism? A pistol is not my weapon of preference when trying to kill a fly. Generals as usual are fighting the last (cold) war.

Gustomaximus 14y ago

I would think this is going to increase the push into cyber warfare. In the same way we saw a done being hijacked recently through GPS I would think taking more complete control of your enemies drones, or at the least disabling their sensors and ability to operate will become a big military push.

sien 14y ago

No, the reasonable defense against the US is already working. Debt.