5 ms·

Just what modern warfare needs, even less proximity. Boeing like to say its for target practise but quite obviously its real life applications are far more vio

Just what modern warfare needs, even less proximity. Boeing like to say its for target practise but quite obviously its real life applications are far more violent. Powerful nations will be able to conduct warfare even more secretly (less witnesses and potential whistleblowers) and reduction in home casualty will allow them to conduct their wars for even longer. Can we really trust these countries to use this sort of technology responsibly? Clearly not. Interesting and clever technology but ultimately distasteful and sinister.

kcen 13y ago
It takes just as many people to fly a robo-F16 as it does to fly a manned F16. Only difference is that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the air. Also the unmanned F16 provides 0 advantages over a purpose built UAV (plus is bigger, slower, and more expensive), I highly doubt anybody would seriously consider these for warfare applications. It's cool tech, take it at face value.
- DougWebb 13y ago
  I imagine it can carry a bigger payload, so there's that advantage. Apparently we have a bunch of them in storage too, so it might be cheaper to convert them than to build new UAVs. It must be, if they're cheap enough to use for live target practice. Better to turn them into UAVs than let them rust while we build new UAVs, or sell them to other countries.
  - nols 13y ago
    I don't know how much bigger that payload will be. Assuming the components to turn it into a UAV weigh 0 lbs, you're talking about a ~160 lb pilot in a 26,000 lb jet.
    - monkeypizza 13y ago
      You are forgetting about all the life support systems that no longer need to be included / maintained. Oxygen tanks, ejector seat, etc.
    - DougWebb 13y ago
      In case you ever see my reply: I was thinking that the F-16 is much larger and more powerful than a typical UAV, so it's built to carry more ordinance. But, I know next to nothing about the different military jet versions. I've since read in other comments that the F-16 was primarily a fighter-intercepter and not a fighter-bomber, so I guess it carries guns and air-to-air missiles rather than heavy bombs.
- DeadJim 13y ago
  Beyond all the life support you can now remove, the unmanned can now pull G's that would be unsustainable for a manned plane.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Only difference is that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the air. Seems that removing humans from harm's way on one side of the conflict would have pretty big implications wrt high level decision-making. >I highly doubt anybody would seriously consider these for warfare applications. Are you saying that Iarger fighters no longer have utility as opposed to purpose-built UAVs?
jessriedel 13y ago
Are you making the general argument that automation is bad because it removes potential whistleblowers? Should all government tech have limitations on automation, or just ones involved with killing?
- TomGullen 13y ago
  Well, tech is limited in polling booths which most people agree is a good thing. Automation in warfare and one-sided removal of the human element for the richest side isn't necesserially bad, but it is bad when we can't trust the governments who have this technology and when they repeatedly act unethically.
javert 13y ago
Governments can only spend money to conduct war when either (a) their citizens knowingly give them money; or (b) they can print money. Bitcoin is a potential solution for (b), were it to truly become dominant and replace non-government demand for Federal Reserve notes. I fully support the US defending itself, and in that regard, I'm not sure that "the citizenry" would make better decisions than the Bush/Obama war complex. So I'm not saying this is a perfect utopoan solution. Just something to think about.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  You forgot (c), wars financed with borrowed money. These have happened in conditions regardless of currency configuration (fiat, pegged, silver, gold, bimetallic, whatever).
  - javert 13y ago
    True, but nobody will loan money to a country that is not fiscally responsible (i.e., able to pay it back). A country that must be fiscally responsible to finance its wars will not semi-permanently invade multiple foreign countries. The US gets out of this by being able to do quantitative easing.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      Someone will always lend you money if you have the power to tax.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > I fully support the US defending itself So do I. The problem is that they are confusing attack and defense.
  - javert 13y ago
    No, they declare wars with no termination condition that can lead to nothing but self-sacrifice of American lives and dollars while accomplishing no legitimate objective whatsoever. If someone has the means and intent to attack you, by all means, a preemptive attack is a good means of defense. Attack and defense are not fundamentally different. Force is force. The question is who initiated it or threatened to initiate it. That is the bad guy.
jfoster 13y ago
It seems warfare is moving in an interesting direction, though. Rather than people being the casualties, infrastructure and drones may be what is being destroyed. It might turn out more like the picture you've painted, but I think it's too early to say for certain. It could be a good thing.
- beloch 13y ago
  Soldiers may be less at risk, but there are always going to be civilians in the infrastructure. Removing the constraint of attrition on military manpower may make future conflicts far more dangerous for civilians. Drones can also be mostly automated, so one person can do a lot more. For example, the fire-bombing of Dresden took several hundred bombers crewed by thousands. With semi-automated drones, the crews are eliminated and you only need enough pilots to man a single wave at a time, with the following waves waiting on autopilot until ready to engage. In a campaign of sustained bombing where each bomber makes several trips, the return-trip to base for armaments/fuel can also be automated, allowing a single pilot to keep dozens of planes in the air. If they'd had drone-bombers, the allies could have razed Dresden with a dozen men or so. Would the U.S. fire-bomb an entire city, civilians and all today? Probably not, but this technology will not be limited to the U.S. for long. With the reduced need for pilots, the real limiting factor on air power will be manufacturing capacity (not the U.S.'s forte these days). Also, with such a tiny number of pilots needed to run a massively destructive force, it's going to be easier to select "morally flexible" pilots. Military drones are a Pandora's box. The U.S. opened it, but other nations are starting to use them now too. While drones may reduce military casualties, the negative concerns they raise are numerous and severe. As AI improves, the role of human pilots may also be further diminished to the point where one immoral leader (or potentially a hacker) could kill millions. Civilians are going to be able to build drones easily as well. In fact, this is already happening. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/german-chancellors-drone-attack-shows-the-threat-of-weaponized-uavs/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/german... As the article says, just adding a grenade could have allowed them to assassinate the German chancellor. Drone-attacks are going to be a serious problem in the future.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago

kcen 13y ago

It takes just as many people to fly a robo-F16 as it does to fly a manned F16. Only difference is that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the air. Also the unmanned F16 provides 0 advantages over a purpose built UAV (plus is bigger, slower, and more expensive), I highly doubt anybody would seriously consider these for warfare applications. It's cool tech, take it at face value.

DougWebb 13y ago
I imagine it can carry a bigger payload, so there's that advantage. Apparently we have a bunch of them in storage too, so it might be cheaper to convert them than to build new UAVs. It must be, if they're cheap enough to use for live target practice. Better to turn them into UAVs than let them rust while we build new UAVs, or sell them to other countries.
- nols 13y ago
  I don't know how much bigger that payload will be. Assuming the components to turn it into a UAV weigh 0 lbs, you're talking about a ~160 lb pilot in a 26,000 lb jet.
  - monkeypizza 13y ago
    You are forgetting about all the life support systems that no longer need to be included / maintained. Oxygen tanks, ejector seat, etc.
  - DougWebb 13y ago
    In case you ever see my reply: I was thinking that the F-16 is much larger and more powerful than a typical UAV, so it's built to carry more ordinance. But, I know next to nothing about the different military jet versions. I've since read in other comments that the F-16 was primarily a fighter-intercepter and not a fighter-bomber, so I guess it carries guns and air-to-air missiles rather than heavy bombs.
DeadJim 13y ago
Beyond all the life support you can now remove, the unmanned can now pull G's that would be unsustainable for a manned plane.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Only difference is that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the air. Seems that removing humans from harm's way on one side of the conflict would have pretty big implications wrt high level decision-making. >I highly doubt anybody would seriously consider these for warfare applications. Are you saying that Iarger fighters no longer have utility as opposed to purpose-built UAVs?

jessriedel 13y ago

Are you making the general argument that automation is bad because it removes potential whistleblowers? Should all government tech have limitations on automation, or just ones involved with killing?

TomGullen 13y ago
Well, tech is limited in polling booths which most people agree is a good thing. Automation in warfare and one-sided removal of the human element for the richest side isn't necesserially bad, but it is bad when we can't trust the governments who have this technology and when they repeatedly act unethically.

javert 13y ago

Governments can only spend money to conduct war when either (a) their citizens knowingly give them money; or (b) they can print money. Bitcoin is a potential solution for (b), were it to truly become dominant and replace non-government demand for Federal Reserve notes. I fully support the US defending itself, and in that regard, I'm not sure that "the citizenry" would make better decisions than the Bush/Obama war complex. So I'm not saying this is a perfect utopoan solution. Just something to think about.

jacques_chester 13y ago
You forgot (c), wars financed with borrowed money. These have happened in conditions regardless of currency configuration (fiat, pegged, silver, gold, bimetallic, whatever).
- javert 13y ago
  True, but nobody will loan money to a country that is not fiscally responsible (i.e., able to pay it back). A country that must be fiscally responsible to finance its wars will not semi-permanently invade multiple foreign countries. The US gets out of this by being able to do quantitative easing.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    Someone will always lend you money if you have the power to tax.
jacquesm 13y ago
> I fully support the US defending itself So do I. The problem is that they are confusing attack and defense.
- javert 13y ago
  No, they declare wars with no termination condition that can lead to nothing but self-sacrifice of American lives and dollars while accomplishing no legitimate objective whatsoever. If someone has the means and intent to attack you, by all means, a preemptive attack is a good means of defense. Attack and defense are not fundamentally different. Force is force. The question is who initiated it or threatened to initiate it. That is the bad guy.

jfoster 13y ago

It seems warfare is moving in an interesting direction, though. Rather than people being the casualties, infrastructure and drones may be what is being destroyed. It might turn out more like the picture you've painted, but I think it's too early to say for certain. It could be a good thing.

beloch 13y ago
Soldiers may be less at risk, but there are always going to be civilians in the infrastructure. Removing the constraint of attrition on military manpower may make future conflicts far more dangerous for civilians. Drones can also be mostly automated, so one person can do a lot more. For example, the fire-bombing of Dresden took several hundred bombers crewed by thousands. With semi-automated drones, the crews are eliminated and you only need enough pilots to man a single wave at a time, with the following waves waiting on autopilot until ready to engage. In a campaign of sustained bombing where each bomber makes several trips, the return-trip to base for armaments/fuel can also be automated, allowing a single pilot to keep dozens of planes in the air. If they'd had drone-bombers, the allies could have razed Dresden with a dozen men or so. Would the U.S. fire-bomb an entire city, civilians and all today? Probably not, but this technology will not be limited to the U.S. for long. With the reduced need for pilots, the real limiting factor on air power will be manufacturing capacity (not the U.S.'s forte these days). Also, with such a tiny number of pilots needed to run a massively destructive force, it's going to be easier to select "morally flexible" pilots. Military drones are a Pandora's box. The U.S. opened it, but other nations are starting to use them now too. While drones may reduce military casualties, the negative concerns they raise are numerous and severe. As AI improves, the role of human pilots may also be further diminished to the point where one immoral leader (or potentially a hacker) could kill millions. Civilians are going to be able to build drones easily as well. In fact, this is already happening. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/german-chancellors-drone-attack-shows-the-threat-of-weaponized-uavs/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/german... As the article says, just adding a grenade could have allowed them to assassinate the German chancellor. Drone-attacks are going to be a serious problem in the future.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago