6 ms·

Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not. -- Hilaire Belloc A basic assumption with drones is they are great because the US has them,

by nonce42 12y ago

Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not. -- Hilaire Belloc A basic assumption with drones is they are great because the US has them, but that's not always going to be the case. What worries me is what will happen when drones become widespread. Sooner or later someone will make the AK-47 of drones, and there will be millions of lethal drones around. I don't know what that will do for warfare, but it can't be good. World War I showed the difficulty of adapting to widespread machine guns, and the adjustment to widespread drones could be just as bad.

throwaway5752 12y ago
"A basic assumption with drones is they are great" I don't think this is a widely shared view.
- jal278 12y ago
  It's interesting -- I would imagine a minority of Americans would support developing killer drones, because it is a terrible slope for the world as a whole to go down, yet our military -- largely because of game theory, will continue to develop them, likely to a poor outcome for the world. Perhaps our belief in game theory is a pretty miserable self-fulfilling promise
  - PavlovsCat 12y ago
    But "your" military is yours mostly in name, and in paying taxes. The profits of offensive wars do not go to you, and I would expect that overall, war destroys more wealth than it creates. Of course, for a robber this doesn't matter, but in the long run it means cutting off the branch one sits on, killing the host one feeds off. "If the totalitarian conqueror conducts himself everywhere as though he were at home, by the same token he must treat his own population as though he were a foreign conqueror." -- Hannah Arendt Was there ever an empire which exploited foreigners, but respected its own populace? Among any and all of them you will find classes of the population that profit, but the country as a whole? Can you have injustice on the outside and justice on the inside? While these are not rhetorical questions, you can guess what "my answer so far" is.. I think the poorer the outcome for the rest of the world, the poorer the outcome for inhabitants of the US, too. Including the elites, who are just feeding addictions to gain additional insecurities, if you ask me; "power" is just code for "I am scared and unable to create".
    - jal278 12y ago
      I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad. However, I don't think such differential treatment is desirable, and it increasingly makes little sense as technology more deeply interconnects us over the trivial lines we draw in the sand to create discrete countries. I think we think along the same lines in terms of power, although I'd phrase it more in that power is self-perpetuating -- something that (like bureaucracy) ratchets up but is hard to prune. For example, even if most citizens of the world wanted more cooperation between their respective countries, and to dial back military developments such as drone warfare, the self-interested power accumulated in the government institutions of countries would likely resist.
      - PavlovsCat 12y ago
        > I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad. Is there a historical example of it though? I am not exactly a history buff, but so far I am drawing blanks. And I have trouble imagining it in theory, even; I mean sure, a person could theoretically be very dishonest to one group of people, and very honest to another; but at least with people, such stuff generally leaks all over.
        PavlovsCat 12y ago
        It was a genuine question. I would like a genuine answer.
        pjc50 12y ago
        Roman Empire? Civis Romanis sum and all that. You have to not use modern standards of "treated well" and note that not every resident was a citizen and some were slaves.
        PavlovsCat 12y ago
        Yeah, that may have started out with somewhat noble intentions. But still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empir... The legal fiction of the early Empire (in which the emperor was but the first among equals) was disposed of; the emperors, beginning with Aurelian, openly styled themselves as dominus et deus, lord and god, titles appropriate for a slave towards his master. An elaborate court ceremonial was developed, and obsequious flattery became the order of the day. Under Diocletian, the flow of direct requests to the emperor was rapidly reduced and soon ceased altogether. No other form of direct access replaced them, and the emperor received only information that was filtered through his courtiers. Official cruelty, supporting extortion and corruption, may also have become more commonplace. While the scale, complexity, and violence of government were unmatched, the emperors lost control over their whole realm insofar as that control came increasingly to be wielded by anyone who paid for it. Meanwhile the richest senatorial families, immune from most taxation, engrossed more and more of the available wealth and income, while also becoming divorced from any tradition of military excellence.
stretchwithme 12y ago
Its a concern, definitely. Every new weapon eventually falls into enemy hands. Ultimately we'll have drones that drug soldiers and non-combatants rather than kill them. And that disable infrastructure rather than destroy it. And we'll have drones that do battle with drones, and even search out and destroy drones, or follow them home. The most technically sophisticated will continue to have an edge. And, no, that doesn't prevent unintended consequences. Inventing planes that can break the sound barrier didn't prevent 9/11 either.
id 12y ago
>A basic assumption with drones is they are great because the US has them Maybe this is a common opinion among Americans but I don't think many people outside the US see it that way.
- thret 12y ago
  I don't think many people outside of the US have ANY positive feelings about the US military.
  - emmelaich 12y ago
    I would say that relative to other countries forces, their reputation is very high. Which may not be saying much, depending on your general attitude.
_djo_ 12y ago
Drones are already widespread, which I discussed in a previous comment.[0] Like all technology, Pandora's Box has been opened and there's really nothing that can be done to stop people from developing ever more sophisticated drones. America did not invent drones and it has never been the only source for the technology. Countries like Israel and South Africa were using modern tactical drones in combat long before the first Predator took to the skies. But drones aren't the real issue, they're still relatively unsophisticated aircraft that, even when armed, are not any more deadly than manned combat aircraft and the array of sophisticated weaponry that most countries have access to. The real issue is the rapid development of robotics, of which UAVs (aka drones) are a subset, that promises to dramatically change warfare. The first robots equipped with AI software to automatically identify and shoot at targets will probably be ground robots like the Talon or SWORDS, not UAVs flying 20 000 ft above the battlefield. Russia is already experimenting with such autonomous AIs on their Taifun-M robot, as are others. At the current rate of development it's difficult to even imagine how far this technology will go and what robots will be capable of, but suffice to say we're already seeing levels of capability most believed were science fiction just a decade ago. Point is, arguing about armed drones like the Reaper and Predator is not going to solve anything and it's a distraction from the real ethical debates that need to be happening around weaponised robotics. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709420
- tritium 12y ago
  Drones are already widespread Oh man, I just do not agree with you on that one. They are not widespread like cell phones are widespread. They are not widespread like automobiles are widespread. They are not widespread like television is widespread. They are not widespread like six shooter revolvers are widespread. They are not widespread like clock radios are widespread. They are not widespread like cameras are widespread. They are not widespread like hand grenades are widespread. Maybe they're widespread like bi-planes at the end of world war I. Maybe they're widespread like torpedos at the beginning of world war II. But that still counts as uncommon technology in my book.
  - _djo_ 12y ago
ZenPro 12y ago
A succinctly argued point and totally relevant. http://www.buildyourowndrone.co.uk/ http://www.buildyourowndrone.co.uk/ and others like it is a worryingly accessible resource that can easily be weaponised. As well as the cheap, uniquitous and reliable drone (AK-47) we should also fear the Raspberry Pi of drone technology (simple, programmable). In the future, shocking public attacks will come from clock towers and sniper points but also from drones in densely populated areas.
tylerkahn 12y ago
> A basic assumption with drones is they are great because the US has them Are you advocating for some sort of 'red line' on the use of drones much like on the use of chemical weapons so that the use of such weapons anywhere in any context would incur reprisals from the international community. That's really the only thing I can think of that would make this make your statement relevant. Regardless of what people in the US think of the legitimacy of using drones, unaligned parties will use them if they can.
qq66 12y ago
Drones aren't great "because the US has them," drones are great because of the widespread civilian applications of them. Precision agriculture, logistics, law enforcement, meteorology, mapping, search and rescue, the list grows every day.

by nonce42 12y ago

throwaway5752 12y ago

"A basic assumption with drones is they are great" I don't think this is a widely shared view.

jal278 12y ago
It's interesting -- I would imagine a minority of Americans would support developing killer drones, because it is a terrible slope for the world as a whole to go down, yet our military -- largely because of game theory, will continue to develop them, likely to a poor outcome for the world. Perhaps our belief in game theory is a pretty miserable self-fulfilling promise
- PavlovsCat 12y ago
  But "your" military is yours mostly in name, and in paying taxes. The profits of offensive wars do not go to you, and I would expect that overall, war destroys more wealth than it creates. Of course, for a robber this doesn't matter, but in the long run it means cutting off the branch one sits on, killing the host one feeds off. "If the totalitarian conqueror conducts himself everywhere as though he were at home, by the same token he must treat his own population as though he were a foreign conqueror." -- Hannah Arendt Was there ever an empire which exploited foreigners, but respected its own populace? Among any and all of them you will find classes of the population that profit, but the country as a whole? Can you have injustice on the outside and justice on the inside? While these are not rhetorical questions, you can guess what "my answer so far" is.. I think the poorer the outcome for the rest of the world, the poorer the outcome for inhabitants of the US, too. Including the elites, who are just feeding addictions to gain additional insecurities, if you ask me; "power" is just code for "I am scared and unable to create".
  - jal278 12y ago
    I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad. However, I don't think such differential treatment is desirable, and it increasingly makes little sense as technology more deeply interconnects us over the trivial lines we draw in the sand to create discrete countries. I think we think along the same lines in terms of power, although I'd phrase it more in that power is self-perpetuating -- something that (like bureaucracy) ratchets up but is hard to prune. For example, even if most citizens of the world wanted more cooperation between their respective countries, and to dial back military developments such as drone warfare, the self-interested power accumulated in the government institutions of countries would likely resist.
    - PavlovsCat 12y ago
      > I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad. Is there a historical example of it though? I am not exactly a history buff, but so far I am drawing blanks. And I have trouble imagining it in theory, even; I mean sure, a person could theoretically be very dishonest to one group of people, and very honest to another; but at least with people, such stuff generally leaks all over.
      - PavlovsCat 12y ago
        It was a genuine question. I would like a genuine answer.
      - pjc50 12y ago
        Roman Empire? Civis Romanis sum and all that. You have to not use modern standards of "treated well" and note that not every resident was a citizen and some were slaves.
        PavlovsCat 12y ago
        Yeah, that may have started out with somewhat noble intentions. But still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empir... The legal fiction of the early Empire (in which the emperor was but the first among equals) was disposed of; the emperors, beginning with Aurelian, openly styled themselves as dominus et deus, lord and god, titles appropriate for a slave towards his master. An elaborate court ceremonial was developed, and obsequious flattery became the order of the day. Under Diocletian, the flow of direct requests to the emperor was rapidly reduced and soon ceased altogether. No other form of direct access replaced them, and the emperor received only information that was filtered through his courtiers. Official cruelty, supporting extortion and corruption, may also have become more commonplace. While the scale, complexity, and violence of government were unmatched, the emperors lost control over their whole realm insofar as that control came increasingly to be wielded by anyone who paid for it. Meanwhile the richest senatorial families, immune from most taxation, engrossed more and more of the available wealth and income, while also becoming divorced from any tradition of military excellence.

stretchwithme 12y ago

Its a concern, definitely. Every new weapon eventually falls into enemy hands. Ultimately we'll have drones that drug soldiers and non-combatants rather than kill them. And that disable infrastructure rather than destroy it. And we'll have drones that do battle with drones, and even search out and destroy drones, or follow them home. The most technically sophisticated will continue to have an edge. And, no, that doesn't prevent unintended consequences. Inventing planes that can break the sound barrier didn't prevent 9/11 either.

id 12y ago

>A basic assumption with drones is they are great because the US has them Maybe this is a common opinion among Americans but I don't think many people outside the US see it that way.

thret 12y ago
I don't think many people outside of the US have ANY positive feelings about the US military.
- emmelaich 12y ago
  I would say that relative to other countries forces, their reputation is very high. Which may not be saying much, depending on your general attitude.

_djo_ 12y ago

Drones are already widespread, which I discussed in a previous comment.[0] Like all technology, Pandora's Box has been opened and there's really nothing that can be done to stop people from developing ever more sophisticated drones. America did not invent drones and it has never been the only source for the technology. Countries like Israel and South Africa were using modern tactical drones in combat long before the first Predator took to the skies. But drones aren't the real issue, they're still relatively unsophisticated aircraft that, even when armed, are not any more deadly than manned combat aircraft and the array of sophisticated weaponry that most countries have access to. The real issue is the rapid development of robotics, of which UAVs (aka drones) are a subset, that promises to dramatically change warfare. The first robots equipped with AI software to automatically identify and shoot at targets will probably be ground robots like the Talon or SWORDS, not UAVs flying 20 000 ft above the battlefield. Russia is already experimenting with such autonomous AIs on their Taifun-M robot, as are others. At the current rate of development it's difficult to even imagine how far this technology will go and what robots will be capable of, but suffice to say we're already seeing levels of capability most believed were science fiction just a decade ago. Point is, arguing about armed drones like the Reaper and Predator is not going to solve anything and it's a distraction from the real ethical debates that need to be happening around weaponised robotics. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709420

tritium 12y ago
Drones are already widespread Oh man, I just do not agree with you on that one. They are not widespread like cell phones are widespread. They are not widespread like automobiles are widespread. They are not widespread like television is widespread. They are not widespread like six shooter revolvers are widespread. They are not widespread like clock radios are widespread. They are not widespread like cameras are widespread. They are not widespread like hand grenades are widespread. Maybe they're widespread like bi-planes at the end of world war I. Maybe they're widespread like torpedos at the beginning of world war II. But that still counts as uncommon technology in my book.
- _djo_ 12y ago

ZenPro 12y ago

A succinctly argued point and totally relevant. http://www.buildyourowndrone.co.uk/ http://www.buildyourowndrone.co.uk/ and others like it is a worryingly accessible resource that can easily be weaponised. As well as the cheap, uniquitous and reliable drone (AK-47) we should also fear the Raspberry Pi of drone technology (simple, programmable). In the future, shocking public attacks will come from clock towers and sniper points but also from drones in densely populated areas.

tylerkahn 12y ago

> A basic assumption with drones is they are great because the US has them Are you advocating for some sort of 'red line' on the use of drones much like on the use of chemical weapons so that the use of such weapons anywhere in any context would incur reprisals from the international community. That's really the only thing I can think of that would make this make your statement relevant. Regardless of what people in the US think of the legitimacy of using drones, unaligned parties will use them if they can.

qq66 12y ago

Drones aren't great "because the US has them," drones are great because of the widespread civilian applications of them. Precision agriculture, logistics, law enforcement, meteorology, mapping, search and rescue, the list grows every day.