8 ms·

"The only way for human adversaries to fight autonomous weapons would be with brute, lethal force" No it's not. You could use EMP. You could use signal jamming

"The only way for human adversaries to fight autonomous weapons would be with brute, lethal force" No it's not. You could use EMP. You could use signal jamming. Neither are lethal, both have the potential to be effective against autonomous weapons.

guelo 11y ago
If it's autonomous it doesn't need signals to operate. As far as EMPs, they don't really exist.
- dharma1 11y ago
  they do - http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-boeing-usaf-research-lab/ http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-... http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-microwave-gun-can-disable-drones-warheads-6-miles-away-official-says-1967170 http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-microwave-gun-can-disable-dro...
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Even autonomous military robots need some way to receive new instructions.
  - barrkel 11y ago
    The biggest weakness of drones is that they cannot make decisions themselves; they need input, communication channels. The military advantage of putting autonomous AI on drones is so that they no longer need to communicate with home base. The purpose of the AI is to eliminate the weakness of communications being jammed. The requirement to "receive new instructions" is eliminated.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      Then how do you coordinate attacks? Even elite military units, deep behind enemy lines, have the ability to receive new intel. You aren't going to build a swarm of robotic generals, each fighting their own war, with no communication between them.
      - run4yourlives2 11y ago
        You're not going to launch these things with the order to "go fight the war" and hope to update them on the specifics later. You're going to launch them with the latest intelligence on board manually uploaded, for missions less than 12 hours in duration. It's like firing a missile - you don't need to recall it once you've hit the red button. So - AI 1 and 2 - drop 2x 500lb bombs on target at 6759 5974 at 03:12 hours. Go. They complete the mission and head back. Even better, you give them 4x 500lb bombs and they figure out themselves how much to drop to destroy the target. Communication worries are overblown, you just have to design around them.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        What if you want to call the mission off? Let's say the enemy gets a few key hostages, and holds them in this building. They'll be killed by their own side.
        run4yourlives2 11y ago
        Oh well. Such is war. You send ten more drones on different missions to some daycare or something to "punish" the enemy for breaking the Geneva convention. This is pretty much recorded history here. At some point, you are pulling the trigger. And yeah, you make mistakes.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        The enemy didn't necessarily break the Geneva convention. Pulling the trigger far in advance of the resultant action increases the risk of disaster, disaster that could've been averted based on the richer dataset available closer to the scheduled time.
        run4yourlives2 11y ago
        They didn't have to. We're just going to say they did anyway because they are evil bastards (TM) and we can't possibly be anything but the good guys. This scenario is the exact same scenario as a current ballistic missile launch. There are no safeguards for those systems that could be intercepted and interfere with the use of the weapon.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    Not necessarily, especially if their cheap enough (and the beautiful thing about software is that its marginal cost is 0.) Think of them like bullets or bombs. And then you've eliminated that possibility of defending against them.
Zikes 11y ago
What are the resource costs for shielding from EMP vs creating an EMP strong enough to make a difference?
toomuchtodo 11y ago
>You could use EMP. Which, to my knowledge, are only currently generated using a nuclear weapon. You might be able to create one using solid state gear with enough time, R&D, and power. > You could use signal jamming. Machine intelligence frowns upon your silly attempts at jamming its uplinks. Predator drones and other autonomous, existing military kit already use high frequency satellite communications techniques that are essentially jam proof.
- dharma1 11y ago
  Microwaves. http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-boeing-usaf-research-lab/ http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-...
- jkyle 11y ago
  > Which, to my knowledge, are only currently generated using a nuclear weapon. An EMP gun is just a directed energy weapon.[1] Though you can generate an undirected EMP pulse through various means, there not as useful.[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Non-nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse_.28NNEMP.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Non-nucl...
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I understand that. My point was, there is no practical method yet to provide the energy required and appropriately direct EM energy at a target except through a crude weapon like an omnidirectional nuclear weapon
- msandford 11y ago
  You energize a coil and then blow it up. Makes an EMP. No nuke needed. http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "Which, to my knowledge, are only currently generated using a nuclear weapon. You might be able to create one using solid state gear with enough time, R&D, and power." Some use a nuclear source, but not all... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon > "Machine intelligence frowns upon your silly attempts at jamming its uplinks. Predator drones and other autonomous, existing military kit already use high frequency satellite communications techniques that are essentially jam proof." Your idea of jamming is too narrow. Think about it like this, even if it's mostly automated, these machines still get sent signals to inform them of changes to their mission. That signal can be blocked and/or modified. Even satellite links can be altered, either you hack the satellite system or you intercept the signal at a higher altitude than the receiver is operating in.
run4yourlives2 11y ago
Pretty much everything the military uses has a measure of EMP shielding. We've know about it's effects for over 50 years now. Signal jamming is an obvious weak point - one that disappears as autonomy is increased. Distributed control would reduce this issue, (as in, have a single soldier/operator manage 10-15 units). Eventually, you remove human control entirely, and along with it, this issue.
orkoden 11y ago
You can also attack the infrastructure and supply lines, same as with regular fighters. A drone only has a limited amount of ammo and fuel.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Drones have been successful in refueling from tanker aircraft, specifically the "Salty Dog" X-47B Navy UAV testbed: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/22/navy-navair-x-47b-unmanned-jet-refueling/26191213/ http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/22/navy-nava...

guelo 11y ago

If it's autonomous it doesn't need signals to operate. As far as EMPs, they don't really exist.

dharma1 11y ago
they do - http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-boeing-usaf-research-lab/ http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-... http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-microwave-gun-can-disable-drones-warheads-6-miles-away-official-says-1967170 http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-microwave-gun-can-disable-dro...
ZenoArrow 11y ago
Even autonomous military robots need some way to receive new instructions.
- barrkel 11y ago
  The biggest weakness of drones is that they cannot make decisions themselves; they need input, communication channels. The military advantage of putting autonomous AI on drones is so that they no longer need to communicate with home base. The purpose of the AI is to eliminate the weakness of communications being jammed. The requirement to "receive new instructions" is eliminated.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Then how do you coordinate attacks? Even elite military units, deep behind enemy lines, have the ability to receive new intel. You aren't going to build a swarm of robotic generals, each fighting their own war, with no communication between them.
    - run4yourlives2 11y ago
      You're not going to launch these things with the order to "go fight the war" and hope to update them on the specifics later. You're going to launch them with the latest intelligence on board manually uploaded, for missions less than 12 hours in duration. It's like firing a missile - you don't need to recall it once you've hit the red button. So - AI 1 and 2 - drop 2x 500lb bombs on target at 6759 5974 at 03:12 hours. Go. They complete the mission and head back. Even better, you give them 4x 500lb bombs and they figure out themselves how much to drop to destroy the target. Communication worries are overblown, you just have to design around them.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        What if you want to call the mission off? Let's say the enemy gets a few key hostages, and holds them in this building. They'll be killed by their own side.
        run4yourlives2 11y ago
        Oh well. Such is war. You send ten more drones on different missions to some daycare or something to "punish" the enemy for breaking the Geneva convention. This is pretty much recorded history here. At some point, you are pulling the trigger. And yeah, you make mistakes.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        The enemy didn't necessarily break the Geneva convention. Pulling the trigger far in advance of the resultant action increases the risk of disaster, disaster that could've been averted based on the richer dataset available closer to the scheduled time.
        run4yourlives2 11y ago
        They didn't have to. We're just going to say they did anyway because they are evil bastards (TM) and we can't possibly be anything but the good guys. This scenario is the exact same scenario as a current ballistic missile launch. There are no safeguards for those systems that could be intercepted and interfere with the use of the weapon.
- JackFr 11y ago
  Not necessarily, especially if their cheap enough (and the beautiful thing about software is that its marginal cost is 0.) Think of them like bullets or bombs. And then you've eliminated that possibility of defending against them.

Zikes 11y ago

What are the resource costs for shielding from EMP vs creating an EMP strong enough to make a difference?

toomuchtodo 11y ago

>You could use EMP. Which, to my knowledge, are only currently generated using a nuclear weapon. You might be able to create one using solid state gear with enough time, R&D, and power. > You could use signal jamming. Machine intelligence frowns upon your silly attempts at jamming its uplinks. Predator drones and other autonomous, existing military kit already use high frequency satellite communications techniques that are essentially jam proof.

dharma1 11y ago
Microwaves. http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-boeing-usaf-research-lab/ http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-...
jkyle 11y ago
> Which, to my knowledge, are only currently generated using a nuclear weapon. An EMP gun is just a directed energy weapon.[1] Though you can generate an undirected EMP pulse through various means, there not as useful.[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Non-nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse_.28NNEMP.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Non-nucl...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I understand that. My point was, there is no practical method yet to provide the energy required and appropriately direct EM energy at a target except through a crude weapon like an omnidirectional nuclear weapon
msandford 11y ago
You energize a coil and then blow it up. Makes an EMP. No nuke needed. http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm
ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "Which, to my knowledge, are only currently generated using a nuclear weapon. You might be able to create one using solid state gear with enough time, R&D, and power." Some use a nuclear source, but not all... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon > "Machine intelligence frowns upon your silly attempts at jamming its uplinks. Predator drones and other autonomous, existing military kit already use high frequency satellite communications techniques that are essentially jam proof." Your idea of jamming is too narrow. Think about it like this, even if it's mostly automated, these machines still get sent signals to inform them of changes to their mission. That signal can be blocked and/or modified. Even satellite links can be altered, either you hack the satellite system or you intercept the signal at a higher altitude than the receiver is operating in.

run4yourlives2 11y ago

Pretty much everything the military uses has a measure of EMP shielding. We've know about it's effects for over 50 years now. Signal jamming is an obvious weak point - one that disappears as autonomy is increased. Distributed control would reduce this issue, (as in, have a single soldier/operator manage 10-15 units). Eventually, you remove human control entirely, and along with it, this issue.

orkoden 11y ago

You can also attack the infrastructure and supply lines, same as with regular fighters. A drone only has a limited amount of ammo and fuel.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Drones have been successful in refueling from tanker aircraft, specifically the "Salty Dog" X-47B Navy UAV testbed: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/22/navy-navair-x-47b-unmanned-jet-refueling/26191213/ http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/22/navy-nava...