Everyone who ever programmed a computer knows that A.I will never happen on a Neumann architecture.
Deus vult!
Drone warfare is the future
I kinda only read the first few replies on this thread so I am not sure if this has been said but:
Humans (for the most part) have this infantile idea that democratic governments are democratic out of the goodness of their heart, and in reality is because they have to be democratic. Right now, with the amount of weapons in the hands of citizens and the cheer number of obstacles and mass killings needed to establish a police state the elite choose financial power as their weapon for control of the masses. But what happens when you no longer need loyal humans to fight your wars and exert your laws? What happens when you only need 10,000 humans to control a robotic army of hundreds of thousands or millions?
Yeah this sounds like science fiction, but so did the idea of an all seeing omnipotent technology company, or brave new world-like mind altering pills enslaving the population.
Stranger things have happened.
Humans (for the most part) have this infantile idea that democratic governments are democratic out of the goodness of their heart, and in reality is because they have to be democratic. Right now, with the amount of weapons in the hands of citizens and the cheer number of obstacles and mass killings needed to establish a police state the elite choose financial power as their weapon for control of the masses. But what happens when you no longer need loyal humans to fight your wars and exert your laws? What happens when you only need 10,000 humans to control a robotic army of hundreds of thousands or millions?
Yeah this sounds like science fiction, but so did the idea of an all seeing omnipotent technology company, or brave new world-like mind altering pills enslaving the population.
Stranger things have happened.
![[Image: 9634967.jpg]](https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327885891l/9634967.jpg)
Drones are loud, easy to take out with a skeet gun, the civilian versions have a battery life of 20 minutes, and a very limited payload. If someone goes Survivalist Compound with a fleet of these buzzing around, all you have to do is cut their power line and other utility lines, and wait a few hours for the batteries to run out.
And anti-drone drones already are being marketed. Just drop a string into one or more of those propellers, or stick a steel rod into it breaking the blades, and down it goes. Using lasers to burn out the camera and other optics is cheaper, and what you'll actually see used during war time, but will be harder to get authorized for civilian use because it could also be used against airplane pilots.
Any first world army can already take these out by the hundreds in less than a minute. Their main use will be by tyrannical governments against their own unarmed people.
They will probably have a use in border control, riot control, and security. But as anyone with a security system knows, you trip it off hundreds of times by accident compared to the one time you want it to work, so probably only with less lethal responses like spraying tear gas on trespassers. Anyone setting this up to shoot trespassers on sight will die by their own security system.
And anti-drone drones already are being marketed. Just drop a string into one or more of those propellers, or stick a steel rod into it breaking the blades, and down it goes. Using lasers to burn out the camera and other optics is cheaper, and what you'll actually see used during war time, but will be harder to get authorized for civilian use because it could also be used against airplane pilots.
Any first world army can already take these out by the hundreds in less than a minute. Their main use will be by tyrannical governments against their own unarmed people.
They will probably have a use in border control, riot control, and security. But as anyone with a security system knows, you trip it off hundreds of times by accident compared to the one time you want it to work, so probably only with less lethal responses like spraying tear gas on trespassers. Anyone setting this up to shoot trespassers on sight will die by their own security system.
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."
--Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
With the advent of drones as well as full fledged killer robots, Cyber warfare will become key. This is why China has training schools dedicated to churning out hackers.
And to be honest I am not sure this future warfare will turn out as rosy as pentagon contractors might think. If they feel they have problems now, imagine having to deal with a 12 year old kid somewhere in the world who hacked into a drone and caused it to bomb something for the lulz.
And to be honest I am not sure this future warfare will turn out as rosy as pentagon contractors might think. If they feel they have problems now, imagine having to deal with a 12 year old kid somewhere in the world who hacked into a drone and caused it to bomb something for the lulz.
Quote: (07-17-2015 06:53 AM)vinman Wrote:
Quote: (07-17-2015 02:32 AM)Mage Wrote:
Maybe war without human casualties is not so bad, but I worry about small scale application of this technology.
There will never be war without human casualties. The purpose of war is to kill people and take their shit. Most western men recoil in horror at the thought of deliberately killing women, children, and the elderly. It's less than honorable. Even "collateral damage" has a psychological cost on war fighters. Killing machines, and drones just makes it easier, because it's a 2 dimensional image done from far away. This will just make killing easier. I hate this shit.
Hmm this is the general critique I hear, but there are still people that have to control, steer and fire the drone. And it is not easy for them, mentally.
![[Image: j14-abc-ctrl-480]](https://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/2010jan/j14-abc-ctrl-480)
Fact is that they are safely in a control center as opposed to sharp shooters and fighter pilots.
You don't need A.I when you can safely operate from your home country.
The only thing keeping drones and robotics back in general is the power supply. Once that is solved you will start to see an increasing presence of military robotics.
You might laugh at a small 4 propeller drone with an Iphone attached but what happens if they start making them into HK drones like the Terminator movies? Not A.I controlled but similar to what we have now. Replacing Apache helicopters would cut billions in a budget so gargantuan that it may not be feasible in the future.
The same happened to MBTs (Main Battle Tanks) when the cold war era crashed. There was no justification to keep that many on the payroll.
The only thing keeping drones and robotics back in general is the power supply. Once that is solved you will start to see an increasing presence of military robotics.
You might laugh at a small 4 propeller drone with an Iphone attached but what happens if they start making them into HK drones like the Terminator movies? Not A.I controlled but similar to what we have now. Replacing Apache helicopters would cut billions in a budget so gargantuan that it may not be feasible in the future.
The same happened to MBTs (Main Battle Tanks) when the cold war era crashed. There was no justification to keep that many on the payroll.
Quote: (07-17-2015 03:05 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:
I'm skeptical how practical and cost effective small arms drones will be. Probably something we'll see eventually, but in the near future? Eh...
Robots are expensive and difficult to design. Lower class human males are a dime a dozen.
No point fixing something that isn't broke.
![[Image: tongue.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Lower class human males are not a dime a dozen. They cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each to train, feed, clothe, armor, transport, etc. Plus that takes time. After initial development and design costs the drones will be much cheaper.
Additionally, people will never choose to send their sons and daughters to die when a machine can go in their stead.
The terrifying thing about the U.S. using drones to take out questionable targets is the precedent that our faithful legislators are setting by using this technology. If it is well established that we use drones to take out our targets, are our enemies even going to think twice about using drones to attack us? Care to start a betting pool about when the first drone attack on U.S. soil will be?
Quote: (07-17-2015 06:42 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:
They are developing robot foot soldiers that can be dropped into battle from 60000 feet into the Middle East controlled by a man in Virginia. The robots are capable of short flight, and walk on four legs.
Are you speaking of an evolved Big Dog (Boston Dynamics) or something else?
Damn, am I too late for the Jade Helm Drone take over comments?
UAS, otherwise known as "Drones" is my military profession. I'm trained on the mid-sized AVs the Army fields, strictly surveillance for now, and while I won't bother to mention specs here with a little research anyone can find out the basic specifications for UAVs.
The tactical advantage of a uav up in the air while troops are in contact is bar-none. Especially with most payloads being IR/EO capable (they can see in the dark and detect human heat signatures). The trade-off comes from the size of the aircraft an army wants to field, do they get a smaller uav system that is virtually silent but leaves a very noticeable silhouette in the sky, or a large aircraft that can fly many thousands of feet but sounds like a pissed off lawn mower, at the very least letting the enemy know something is above them?
Operators work in two man teams, an AO and PO. One controls the aircraft while the other controls the payload. While it can be dull and mentally taxing locked up in the GCS for hours on end, it is a lot more manageable then an F-35 pilot trying to conduct recon on a target while leaving a blatantly obvious footprint through chem trails.
As soon as the operators designate a target, its called up to higher who then decides they want the target eliminated. If the aircraft is an armed system, it's simply point and shoot. If it's not, a lot of systems will have laser designators that can guide a hellfire missile fire from a fixed wing jet towards a target with pinpoint accuracy.
All of this isn't classified.
As for the validity of a skynet/AI dominated system, I don't think that will come to pass as soon as we think. The military is always going to want people behind the gun so to speak, and always in control. There are numerous fail-safes and procedures in case of loss of link with a bird. I'm the last person to comment on tin-foil hat government martial law conspiracies because of the nature of the people making the claims; they will do anything to discredit or arouse suspicion against a government that doesn't do exactly what they want.
The bottom line is that it saves lives downrange with no risk of a crew on board an aircraft. Its fast, easily emplaced/displaced and compared to the manned side of aviation, a hell of a lot cheaper to replace and train soldiers with.
UAS, otherwise known as "Drones" is my military profession. I'm trained on the mid-sized AVs the Army fields, strictly surveillance for now, and while I won't bother to mention specs here with a little research anyone can find out the basic specifications for UAVs.
The tactical advantage of a uav up in the air while troops are in contact is bar-none. Especially with most payloads being IR/EO capable (they can see in the dark and detect human heat signatures). The trade-off comes from the size of the aircraft an army wants to field, do they get a smaller uav system that is virtually silent but leaves a very noticeable silhouette in the sky, or a large aircraft that can fly many thousands of feet but sounds like a pissed off lawn mower, at the very least letting the enemy know something is above them?
Operators work in two man teams, an AO and PO. One controls the aircraft while the other controls the payload. While it can be dull and mentally taxing locked up in the GCS for hours on end, it is a lot more manageable then an F-35 pilot trying to conduct recon on a target while leaving a blatantly obvious footprint through chem trails.
As soon as the operators designate a target, its called up to higher who then decides they want the target eliminated. If the aircraft is an armed system, it's simply point and shoot. If it's not, a lot of systems will have laser designators that can guide a hellfire missile fire from a fixed wing jet towards a target with pinpoint accuracy.
All of this isn't classified.
As for the validity of a skynet/AI dominated system, I don't think that will come to pass as soon as we think. The military is always going to want people behind the gun so to speak, and always in control. There are numerous fail-safes and procedures in case of loss of link with a bird. I'm the last person to comment on tin-foil hat government martial law conspiracies because of the nature of the people making the claims; they will do anything to discredit or arouse suspicion against a government that doesn't do exactly what they want.
The bottom line is that it saves lives downrange with no risk of a crew on board an aircraft. Its fast, easily emplaced/displaced and compared to the manned side of aviation, a hell of a lot cheaper to replace and train soldiers with.
http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2016...Seriously.
Quote:Christian Science Monitor Wrote:
Weapons that can be programmed to autonomously kill without human input are 'a decade or so away,' a top Pentagon official says. What to do about that is a question causing deep disagreement.
The idea behind the Terminator films – specifically, that a Skynet-style military network becomes self-aware, sees humans as the enemy, and attacks – isn’t too far-fetched, one of the nation’s top military officers said this week.
Nor is that kind of autonomy the stuff of the distant future. “We’re a decade or so away from that capability,” said Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If only you knew how bad things really are.
They can also be very beneficial snoopers in the event you suspect a cheating spouse.
update number 1
update number 2
The guy seems beta as fuck, but have to at least credit him for being creative enough to get the evidence he needed.
update number 1
update number 2
The guy seems beta as fuck, but have to at least credit him for being creative enough to get the evidence he needed.
But won't nations just invent systems to jam the electronic devices in a certain area, thereby disabling the drone? Or am I missing something?
Or do it like Iran, hack it in the air and land it on the ground. They have no encryption at all. If you watched movie Interstellar, at the beginning main character hacks Indian Air Force drone and lands it on the ground.
Quote: (07-17-2015 04:48 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
I think there is a vast difference between drones attacking poorly armed or even completely helpless targets in Pakistan, and drones attacking army positions of a major country. The capabilities and response speed of a drone, even once AI is improved, are very limited and not at all suited to fighting a well-armed and organized enemy.
Just try sending a drone to shoot or drop bombs at any actual military target. It will get shot down faster than you can say "Predator"!
Depends on the drone. Smaller, slower drones like the ones on the civilian market or the similar sized but more robust military versions, sure, not as potent in either offense or self-protection. The larger ones that have been battle-tested and can operate at higher altitudes like the Predator...no fucking way. Not for ground troops defending themselves anyway.
On one of my tours in Afghanistan I was out on foot patrol through a couple of villages in Kandahar Province. About one village over, about maybe 3 kilometers/2 miles away a US Army unit screamed up out of nowhere and conducted a raid. Must have been a snap decision because we were never briefed about any friendlies going to be in our area of operations beforehand. We get on the radio with our HQ to find out what's up and if we can help by providing cutoff or a cordon. Firefight starts up over at the raid and we get word from our HQ to take up a defensive position and not move. And out of nowhere I see a quick streak in the sky and I hear the sound of a rocket motor and then the thump and pound of an impact and an explosion. Afterwards we learn a Predator was on station and shot a missile at some fleeing insurgents.
There wasn't a cloud in the sky and none of my guys on patrol saw or heard the thing. Not once. It must've been high up and at an angle we couldn't observe from where we were on the ground. We wouldn't have been able to counter that had it been attacking us. It's not a good feeling being dismounted infantry and knowing that the empty sky can kill you without warning.
Thus drones are now a very firm part of the arsenal of any technological sufficient military. It also cuts down on friendly casualties. No one at the mainstream news is gonna whine about friendly body counts when there are none, no senior officers can get fired or passed over for promotion for not keeping friendly casualties light when there are none.
Quote: (11-29-2016 04:45 PM)Germanicus Wrote:
Quote: (07-17-2015 04:48 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
I think there is a vast difference between drones attacking poorly armed or even completely helpless targets in Pakistan, and drones attacking army positions of a major country. The capabilities and response speed of a drone, even once AI is improved, are very limited and not at all suited to fighting a well-armed and organized enemy.
Just try sending a drone to shoot or drop bombs at any actual military target. It will get shot down faster than you can say "Predator"!
Depends on the drone. Smaller, slower drones like the ones on the civilian market or the similar sized but more robust military versions, sure, not as potent in either offense or self-protection. The larger ones that have been battle-tested and can operate at higher altitudes like the Predator...no fucking way. Not for ground troops defending themselves anyway.
On one of my tours in Afghanistan I was out on foot patrol through a couple of villages in Kandahar Province. About one village over, about maybe 3 kilometers/2 miles away a US Army unit screamed up out of nowhere and conducted a raid. Must have been a snap decision because we were never briefed about any friendlies going to be in our area of operations beforehand. We get on the radio with our HQ to find out what's up and if we can help by providing cutoff or a cordon. Firefight starts up over at the raid and we get word from our HQ to take up a defensive position and not move. And out of nowhere I see a quick streak in the sky and I hear the sound of a rocket motor and then the thump and pound of an impact and an explosion. Afterwards we learn a Predator was on station and shot a missile at some fleeing insurgents.
There wasn't a cloud in the sky and none of my guys on patrol saw or heard the thing. Not once. It must've been high up and at an angle we couldn't observe from where we were on the ground. We wouldn't have been able to counter that had it been attacking us. It's not a good feeling being dismounted infantry and knowing that the empty sky can kill you without warning.
Thus drones are now a very firm part of the arsenal of any technological sufficient military. It also cuts down on friendly casualties. No one at the mainstream news is gonna whine about friendly body counts when there are none, no senior officers can get fired or passed over for promotion for not keeping friendly casualties light when there are none.
So, this was most likely a SOF raid. Notification is avoided to prevent tipping off ANA units ( other than ANA SOF that is always a part of these raids).
The reason Drones cannot replaced these raids is due to the need for live captives. These captives will aid in further dismantling networks through interrogations.
Drones, like any other conventional weapons or kinetic attack must meet a threshold of violence to be a viable of options. What this means is that they are usable in active war zones, but where hostilities have not been declared they are not useful ( outside of filed state like Yemen or Somalia). Other nation states are watching this and modeling their strategies off of this understanding. See the Russian "gerasimov model".
Quote: (07-17-2015 02:21 AM)Roosh Wrote:
Even hobbyists can put guns on drones. I can only imagine what Pentagon contractors are developing.
What is really interesting is not the proliferation of commercial UAVs in active warzones (see IS use of drones in Iraq and Syria). What is really interesting is how many countries are already working countermeasures for UAVs. The US for example has the Black Dart exercise that focuses on counter UAS techniques, tactics, and weapons.
Quote: (07-17-2015 12:11 PM)Mr West Wrote:
I kinda only read the first few replies on this thread so I am not sure if this has been said but:
Humans (for the most part) have this infantile idea that democratic governments are democratic out of the goodness of their heart, and in reality is because they have to be democratic. Right now, with the amount of weapons in the hands of citizens and the cheer number of obstacles and mass killings needed to establish a police state the elite choose financial power as their weapon for control of the masses. But what happens when you no longer need loyal humans to fight your wars and exert your laws? What happens when you only need 10,000 humans to control a robotic army of hundreds of thousands or millions?
Yeah this sounds like science fiction, but so did the idea of an all seeing omnipotent technology company, or brave new world-like mind altering pills enslaving the population.
Stranger things have happened.
Agreed, dispersed capability for violence caps the states monopoly. I don't see power becoming increasingly centralized like some thinkers, instead I buy into the John Robb concept of the warfighting singularity " when small groups can declare war on established world powers and win".
The scary version is the open source insurgency type that has proliferated since the days of AQI circa 2006. Look how many places that particular disease has spread to and you start to see the potential direction of the security environment. Dispersed information networks are only going to make this happen faster and faster.
Are you paranoid about drones? Sick and tried of the constant drone traffic send by NSA just for reading RVF. Just in time for Christmas: DroneGun .
Quote: (11-29-2016 07:30 PM)Thersites Wrote:
Are you paranoid about drones? Sick and tried of the constant drone traffic send by NSA just for reading RVF. Just in time for Christmas: DroneGun .
How would that stack up against a U2 retrofitted with a drone pilot?
Quote: (11-29-2016 07:37 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:
Quote: (11-29-2016 07:30 PM)Thersites Wrote:
Are you paranoid about drones? Sick and tried of the constant drone traffic send by NSA just for reading RVF. Just in time for Christmas: DroneGun .
How would that stack up against a U2 retrofitted with a drone pilot?
Or just a U2 as the manned version of the dragonlady is still in heavy use. One crashed not too long ago on a training op.
The nice thing UAS provides to military commanders is persistence. Keeping constant pred coverage of the target area is relatively easy with only a few preds. Major military operations already do this. Manned platforms can do this as well for less technologically sophisticated organizations. The FBI is a good example of this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015...nes-cities
The huge negative the perception of populations in areas where hostilities have not been declared. A good example is the hunted" feelings reported from the Pakistani tribal areas up north. While sometimes the hellfire hits a legit bad guy, sometimes it kill others or even the wrong people. Like guns, UAV only kill the target. There can be a whole kill chain left of the bang where a single error can create havoc. Policy makers often view the kinetic use of drones as somehow different from the use of other force. Thats a crtical error from the past two admins. It'll be intereting to see if we change course on that.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)