>“The problem is that we’re creating an international norm” — asserting the right to strike preemptively against those we suspect of planning attacks, argues Dennis M. Gormley, a senior research fellow at the University of Pittsburgh and author of “Missile Contagion,” who has called for tougher export controls on American drone technology. “The copycatting is what I worry about most.”
And no less scary, 15-40% of the time a civilian is hit instead of the correct target. http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker
And given the dubious right of the CIA to hit there intended target in the first place, the acceptance of UAV strikes is disturbing to me.
Imagine when drones the size of dragonflies carry needles containing poison to assassination targets. Today's drones are very crude in comparison.
Once it becomes plausible that any squirrel, mouse, dragon fly, etc. could be an assassination weapon, it will become necessary for heads of state to travel surrounded by swarms of friendly robots, in all sorts of form factors.
It would start with heads of state and rich people with enemies.
But I expect all of us will be surrounded by swarms of friendly robots some day, both to help us with tasks and for security (some kind of artificial immune system?).
As usual with war tech, the research will eventually find its way to consumer products.
in 'diamond age', neal stephenson describes a future where nanotech devices are a constant threat, and cities are surrounded by grids of devices that scan for incoming threats and destroy them.
also there's a cult centered around a subconsciousness born in a group sex ritual.
World War II wasn't unavoidable. If the West, particularly France, had pursued a less vindictive peace with Germany after the first world war, the circumstances that brought Hitler to power would not have existed. Specifically, the unsustainable reparations on Germany, and the French decision to occupy the German coal regions in the 1920s, destabilized the German economy and destroyed the Weimar Republic.
I always thought it would be cool if a company built a big bird's nest tower in cities that would host a bunch of flying drones. Then, consumers could rent the video-capture drones online to fly over approved areas, upon which the drones would return to nest for re-fueling. Think maybe you could subsidize the cost (possibly even make a profit) with the video data, or by streaming some feeds for the population to watch. Though have no idea of feasibility (FAA, equipment, real estate), I do like the idea of eyes in the sky for consumer benefit. Maybe something like this could be used for defense - giving population more awareness of airspace.
UAVs are currently not allowed to be flown by commercial entities in US airspace. If/when that changes it will be fascinating to watch the variety of startups that crop up to take advantage of it.
This would have to be constrained to consumers experienced with flying RC planes. Imagine the number of planes crashing due to the incompetency of the operator if anyone could rent an RC plane over the internet.
However, I really like the idea. It would be like google street view, only you are the driver -- in the sky.
This technology would also work great for nature movies and nature flight trips. Imagine you could rent rent an UAV , travel in Africa , from your home or a place with a giant screen , follow the great elephants crossing a river as if you were there.
I'm going to take an optimistic stance on this topic and say that war technology evolves; we shouldn't be scared of it just because it was sci-fi 10 years ago. I think the development of the nuclear bomb was more scary than some line-manufactured drones.
Yes, Obama has been awfully militant lately. He may have thought that it was the best thing he could do in an attempt to get positive approval ratings from the general public. Killing an American citizen w/o trial may have gone too far, even for middle America.
The drone arms race is going to be an economical one. And, given the state of the world economy, no country is going to spend billions of dollars on a drone war anytime soon.
I'm taking a pessimistic view. When the costs of war are externalized (as they are now and will be even more so with drones and robots) we no lose the incentives to not have war.
Just like we have a moratorium on the use of chemical weapons we ought to have one on drones. Not that it would ever be ratified.
There is something seriously wrong with the level of detachment drones afford the actors on any battlefield.
Taking a life should be something done with a large level of reluctance and with the 'taker' risking his own through physical presence. Once that balance is lost it becomes all too easy to resort to violence at a much earlier stage of a conflict.
This is all about reducing the barrier to entry for war and that's a very dangerous thing.
"If China, for instance, sends killer drones into Kazakhstan to hunt minority Uighur Muslims it accuses of plotting terrorism, what will the United States say?"
What difference does it make if they used a drone or did it the traditional way?
An attack is an attack it makes no difference how you do it.
When there are more and more nations with drones, it will be harder to trace them back to some nation-state.
And with technology-only attacks there is no longer necessarily a nation-state with army behind it at all. Just an organization with a lot of capital. China could deny being involved. Or maybe the drones were infected with a computer virus (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3085004)
I think the scariest part of this drone trend is the opportunity to wage war without losing human life. This shift in risk will dramatically reduce the barrier to starting a war and will further reinforce the power of those already on top.
The problem is that lives will still be lost, just not by our side. If we could have war without losing any lives, that sounds cool—stick in some cameras and we'd happily pay to watch.
An area this article does not go into is how the increased use of robotics in the military could cause the military to classify large swaths of it as controlled weapons research. This would limit the ability of researchers and companies to publish or even work in that area.
They still need to solve the location sensing issues though - having high-precision calibrated wall mounted sensors aren't really practical for ad-hoc use.
I don't doubt that someone will solve this problem in the not-too-distant future though, and heavily autonomous quadrotor aerostats will be in heavy use.
What I'm waiting for is this technology to be open to business and consumer solutions. I dream of a world where Amazon implements drone technology into their SOA fulfillment centers and makes it possible for orders to be delivered in hours or minutes instead of days.
Imagine being a high school kid and having a job targeting drop zones for Amazon packages as drones make their final approaches. It'd be a heck of a lot cooler then driving a brown UPS truck.
I was tweeting the other day that we now live in a world where the president of the United States can, without judicial review, assassinate with robots an American Citizen living abroad because of their speech and influence on terrorists.
Sounded crazy -- "death by robots" -- but that's about where we are (I don't differentiate between remote-operated vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles because it's not germane) We can't and won't torture a guy we pick up with a rocket launcher in his hand getting ready to kill us, but we can push a button and whack somebody who hangs out with really bad people. Don't forget collateral damage. And we call this morality.
Telemetry and robotics are going to change the world in wildly dramatic ways over the next 50 years. Places like HN are where somewhat knowledgeable people can kick around these ideas now, before everybody and his NGO have their own killer robots.
We should never torture anyone for any reason, period. Including that in your statement above makes it sound like your endorse torture, I hope that you do not. We should also never, kill anyone who isn't a direct threat (e.g. on the battle field, shooting a cops/civilians, etc) regardless of where they are and whether or not they're US civilians. The assassination of OBL falls under the same idea, he should have been captured and tried by a jury.
Following the Vietnam era, planners began to fear that the US would never again go to war. War was just to messy, too cruel, too close to home. It created amputees, homeless vets, PTSD, etc.
The public's distaste for war was not of a moral nature, it was a byproduct of an increasing standard of living. Life was easier, people saw less suffering and death, expected more from life, etc.
As with the space program, America's worship of technology could be leveraged to build super weapons... but only if those weapons led to "hygienic" war in which Americans didn't have to see the horrors firsthand.
So our defense contractors built smart bombs, highly accurate missiles, etc. UAVs are just the next step.
The future holds both precision insect-size (or smaller) attack robots, as well as massive space-based lasers (the death star was uncannily prescient) aimed at earth and able to vaporize nearly anything that isn't heavily armed.
All of this will be controlled by a smaller and smaller class of military personnel. Gone will be the days of recruiting welfare recipients to enlist.
The debacle over "Star Wars" as envisioned by Reagan was mostly b/c the technology wasn't mature enough at the time. But just as George W. Bush jumped at the chance to wage two large wars (b/c the public momentarily would consent) there will come another moment for space based lasers, and we can be sure that our planners will not let that opportunity go to waste.
The recent stories about the drone fleet being pwned, followed by the stories about the Chinese building drones, are designed to get the average person to say "Darn it we need America to be a leader in Drone tech, let's spare no expense to have the very best".
Nowhere in the trajectory toward space based lasers and assassination drones is any moral concern likely to emerge. Why? Because when war is hygienic nobody realizes that it's ugly and worthy of moral reasoning. The discussion becomes about the merits of one technology vs another, one nation's tech vs another, not about what horrific purposes these devices will actually be used for.
So your point is well taken. And it is not lost on our planners. Have you ever wondered why Rumsfeld made such a big deal about saying "Damn it, the US will torture whomever it likes!". Not b/c this was new policy, or b/c he wasn't well aware that his remarks would create a shitstorm. He made the remarks to distract everybody (hawks and human rights activists alike) from what was actually happening. It worked incredibly well. Finally he resigned to leave the impression that he'd been somehow a loose cannon and not a master player in an amazingly well executed propaganda campaign.
I'm more interested in the day when there are so many drones, they spend more time fighting each other and forget about the humans all together. We may never even see them, dogfighting above the clouds, save for a the perpetual flutter of broken parts falling from the heavens.
Another possibility.. cities protected by phalanxes of model rocket sized guided missiles scanning perpetually for enemy drones.
That's nonsensical. The chances of drone armies being so perfectly matched they always fight to a stalemate are basically zero. Ultimately one side will win, and then it will have a free hand. It's no different than a conventional air war in that regard.
[+] [-] astrofinch|14 years ago|reply
How about the fact that we're doing it, period?
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_i...
[+] [-] Anti-Ratfish|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|14 years ago|reply
Once it becomes plausible that any squirrel, mouse, dragon fly, etc. could be an assassination weapon, it will become necessary for heads of state to travel surrounded by swarms of friendly robots, in all sorts of form factors.
[+] [-] wladimir|14 years ago|reply
But I expect all of us will be surrounded by swarms of friendly robots some day, both to help us with tasks and for security (some kind of artificial immune system?).
As usual with war tech, the research will eventually find its way to consumer products.
[+] [-] epoxyhockey|14 years ago|reply
Why? If you were a country, would you like to deal with a decentralized/unofficial government that has no control over its citizens?
[+] [-] MarkPNeyer|14 years ago|reply
also there's a cult centered around a subconsciousness born in a group sex ritual.
so yeah, good book.
[+] [-] Flow|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpulgarin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|14 years ago|reply
Drones - save our lives. Cruise missiles - save our lives. An A-bomb saved our lives.
Not getting into as many wars would save the most lives. (Note: Some wars - like WW II are I admit unavoidable, but very few fall under this heading)
[+] [-] OstiaAntica|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpulgarin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonmc12|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epoxyhockey|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] torstesu|14 years ago|reply
However, I really like the idea. It would be like google street view, only you are the driver -- in the sky.
[+] [-] ippisl|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epoxyhockey|14 years ago|reply
Yes, Obama has been awfully militant lately. He may have thought that it was the best thing he could do in an attempt to get positive approval ratings from the general public. Killing an American citizen w/o trial may have gone too far, even for middle America.
The drone arms race is going to be an economical one. And, given the state of the world economy, no country is going to spend billions of dollars on a drone war anytime soon.
[+] [-] njharman|14 years ago|reply
I'm taking a pessimistic view. When the costs of war are externalized (as they are now and will be even more so with drones and robots) we no lose the incentives to not have war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0x12|14 years ago|reply
There is something seriously wrong with the level of detachment drones afford the actors on any battlefield.
Taking a life should be something done with a large level of reluctance and with the 'taker' risking his own through physical presence. Once that balance is lost it becomes all too easy to resort to violence at a much earlier stage of a conflict.
This is all about reducing the barrier to entry for war and that's a very dangerous thing.
[+] [-] smackay|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|14 years ago|reply
What difference does it make if they used a drone or did it the traditional way?
An attack is an attack it makes no difference how you do it.
[+] [-] wladimir|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prodigal_erik|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epoxyhockey|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Game_Ender|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shabble|14 years ago|reply
They still need to solve the location sensing issues though - having high-precision calibrated wall mounted sensors aren't really practical for ad-hoc use.
I don't doubt that someone will solve this problem in the not-too-distant future though, and heavily autonomous quadrotor aerostats will be in heavy use.
[1] https://www.grasp.upenn.edu/
[+] [-] padobson|14 years ago|reply
Imagine being a high school kid and having a job targeting drop zones for Amazon packages as drones make their final approaches. It'd be a heck of a lot cooler then driving a brown UPS truck.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|14 years ago|reply
Sounded crazy -- "death by robots" -- but that's about where we are (I don't differentiate between remote-operated vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles because it's not germane) We can't and won't torture a guy we pick up with a rocket launcher in his hand getting ready to kill us, but we can push a button and whack somebody who hangs out with really bad people. Don't forget collateral damage. And we call this morality.
Telemetry and robotics are going to change the world in wildly dramatic ways over the next 50 years. Places like HN are where somewhat knowledgeable people can kick around these ideas now, before everybody and his NGO have their own killer robots.
[+] [-] adamjernst|14 years ago|reply
When someone is active on the battlefield, and there's no way to physically capture him, what do you expect?
[+] [-] dantheman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|14 years ago|reply
The public's distaste for war was not of a moral nature, it was a byproduct of an increasing standard of living. Life was easier, people saw less suffering and death, expected more from life, etc.
As with the space program, America's worship of technology could be leveraged to build super weapons... but only if those weapons led to "hygienic" war in which Americans didn't have to see the horrors firsthand.
So our defense contractors built smart bombs, highly accurate missiles, etc. UAVs are just the next step.
The future holds both precision insect-size (or smaller) attack robots, as well as massive space-based lasers (the death star was uncannily prescient) aimed at earth and able to vaporize nearly anything that isn't heavily armed.
All of this will be controlled by a smaller and smaller class of military personnel. Gone will be the days of recruiting welfare recipients to enlist.
The debacle over "Star Wars" as envisioned by Reagan was mostly b/c the technology wasn't mature enough at the time. But just as George W. Bush jumped at the chance to wage two large wars (b/c the public momentarily would consent) there will come another moment for space based lasers, and we can be sure that our planners will not let that opportunity go to waste.
The recent stories about the drone fleet being pwned, followed by the stories about the Chinese building drones, are designed to get the average person to say "Darn it we need America to be a leader in Drone tech, let's spare no expense to have the very best".
Nowhere in the trajectory toward space based lasers and assassination drones is any moral concern likely to emerge. Why? Because when war is hygienic nobody realizes that it's ugly and worthy of moral reasoning. The discussion becomes about the merits of one technology vs another, one nation's tech vs another, not about what horrific purposes these devices will actually be used for.
So your point is well taken. And it is not lost on our planners. Have you ever wondered why Rumsfeld made such a big deal about saying "Damn it, the US will torture whomever it likes!". Not b/c this was new policy, or b/c he wasn't well aware that his remarks would create a shitstorm. He made the remarks to distract everybody (hawks and human rights activists alike) from what was actually happening. It worked incredibly well. Finally he resigned to leave the impression that he'd been somehow a loose cannon and not a master player in an amazingly well executed propaganda campaign.
[+] [-] jebblue|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexhawket|14 years ago|reply
Another possibility.. cities protected by phalanxes of model rocket sized guided missiles scanning perpetually for enemy drones.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0x12|14 years ago|reply