
Veil of secrecy lifted on Pentagon office planning micro-drone swarms - wyclif
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/08/inside-the-secretive-pentagon-office-planning-skyborg-fighters-and-drone-swarms/
======
zby
The biggest problem with this is that this is perfect for political
assasinations. It can be precise enough and it can be probably leave little
traces or be made hard to identify who was controlling the weapon - just like
now we have problem with identifying the sources of internet attacks.

I remember reading, many years ago, a very short SF story about a robot built
specificially to kill targeted people and leave false traces. I think even now
it would not be too difficult to built a small bug-like (or wasp-like) robot
with a poisonous sting that could autonomously navigate a few hundred meters
to reach a bed of a politician (or activist) - how are you going to protect
your leaders against an attack like this?

~~~
13thLetter
You'd have the same problem identifying the source of a sniper's bullet, in
the context of a world where the government is willing to take people out like
this.

~~~
zby
Hmm - but:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fide...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fidel_Castro)

Looks like it was not that easy - even for a superpower like the USA. Now
imagine that they had miniature bots that could follow the target (and then
kill him).

~~~
13thLetter
Or imagine if the USA had sophisticated military aircraft that could just drop
a bomb on his office!

------
jackgavigan
_“We don’t have to develop new planes,” Roper said. “We don’t have to develop
fundamentally new weapons. But we have to work the integration and the concept
of operation. And then you have a completely new capability, but you don’t
have to wait long at all.”_

Whilst this is simply common sense, it's actually pretty radical thinking for
the military. The big military contractors will be worried about this idea
gaining widespread acceptance.

~~~
patcheudor
I recently built an acrobatic FPV hexacopter and given its abilities to carry
a payload as well as quick flight in close quarters it stuck me as the perfect
weapon. Even without cellular or satellite communication to it, the thing has
a 1.5 km line of sight range. Why spend billions on the F-35 when you could
drop a swarm of these on some insurgents, each with a few grams of explosive.
Have a pilot direct the swarm then once close enough to the target(s) have
other pilots pick-up quadrants or even individual drones. Get close to the
target(s) and trigger the explosives on the drone. It's likely possible to get
the component cost easily below $1000 each. Even at $10,000 or $100,000 each,
it would be a cheaper alternative to programs like the F-35.

If the US isn't developing them, then others will. The thing that is quite
scary is that this technology is available and here today with all the
components necessary shipped from China.

~~~
reitanqild
I'm constantly reminded of "Kill decision" by Daniel Suarez that I read last
year based on a recommendation here.

It plays these ideas (cheap, autonomous) out for some quite interesting
reading, only it is the bad guys who are in control.

~~~
artursapek
"Bad guys" is based on perspective anyway

~~~
unit91
Hardly. "Enemy" is a matter of perspective, but there are actual "bad guys",
regardless of what side I'm on.

As a simple illustration, if you were a holocaust victim at Auschwitz, the
Nazi regime is your enemy, even if you're passive in your resistance, as many
were. The Nazis are also the bad guys. Even though you are the Nazis' enemy,
you are not the bad guy. The bad guys are the ones murdering millions.

Often in conflicts, both sides are bad guys (for example, warring criminal
gangs). The term "bad guys" doesn't necessarily mean there are "good guys"
opposing them.

~~~
task_queue
> warring criminal gangs

Why are criminal gangs assumed to be the bad guys here? Do you know the varied
history of different gangs in the US? You might be surprised at what you find.

~~~
unit91
I Googled "warring criminal gangs", here's the first result. It's a great
example of the kind of evil-fighting-evil I was describing.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/10/05/44538223...](http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/10/05/445382231/how-
el-salvador-fell-into-a-web-of-gang-violence)

------
sj4nz
This is some especially scary stuff. These drones won't be carrying bullets.
They'll be carrying tiny payloads of VX nerve agent to be "effective
detterent." Since the LD50 is 10 mg, "legally" _any_ country could stockpile
100g of VX (the amount they can produce annually without reporting to the OPCW
(Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and maintain a swarm of
death-drones 10,000-strong. Yesterday's "smart" bombs with thousands of pounds
of high explosives are now quaint, like cannons made out of bronze.

Countries willing to report can maintain a tonne of VX and a drone swarm
100-million devices strong. If you can swarm 100,000 drones at a force and
they can only stop 99%, it still kills a thousand people--but in reality, once
a swarm attack begins, you're going to see the enemy flail uselessly against
these drones in defense.

War has now fundamentally changed and standing armies don't even realize it
yet. Activism is now even more dangerous. If you thought political opposition
was dangerous now, imagine the ease of a State aiming a single drone at an a
singularly unpopular voice leading the the crowd. Holy shit--that person just
dropped dead on the stage! What happened? Drone.

If you attended Obama's last inauguration on the steps of the Capitol on the
National Mall, hold fast to that memory. The next, and all future,
presidential inaugurations may just be indoor affairs. Or perhaps... under a
giant lexan rotunda.

~~~
roymurdock
Is there any reason an EMP/large radio scrambling gun [1] would not be
effective against a large swarm of drones?

[1] [http://www.gizmag.com/anti-uav-defense-system-radio-beam-
dro...](http://www.gizmag.com/anti-uav-defense-system-radio-beam-
drones/39778/)

~~~
542458
I believe that an EMP is impractical due to the crazy power draw. Non-nuclear
EMPs are typically explosively pumped and have a very short range. Jammers
(which is what the radio gun is) could work, but are civilian-illegal.

~~~
api
If these things become commonplace I could see a second amendment challenge
against the illegality of counter-drone weapons.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
The second amendment is being gutted every day. Along with most the rest of
the amendments.

~~~
__jal
Off topic, but what are you talking about? Heller, which is when the supreme
court first noticed an individual right in the 2nd amendment in over 200
years, was decided in 2008.

Since that is currently the high-water mark in 2nd amendment rights on the
pro-side, I assume you can point us to reversals since then, apparently
occurring on a daily basis?

Please, share your sources with the group.

------
rsync
"Depending upon the species, mosquitoes can fly at about 1 to 1.5 miles per
hour. Mosquito species preferring to breed around the house, like the Asian
Tiger Mosquito, have limited flight ranges of about 300 feet. Most species
have flight ranges of 1-3 miles."

So ... you're probably not going to beat ~billions of years of evolution, in
terms of power to weight ratio and efficiency, right ?

So let's use the mosquito as a baseline and stipulate that what you gain by
stripping away the reproductive and digestive systems, you lose back by adding
an offensive payload, so that's a wash.

And you end up with something that has a range of ~2 miles and can fly about 1
mph. And also we're already evolved to hear and see objects of this size (and
smaller).

If you make them larger, to carry more payload, not only do you start down
this vicious cycle of greater size to support more payload (see: adding more
battery weight to an electric car to increase the range, but diminishing
returns because you added more weight...) but you also end up with a larger
"bug" that's even easier to notice.

Or you could make them smaller, but now your range/speed drops even further.

This is not to mention the issue of predators - albeit confused ones that
probably just spit the drone out.

~~~
linkregister
I'm not clear about where you got the idea that the drones were the size of
mosquitoes. The article mentioned that each one was propelled by a single
1-inch (2 1/2 cm) propeller and weigh about one pound (1/2 kg). The picture in
the article showed a small fixed-wing aircraft. It looks like aircraft of that
nature would have far less maneuverability and far greater range than a
natural organism that size.

But I am glad you contributed this comment; I agree that objects that small
are more vulnerable to gusts of wind and predators.

~~~
abrookewood
Someone further up was talking about making insect-sized drones ... presumably
this was a response to that.

------
dogma1138
How exactly is this scarier than a 20m wing span MQ-9 Reaper with 4 Hellfire
Missiles or an over the counter DJi-Phantom packed with C4 for that matter?

These drones might be useful for some EW/Cyber warfare and maybe as advanced
counter measures but assassinations? pffttt the US and many other countries
have[0] loitering munitions that could be much more effective at those tasks
than a drone that wont survive a collision with a house fly from the look of
it.

The whole swarm thing is also overblown, the USAF is looking into swarm
configuration for manned and unmanned aircraft mostly to counter contested
airspaces due to the proliferation of advanced AA platforms, the whole idea is
to send a swarm of low cost UAV's that could either saturate the airspace and
either make the AA tracking systems ineffective or actually use EW or act like
anti-radiation platforms them selves and just ram the radar arrays of the
enemy missile systems.

The delivery method reported for this particular one is also quite ineffective
dumping 100's of those out of the back of a transport aircraft seems to me a
much more effective method which also has been tested by the US many time
before to deliver loitering munitions mostly Anti-Radiation platforms.

[0][http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/08/uk-complex-weapons-
par...](http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/08/uk-complex-weapons-part-6-fire-
shadow-loitering-munition/) [0][http://defense-
update.com/features/du-1-07/armedUAVs_8.htm](http://defense-
update.com/features/du-1-07/armedUAVs_8.htm)

~~~
task_queue
Because they're small, cheap, easily made, easily replaceable and easily
deployed.

~~~
dogma1138
They aren't nearly as effective as the countless other types of autonomous
munitions that the US has deployed over the years they aren't going to be used
as "weapons" the US has suicide drones which are much better suited for that
task.

------
infinite8s
If you couple a swarm of these micro-drones and an AlphaGo like planner then
you'll basically have a mini SkyNet.

------
shele
And this is how the world ends according to Stanisław Lem, 1964,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible)
.

~~~
btbuildem
He's refined (?) that concept in
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_\(novel\))

------
ondrae
We'll just need our own swarm of drones to protect us from these ones. In Neal
Stephenson's [Diamond
Age]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age))
each neighborhood has an invisible border of these murder drones that won't
let you pass.

------
ohitsdom
Are the drones disposable? I would think so since I bet their range is
limited. How do they handle concerns of this tech falling into the enemy's
hands? I realize it's mostly simple (3-D printed and lightweight) but there's
still value there (in camera/weaponry and software).

~~~
iphoneseventeen
Self destruct after X hours?

~~~
jjwiseman
The Syrian Airlift Project, which used drones to send aid to refugees and
besieged civilians in Syria, added a "self-destruct mechanism that destroys
the autopilot if a crash is imminent in Syria, reducing the risk of later
weaponization by bad actors" and the potential leak of sensitive information.

~~~
adamtheterrible
Unfortunately we never got to actually operate jjwiseman, though that was our
goal. Lots of lessons learned and definitely brought out the best in each of
us. Thanks for sharing on HN!

~~~
jjwiseman
That's too bad. Is there a writeup of the conclusion of the project?

------
coldcode
History has always shown that for every new offensive weapon someone will one-
up it with a defensive one or find some way to render it useless; then the
cycle continues. Also for every technology you think you control, someone will
find a way to take it from you.

~~~
abledon
what was the defensive weapon against the Atomic Bomb?

Political Sanctions?

~~~
rtkwe
For all the bad that it did mutually assured destruction seemed to do the job.

~~~
shkkmo
Barely...

------
alvern
Moving past the nerve gas or explosive payloads, it would be rather easy to
equip tasers or other non-violent riot measures on a swarm of micro drones.

Like a swarm of wasps that can be targeted and controlled.

~~~
jjwiseman
"Watch this drone taser a guy until he collapses":
[http://time.com/19929/watch-this-drone-taser-a-guy-until-
he-...](http://time.com/19929/watch-this-drone-taser-a-guy-until-he-
collapses/)

------
arippberger
My god. They are well on their way to creating a real Protoss Carrier.

------
flexie
If American military develops micro drones that have cameras and other sensors
and carry enough firepower to kill a man, they have the key to win gorilla
wars like the ones they have had trouble with in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan
etc.

It will be much cheaper to send in 100 tiny drones to kill one enemy soldier
than to send in an American soldier. And it will be safe for Americans.

Once you have enough of the drones and they are small enough, you can launch
swarms of them inside, outside, over ground, under ground, in daylight and at
night. The enemy might be able to shoot down 99 percent of them, but you only
need one drone to take out the enemy. You can chase down the enemy soldiers,
one by one. You can even avoid civilian casualties by spending enough time to
establish who's enemy soldiers and then take them out with precision. Even -
to a high degree - if the enemy hides among civilians. Once the target is
eliminated (or has surrendered), you can return any surviving drones or have
them destroy themselves.

Once war becomes safe and clean for Americans, there will probably be less
objections against war. Another Afghanistan will take a few weeks or months,
not 15 years. Americans will actually be able to win the peace, not just the
wars like today.

When the enemy realises that there is no-where to hide, they will surrender.
Americans can basically engage anyone, anywhere, at all time and in no time,
with no apparent risk at at little cost.

Of course, the threat of a nuclear retaliation would be the most effective
defense against such drone based wars, so I would expect more of the
dictatorships to attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

~~~
noam87
And what happens when the US decides that Hitler and Mussolini are actually
pretty great guys, and that fascism must spread through Europe whether by
"persuasion or force" (1); or that a democratically elected leader must be
replaced by a brutal military dictatorship (2); or redefines "threat to
national security" to mean any country that interferes with the US's
"uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources"
(3); and that "economic nationalism" (i.e: any other nation's right to profit
from its own natural resources) must be "eliminated at all costs" (4). What
then?

It's astounding how strong the propaganda machine is, and how ignorant of
their own whitewashed history even some of the most educated Americans are.

Though it's not unprecedented: just a century ago, the world's most brilliant
minds supported (and helped) Germany in the first and second world wars (e.g:
the design of chemical weapons)... only five scientists signed an anti-war
petition (led by Einstein), while the rest cheered on this new, "more
civilized" age of warfare.

Nobody elected the USA world police. If it wishes to aid in peacekeeping, it
is free to do so within the confines of international law.

\---

1) [http://amzn.com/080781766X](http://amzn.com/080781766X)

2)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat;)
and almost every other country in South america:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation)

3)
[http://fas.org/man/docs/qdr/sec3.html](http://fas.org/man/docs/qdr/sec3.html)

4)
[http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-02-26a.html](http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-02-26a.html)

~~~
megalodon
This. The rhetoric of the post above is not very different from the
fundamentalist forces America is currently waging wars against.

