
The ultra-lethal drones of the future - spking
http://nypost.com/2014/05/17/evolution-of-the-drone/
======
nonce42

      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.

~~~
_djo_
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

      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_
The drones under discussion are not a consumer technology, how can you expect
them to be as widespread as consumer items like automobiles or cellphones,
unless you're looking at toy RC 'drones' like the Parrot AR Drone?

The proper way to map drone proliferation is to count how many countries have
them as part of their security forces and what type are being used. Last I
counted over 80 countries possess at least one model of drone in their
security forces and another 23 at least have active armed drone programs
underway. How is that not widespread?

That's without even discussing the dozens of countries building their own
military drones, armed and unarmed. There's a tendency to believe that this
technology is contained for the moment within US companies, but that has never
been the case.

------
pokstad
No mention of the super secret space drone???

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37)

------
walshemj
So ultra lethal is dead 2.0 kills you even deader than the pervious shooty
/stabity technology.

~~~
coldtea
Or you know, it's ultra-leathal in that it kills a larger percentage of
targets more efficiently (e.g they are not talking about it being "more
lethal" for a single person).

~~~
walshemj
or I could have been being _sarcastic_

~~~
coldtea
Sure, but sarcasm requires a specific target, and from your phrasing it was
their (perceived by you) misuse of the term lethal.

Being sarcastic is not a free pass.

------
stretchwithme
How about those drones on Star Gate Universe? Relentless enough to drive you
from the galaxy.

