This should save us some blood. It's suppose to be deployed next year.

http://rt.com/usa/250233-us-drones-navy-locust/

 

Provided its use does not make you a war criminal.

 

I can imagine several nightmare scenarios in which those things could participate...

 

Using autonomous weapons has serious implications for the future of warfare. Who exactly is responsible for the use and the aftermath involved in the use of such things? I'm not sure I'd want to serve on that tribunal.

 

It's just another "Arrow In The Quiver" of the U.S. arsenal.

When it comes to military weapons, anything's fair game. Just remember that the U.S. and other countries have 1000s of nuclear weapons.

 

We already have lots of Unmanned Land Attack Drones, and nobody has ever been held responsible for their actions.

 

Like the saying from an old cigarett commercial, it seems the "U.S. is fighting more but enjoying it less."

We've been in a nonstop war in the Mid East since 2002 and not much to show for it.

 

It's just another "Arrow In The Quiver" of the U.S. arsenal.

When it comes to military weapons, anything's fair game. Just remember that the U.S. and other countries have 1000s of nuclear weapons.

And the fact that only two have ever been used in warfare is a pretty strong indication that everything is NOT fair game.

 

And the fact that only two have ever been used in warfare is a pretty strong indication that everything is NOT fair game.

The concept is called "Mutually Assured Destruction".

The obvious fact is that any use of a nuclear weapon will not have any winners, just survivors.

 

Using autonomous weapons has serious implications for the future of warfare. Who exactly is responsible for the use and the aftermath involved in the use of such things? I'm not sure I'd want to serve on that tribunal.

I agree. There are environments in which autonomous weapons systems make a lot of sense -- naval fleet defense being one of them and, to a lesser degree, point area defense well away from civilian population centers. Autonomous intelligence drones can be much more broadly deployed, of course. But policy makers need to be sure that a sufficiently tight leash is held on all weapon systems and the more autonomy in proximity to civilian populations the tighter the leash needs to be (and that applies to manned as well as unmanned systems). The question is whether the policy makers can be trusted to define the bounds of the leash responsibly -- history implies that the answer is likely no (though, to be fair, the leash on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons has been pretty successful overall).

 

So called "Autonomous" weapons are actually controlled by humans at some level in the military complex and they are the ones who make the ultimate decision to use them and what/who is the target.

 

The concept is called "Mutually Assured Destruction".

The obvious fact is that any use of a nuclear weapon will not have any winners, just survivors.

That's the "obvious fact" when you have two powers that possess either enough nuclear weapons in their own right to strike back effectively or have sufficiently strong political ties to someone that does. It was an effective policy for several decades, though it was NOT the policy at the beginning of the Cold War. The U.S. knew it could win such a war in the early days and chose not to fall prey to the temptation -- which, when you think about it, is rather unique in all of human history as I can't think of another empire throughout history that even thought that they had a shot at world domination that didn't take it. The U.S.S.R. was committed to a policy of putting themselves in a position of being able to win such a war and some advocated starting such a war as soon as that goal was reached. Who knows what would have happened had the U.S. unilaterally disarmed at that time. Fortunately, both sides reached a point at which MAD was a viable and inescapable policy for both and the alliances in place assured that all other nuclear-capable countries were in the same boat.

The situation is not nearly so clear today.

 

So called "Autonomous" weapons are actually controlled by humans at some level in the military complex and they are the ones who make the ultimate decision to use them and what/who is the target.

But at what level? The idea here is that you launch a swarm of these UAVs with very basic parameters, such as, "Make any threat in Sectors 5 and 9 disappear." The UAV swarm then hunts the assigned sectors and decide amongst themselves what things rise to the level of qualifying as a threat and then engage without requesting or awaiting clearance. Conceptually is it the same as a comparable situation in the manned community in which units are given RoE (Rules of Engagement) that preauthorize engaging ToO (Targets of Opportunity).

 

Today, the current state of affairs is that once a nuclear bar room brawl breaks out in any part of the world, it's all over.

By the way in the 1960s, the Cal Tech Seismological Lab did an analysis of the effects of a severe earthquake in the Los Angeles area and they also considered the effects of a nuclear attack on the U.S. near a large city. The conclusion was that it would be an "Unmitigated Disaster" -that is there would be absolutely no chance for recovery.

 

Today, the current state of affairs is that once a nuclear bar room brawl breaks out in any part of the world, it's all over.

Why? What reason is there to believe that if Pakistan lobs a nuke at India, or vice-versa, or if South Africa sets of a nuke in a neighboring country, that it's all over for the entire world?

By the way in the 1960s, the Cal Tech Seismological Lab did an analysis of the effects of a severe earthquake in the Los Angeles area and they also considered the effects of a nuclear attack on the U.S. near a large city. The conclusion was that it would be an "Unmitigated Disaster" -that is there would be absolutely no chance for recovery.

A conclusion such as that completely flies in the face of history. You can look at numerous cities that have been leveled by various natural disasters and almost all have recovered in fairly short order. You can also look at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both of which are thriving cities and recovered quite rapidly -- and the nuclear attacks weren't just "near" them.

 

The world is a lot different place than in the WWII era and an isolated nuclear exchange won't be an isolated incident for long.

Someone will take a grudge with the U.S. because they perceived it to be allied -or casually aligned with- one of the attackers. The 9-11 attacks and the continuing problem with Al Queda and other terrorist groups have arisen because of miscalculations in U.S. foreign policy. Russia is closer to the hot spots and it doesn't seem very friendly to the U.S. either.

Regarding the detrimental effect (or lack of) of a natural disasters on a large city, the face of history no longer applies. Urban populations have swelled and here in San Francisco, emergency planners agree that a 1906 sized earthquake would permanently cripple the region. Incidentally, I've had association with contractors in the building demolition industry and they admit they cannot remove and dispose of all the debris from a ground zero event. After the 9-11 attacks, debris from the WTC and other wrecked buildings was simply dumped in someone else's backyard.

When I saw the attack on the WTC and the buildings go down, it reminded me of the scenario presented in the Cal Tech report. In fact, the guy who engineered the 9-11 attack on N.Y. was a graduate in architectural engineering and he had expertise about how to make a really big mess out of Manhattan.

 

You are espousing a refrain that has been repeated over and over. Pearl Harbor could never recover from the Japanese attack there. The area around Mt. St. Helens was supposed to be devastated for over a hundred years. The entire Prince William Sound could never recover, nor could the Gulf of Mexico. We might as well just evacuate New Orleans because it can never recover from Katrina. You say that the WTC attack reminded you of the scenario in the Cal Tech report, which says that such events can't be recovered from. Yet the area around the former WTC is looking pretty well recovered.

I'm willing to bet on both history and the human spirit.

 

I was thinking that the networking was a huge force multiplier.
Anything to save some blood on this political hobby.

Technology ought to be able to reduce boots on ground drastically.
At least some of the most dangerous activities.

This should make suburban acquisition a little easier.

 

Drone make air strikes a lot easier, but there will be a severe need for the army and marines to go into highly urbanized areas and root out the opposition.

Iraq is now a text book example of the air campaign being a success, but the whole mission is a failure.

 

Iraq is now a text book example of the air campaign being a success, but the whole mission is a failure.

Which Iraq war ... GULF WAR I in the 90s?

By whatever metric your using, the whole mission was a failure. Like all wars, there are successful campaigns and unsuccessful ones. The overall metric may change due to the political climate in the warring countries, thus a prime example of mission failure.

If WWI or WWII were fought by todays standard ... who knows who would have declared victory.

Remember, the league of Nations was formed after the War to prevent all wars ... but the axis powers must have not gotten that memo.