Live data from Hacker News

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

spectrum.ieee.org

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#111
Whenever these discussions are brought up I feel the need to remind everyone that autonomous weapons and drones are not new inventions. The first remotely controlled weapons were developed and tested in the 1910s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Bug . You also saw the emergence of drones being used as targets, to train air crews and anti-aircraft gunners. WW2 saw numerous instances of autonomous weapons being used in combat. The obvious examples are the V1 and V2, which both used internal guidance systems. There's also the Fritz X, a radio-controlled air-launched anti-ship missile. There was also Operation Aphrodite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite ) in which the Allies loaded up a b-17 bomber with explosives, re-worked to be radio controlled with TV guidance, and flown into hard targets. Similarly, you have the German Mistel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistel ) which involved a drone loaded to capacity with explosives and guided to a target, but in this case the drone is carried by an aircraft and dropped, making this the first air-launched cruise missile used in combat.

During the Cold War you started to see drones being used for reconnaissance. The US had the Ryan Model 147 and D-21. Once computers became significantly advanced you started seeing an explosion of different applications. The tomahawk missile is extensively programmable, allowing the user to give it a flight course consisting of a number of waypoints, and digital images along its intended path. It would then compare those images to what it sees on the route and use that for course corrections, ensuring extreme accuracy against targets a thousand miles away in a time before GPS. (fun fact: during the Gulf War, the Navy had to plan their Tomahawk stikes to go through the Southeastern portion of Iraq instead of a more direct route because they could use the mountains and hills for course corrections, while the direct route went over relatively featureless desert). In the late 1980s Israel would employ loitering munitions. Essentially these were suicide drones intended to take out enemy radars. It would loiter above for hours until detecting an enemy radar and then dive. There were also decoy drones. These didn't have a warhead, they were intended to simply fly around acting as bait. Some decoys are fitted with radar reflectors to make them appear larger on radar than they really are, essentially the opposite of stealth aircraft.

Autonomous weapons have been around for a long time and aren't going anywhere. Frankly, I think this is probably better in terms of reducing civilian casualties. I'd rather have soldiers use a precision guided weapon like this than calling in mortars or artillery.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#112
post #43

One of the reasons the attempted drone assassination of Maduro in 2018 failed was because police were using radio jammers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Caracas_drone_attack It's fairly easy and cheap to make an explosive drone and train a neural network to drive it using off the shelf components and open source software. It follows that it's inevitable that at least semi-autonomous drones will be made to counte…

Drones can't beat nylon nets or other low tech countermeasures. I think anti drone water cannons will outpace drone assassinations. And more than both, regular bombs and guns will still do most of the killing.

Can't one drone destroy your nylon net for the rest of the drones to fly through it?

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#113

This feels like the same thing that happened with tanks. The end of WW1 saw tanks deployed effectively. WW2 was then fought using entirely new tactics and strategies enabled by tanks (not least "blitzkrieg"). Britain and France, notably, hadn't really worked out how to use them effectively and so were left fighting the last war, horribly disadvantaged until they worked out how to catch up (though air power being deve…

> The good news is that there will be anti-drone swarms too. And so we'll end up fighting battles mostly by destroying drones instead of people. Once you've knocked out all the enemy drones, they'll surrender because humans can't fight drones.

They can still fight the guerilla war among citizens. That's been an incredibly effective strategy because it's so expensive to fight. One might wonder if drones are the key to fighting these wars cheaply. If all you need is a small local base and then a thousand drones to surveil a populace... Well that sounds pretty nightmarish for the citizens, but it would certainly change the nature of war.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#114
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you even need to counter recoil if you only want to get off one shot?

newton's third law says yes, at least to some extent. unless the barrel is perfectly aligned with the platform's center of gravity, it will be deflected (at least a little) before the projectile exits. and it's not trivial to hold a quadcopter or fixed wing craft steady enough to aim precisely in the first place.

Do you need to aim steady or do you only need to fire precisely at the right moment? For example, TOWs using a top-attack EFP warhead don't "aim steady" either, they just detonate at the right moment.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#115

This feels like the same thing that happened with tanks. The end of WW1 saw tanks deployed effectively. WW2 was then fought using entirely new tactics and strategies enabled by tanks (not least "blitzkrieg"). Britain and France, notably, hadn't really worked out how to use them effectively and so were left fighting the last war, horribly disadvantaged until they worked out how to catch up (though air power being deve…

> And so we'll end up fighting battles mostly by destroying drones instead of people. This is one piece of possibly good news that it seems like everyone is overlooking. Automation/Remote control applies not just to drones, but tanks, boats, other aerial vehicles, and maybe troops(after seeing that Boston Dynamics dog robot) etc. Seems like it will be a small squad of highly advanced human troops to move in after the…

I agree. This isn't all bad :) Like the move from conscript peasant armies to volunteer professional armies, leave the rest of us out of it.

It'll come down to "how many drones, and of what quality, can your manufacturing base produce?". But this is not that dissimilar from WW2's "how many tanks, and of what quality, can you manufacture?" equation.

Insurgencies will be about getting a small swarm in exactly the right place at the right time.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t realistic 1. This won’t be your average 2. Even if it was it could be hundreds of them 3. The military are developing large aircraft that function as essentially fighter aircraft that can destroy your tiny gun battery from 50-100 km away

This makes no sense. If we're talking about an opponent that can field fighter aircraft and missiles that can destroy anti-drone defenses at 50-100km away, they could just use those missiles instead of drones to destroy the "real" target. Seems to me the likely scenario is some sort of cheap projectile automatic weapon mounted on a vehicle. It doesn't take much to take down a drone and they move incredibly slowly com…

iirc the "slaughterbot" concept is about tiny kamikaze drones. Enough explosive to crack open a skull in a drone about the size of a coin, and not much more expensive than that coin. Release hundreds of thousands of them for less than the cost of a single missile, and each of them will independently target and execute a single human.

I don't think any kind of conventional gun is going to do anything against this.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those incredibly expensive fighter planes are useless. Aircraft carriers will be replaced I'm not fully convinced. The advantage of drones is that they are relatively cheap. That automatically comes with significant range and speed limitations; after all, as someone else mentioned, we already have long-range semi-autonomous drones called missiles. They aren't cheap. Naval engagements, not to mention aircraft engage…

>> And I'm sure ships will be upgraded with defenses (if they haven't already). They already have CIWS (and a bunch of other stuff) to shoot down incoming supersonic and maneuvering anti-ship missiles. Any drone slower or less difficult to hit than those missiles stands little chance. Drones can extend the eye and ears of a ship but they are not going to be killing ships themselves anytime soon.

No air defence system is considered efficient against supersonic, sea skimming missiles, let alone manoeuvering ones.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. Humans can't fight cruise missiles either, yet it hasn't changed to where one side gives up when the other has cruise missiles. Humans aren't that logical.

I thought Patriot and all those Isreali firework shows were anti-missile defences?

You can't shoot down modern cruise missiles with any kind of reliability.

Qassam missiles are straight, dumb ballistic missiles with no guidance.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t realistic 1. This won’t be your average 2. Even if it was it could be hundreds of them 3. The military are developing large aircraft that function as essentially fighter aircraft that can destroy your tiny gun battery from 50-100 km away

This makes no sense. If we're talking about an opponent that can field fighter aircraft and missiles that can destroy anti-drone defenses at 50-100km away, they could just use those missiles instead of drones to destroy the "real" target. Seems to me the likely scenario is some sort of cheap projectile automatic weapon mounted on a vehicle. It doesn't take much to take down a drone and they move incredibly slowly com…

> Sure, 22LR, why not.

Because they're subsonic soon after they leave the barrel. A swarm could have fairly precise directional hearing, so dodging such a slow bullet isn't out of the question.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. Humans can't fight cruise missiles either, yet it hasn't changed to where one side gives up when the other has cruise missiles. Humans aren't that logical.

I thought Patriot and all those Isreali firework shows were anti-missile defences?

I thought all of that works pretty ok against relatively slow and dumb missiles only though, no?
Post reply on HN