Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 186 posts

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#121

Post by marcus_holmes »

caseysoftware wrote: post #105
marcus_holmes wrote: post #11

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…

This is a rough explanation of the "generations of warfare" where our tactics are defined by the tools and weapons we have available. Unfortunately, we (humans, not just the US) tend to then treat those as the "right" tactics even as the underlying tools and weapons change so we're always fighting the last war. Cheap, autonomous, easily-deployed tools - weapons drones, sensors, etc - are a huge change that some are a…

Exactly. Machine guns invalidated cavalry charges, but we ended up in a trench war just trying to create a break in the trenches long enough to get the cavalry through. Tanks invalidated trench warfare, but the French built an impregnable defensive line along the border that would make them invincible in the next trench war.

And it's fascinating seeing the comments here saying "nah, this won't change anything" when it already is changing things.

And yes, the blurring of the lines is a problem. As others have pointed out, hiding drones in civilian populations is easy.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#122

Post by hermitcrab »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #11

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…

>Once you've knocked out all the enemy drones, they'll surrender because humans can't fight drones.

And what happens if these autonomous drones aren't programmed to accept surrounder (as seems likely)?

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#123

Post by klyrs »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #116
stickfigure wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bullets are a truly silly approach. Grapeshot is already banned in war, and seems like it could be significantly more effective (but still they'll only tear a cone out of a cloud). As far as I can tell, the best defense is an EMP pulse to fry their electronics. If they aren't fully autonomous, jamming the radio might work.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#124

Post by l33t2328 »

hermitcrab wrote: post #122
marcus_holmes wrote: post #11

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…

>Once you've knocked out all the enemy drones, they'll surrender because humans can't fight drones. And what happens if these autonomous drones aren't programmed to accept surrounder (as seems likely)?

Why does that seem likely?

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#125

Post by dragontamer »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #109
epicureanideal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swarm bots would also be useless against tanks or carriers. Too small to carry enough explosives to do much. As the drone becomes big enough to do more it approaches the size of a missile, which we already have.

how much of a missile's weight is payload, and how much is "missile"? I don't know enough about either to be able to say for certainty, but it's probable that the ratio of payload:delivery is different for drones, and possibly better. also, drones can do stupid things like fly underneath tanks, or land on them and then place a charge right up against the armour (or a vision slit, etc). Or even place a charge, back of…

> also, drones can do stupid things like fly underneath tanks

I'm not sure how this is superior to just shooting a tank with a missile.

> Or even place a charge, back off, detonate it, then place a second charge on the same spot and detonate that

Now you've halved the payload. If your drone can carry 10kg, you now have 2x 5kg bombs instead of 1x 10kg bomb. If you have a single payload, you have just a shitty, slow moving cruise missile.

> And of course a swarm can see multiple drones attack exactly the same spot on a tank's armour.

We have *guns* that attack the same spot on a Tank's armor. Let alone missiles or drones. Al Qaeda was chaining RPGs in the last war together (__literally__ a chain) that accomplishes that goal.

--------------

The __ONLY__ advantage I can see drones having is sustaining a position for hours at a time. Missiles always fly at top speed, so you can't just "wait around" an area with a missile.

A drone with a gun can sit in a location for 4 hours waiting for the tank to come, then fire the RPG when the tank comes into position. That is, the drone plays a role similar to a modern infantry, except the drone is cheaper to make.

But as soon as you're talking "hit the same spot twice", then we're back to guns / RPGs with a chain on it. Maybe a drone can fire that gun, but... don't have the drone do the job directly.

---------

EDIT: The theory of "Combined Arms" means that in practice, you'll never face a lone tank. In practice, infantry move to protect tanks, and tanks move to protect infantry.

If you are a soldier who is facing an enemy army: you only have enough strength to carry one weapon. So what do you pick? An anti-tank RPG? Or an anti-infantry machine gun?

Drones seem to fit the same conundrum on both sides. I'd expect drones to be weak against small arms (a machine gun would quickly disable a drone, even if it moves at 100 mph). While RPGs are useless vs drones. Similarly, a drone has a very small payload, so it only can have a certain number of weapons.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#126

Post by throwaway316943 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #109
epicureanideal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swarm bots would also be useless against tanks or carriers. Too small to carry enough explosives to do much. As the drone becomes big enough to do more it approaches the size of a missile, which we already have.

how much of a missile's weight is payload, and how much is "missile"? I don't know enough about either to be able to say for certainty, but it's probable that the ratio of payload:delivery is different for drones, and possibly better. also, drones can do stupid things like fly underneath tanks, or land on them and then place a charge right up against the armour (or a vision slit, etc). Or even place a charge, back of…

They could also target specific systems on the tank. The main gun, the engine, the tracks. They’re essentially anti tank hand grenades that don’t require someone to get close to the tank.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#127

Post by ign0ramus »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #109
epicureanideal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swarm bots would also be useless against tanks or carriers. Too small to carry enough explosives to do much. As the drone becomes big enough to do more it approaches the size of a missile, which we already have.

how much of a missile's weight is payload, and how much is "missile"? I don't know enough about either to be able to say for certainty, but it's probable that the ratio of payload:delivery is different for drones, and possibly better. also, drones can do stupid things like fly underneath tanks, or land on them and then place a charge right up against the armour (or a vision slit, etc). Or even place a charge, back of…

A tomahawk with a 1000 lbs warhead weighs 2900 lbs (or 3500 lbs with a booster)[1]. It's a long range missile so, it is probably possible to achieve a better ratio for something shorter range but I have doubts regarding quadcopters like the ones discussed in the article being able to do so by virtue of how fixed wing craft (which the tomahawk is IMHO).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#128

Post by rightbyte »

Grimm665 wrote: post #104
jayd16 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of doubt drone vs drone will be all that effective. Have anti-missile systems ever been all that effective?

Simulation of course, but I'll submit this video for your consideration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K8LGTwy6Zw To sum up the conclusion of the several-hour video series: the Aegis Combat System is essentially impenetrable to all but the most overwhelming of forces.

The resurgence of battle ships? It can't counter cannons right?

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#129

Post by zokier »

michaelt wrote: post #26

Are these drone-based 'lethal autonomous weapons' markedly different to cruise missiles? Or is the alarm here about the fact that every man and his dog will be able to get their hands on them, when they cost $1000 instead of $1000000?

That is my question too. Tomahawk missiles have been fielded since early 80s, and are very much fire and forget autonomous weapons that can track targets based on sensor data (i.e. not reliant on GPS or other external guidance).

Maybe the small difference is that cruise missiles generally are not anti-personnel weapons; maybe the article is seeking a ban in the same sense that Ottawa treaty banned anti-personnel mines but allows anti-tank mines. But I think this is something that would need to be explicitly addressed instead of just spouting sky is falling rhetoric.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#130

Post by mam3 »

This is dumb and childish on so many levels.

You will NEVER ever prevent bad guys from creating them by "banning" them.

Look at drugs: all this war / bans / illegality, and the cocaine traffic never ever went down in decades (maybe during covid).

Best course of action is to invest in them to not be left behind

Post reply on HN