Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned • Hacker News Board

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#141

Post by ethbr0 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

Arrath wrote: post #76

ethbr0 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debatable. Armament stocks are ridiculously large, relative to value targets. Which makes sense, because cruise missiles cost less than radar systems. And I question whether "build one more drone" is an economically superior answer vs "build one more smart bomb."

There are never enough bombs to go around, especially smarter versions. Classic every problem is a nail and I have a hammer situation for commanders and strike planners once they have access to such munitions. This bit NATO forces in Libya[1], for example. Building drones may well be more scalable and economically viable than smart bombs. Consider a multiuse drone that could be utilized for battlefield recon with its…

From [1], it seems like the European stocks are a compatibility issue (can't mount US munitions) and a funding issue (don't purchase and store enough for a sustained campaign).

> Building drones may well be more scalable and economically viable than smart bombs

That's the heart of the matter. Is it, or isn't it? And for what? The commentary usually glosses over this.

E.g. what's the difference between a JSOW-ER deploying CBU-103s / BLU-108s or a "drone"?

I think the more important future distinctions are going to be between attritable/simple vs expensive/capable platforms, temporary vs persistent platforms, and organic autonomy vs network-reliant. Where some combination of the qualities is optimal for any particular mission.

As an example: Is a mid-air refuelable X-61 without organic sensors but carrying smart munitions a cruise missile or a drone?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynetics_X-61_Gremlins

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#142

Post by 10000truths » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

jhgb wrote: post #114

leetcrew wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose it depends on how much time the bullet spends in the barrel. For a .50 BMG, this might be on the order of a few hundred microseconds.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#143

Post by throwaway316943 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

hn8788 wrote: post #93

stfp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like with chemical weapons, banning them makes total sense to avoid overwhelming mass production and ubiquitous use. You'll still see them used in targeted assassinations and some countries will have illegal military stockpiles, but that's very different from these things being treated like regular guns/ammo, being commercially available or legal to build.

Chemical weapons are banned because they kill indiscriminately, and it causes undue suffering compared to conventional weapons, not because you can mass produce them. Drones wouldn't have either of those issues.

Flying land mines can be equally indiscriminate. Especially if you set the targeting to an ethnic group. These are explosives so they won’t always kill their target, they’ll do a lot of maiming and anyone standing near the target will be on the receiving end too.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#144

Post by sangnoir » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #95

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. Or will lead to blending in with civilians, more advanced camouflage, or “hugging the enemy” tactics (staying close enough that they risk harming their own people). Or more terrorism rather than open warfare. It might be that with these killer drones, we will look back on WW2 style armies in the field as equivalent to…

> Or more terrorism rather than open warfare.

Some autonomous weapons blur the line, like the 'sniperbot' recently used to kill an Iranian nuclear scientist as he drove by. The weapon itself was mounted to the back of a truck, and could have lay waiting for days/weeks/months. There is no need for the fighters to blend in, when the weapons can - I imagine in the future where some high ranking military or political figure is sniped by a traffic light (by way of facial recognition or a humble license plate reader)

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#145

Post by throwaway316943 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

jcims wrote: post #21

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we can stop using drones to kill people, we choose not to. Instead, we see drones as a measure to lower the operational cost of killing people allowing us to kill people simply because they are there.

Some people need killed. Another way to look at this is improving the efficiency and accuracy of that process.

Remember that when the first bus gets blown up by one of these.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#146

Post by Arrath » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #141

Arrath wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are never enough bombs to go around, especially smarter versions. Classic every problem is a nail and I have a hammer situation for commanders and strike planners once they have access to such munitions. This bit NATO forces in Libya[1], for example. Building drones may well be more scalable and economically viable than smart bombs. Consider a multiuse drone that could be utilized for battlefield recon with its…

From [1], it seems like the European stocks are a compatibility issue (can't mount US munitions) and a funding issue (don't purchase and store enough for a sustained campaign). > Building drones may well be more scalable and economically viable than smart bombs That's the heart of the matter. Is it, or isn't it? And for what? The commentary usually glosses over this. E.g. what's the difference between a JSOW-ER deplo…

> E.g. what's the difference between a JSOW-ER deploying CBU-103s / BLU-108s or a "drone"?

For those on the receiving end, I can't imagine its anything more than an academic distinction.

For the forces using such items, it could come down to doctrine, or funding fights. It could be that lawmakers approving budgets will find it more palatable to approve a big purchase of 'drones' instead of 'smart cluster munitions'.

I expect we'll see a profusion of new devices marketed as either, or both, depending on the use case and the audience. It may be that the definition will never really be nailed down.

> I think the more important future distinctions are going to be between attritable/simple vs expensive/capable platforms, temporary vs persistent platforms, and organic autonomy vs network-reliant. Where some combination of the qualities is optimal for any particular mission.

I absolutely agree.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#147

Post by jhgb » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

10000truths wrote: post #142

jhgb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose it depends on how much time the bullet spends in the barrel. For a .50 BMG, this might be on the order of a few hundred microseconds.

I assume that the time spent in barrel is more or less constant compared to the other variables (such as angular velocity or angular acceleration of the barrel around the time of firing) and can be considered a fixed time delay in the system?

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#148

Post by sabhiram » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

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…

Directional EMP development, here we go!

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#149

Post by koonsolo » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

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…

I see you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

A drone cannot effectively damage a tank or any other major equipment.

The payload a swarm-drone is just way too small. Why have 100 needles when you can have 1 sword.

We have rockets, which are way more effective than any number drones.

A "drone" that can do proper damage is already the size of a plane. Anything less is only useful for recon.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#150

Post by 1e-9 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #94

petermcneeley wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis is slightly off because WWI and WWII were great powers fighting each other. If the great powers were ever to directly fight this would still be nuclear war. Nothing about "swarming bots" has significantly changed this domain. Where bots and swarm bots would be used is likely in asymmetric warfare. "Aircraft carriers will be replaced with cheap drone swarm carriers" I would argue that Aircraft carriers a…

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.

Armored vehicles have thin armor on top, which allows effective top-attack by smaller munitions such as SADARM.[1]

SADARM is smaller than a typical toaster and weighs 12 kg.

An even smaller micro-drone could just attack a tank's gun by setting a small charge or providing blockage that would be devastating when the tank fired.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_Destroy_ARMor