31–40 of 63 posts
Love this: “Once countries like China start exporting these, they’re going to be everywhere really quickly. Within the next 10 years, every country will have these,” Noel Sharkey How about you change "China" to "USA" - Basically the same right? What's so wrong about China having drones that he singles them out?
This is too US-centric, especially as it implies that drone proliferation will slow down if the US stops its own development. This is nonsense. Fact is, the US was a late adopter to more modern drones, or UAVs, having fallen behind countries like Israel and South Africa who had developed propeller-driven surveillance UAVs and used them operationally in combat from the late 1970s. Both gained much experience in the us…
Where do you get that from?
Some quotes from the article:
Virtually every country on Earth will be able to build or
acquire drones capable of firing missiles within the next ten
years. Armed aerial drones will be used for targeted killings,
terrorism and the government suppression of civil
unrest. What’s worse, say experts, it’s too late for the United
States to do anything about it.
“Once countries like China start exporting these, they’re going
to be everywhere really quickly. Within the next 10 years,
every country will have these,” Noel Sharkey, a robotics and
artificial intelligence professor from the University of
Sheffield, told Defense One.
Singer cautions that while the U.S. may be trying to wean
itself off of armed UAV technology, many more countries are
quickly becoming hooked.
So, what option does that leave U.S. policy makers wanting to
govern the spread of this technology? Virtually none, say
experts. “You’re too late,” said Sharkey, matter-of-factly.
Love this: “Once countries like China start exporting these, they’re going to be everywhere really quickly. Within the next 10 years, every country will have these,” Noel Sharkey How about you change "China" to "USA" - Basically the same right? What's so wrong about China having drones that he singles them out?
>What’s worse, say experts, it’s too late for the United States to do anything about it. This is an extraordinary comment to make, when they have used drones more than anyone.
I took that to imply roughly that 'The USA has been igniting and fuelling this arms race with ever greater use and weaponization of drones, but now the process is self-sustaining. Even if the USA should cease developments of its drone program and start decommissioning the crafts, that in itself would not stop drone armament, since several other actors would in all probability continue developments on programs that ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly not trivial, and certainly not for $1K. Perhaps in 10 years like the article suggests. However, you could probably take an off-the-shelf large R/C plane or helicopter and put a small explosive payload in it, then crash it into somewhere. Even that would be hard to do for under $1K, and range would be limited.
Good point. I just did some searching around the internet; 20km for under $1k is way off the mark. 300m however with a live video stream and GPS navigation programming is available under $1k even on Amazon: http://lowenddrone.com
I'm fairly confident I could put together an aircraft that could travel 20km with a 3km payload and self-destruct at the destination for less than $1k.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Defensive versus attacking capabilities differ very strongly though. The quagmire defense is not soo expensive, I would think. For example, Switzerland has lots of basements and guns and gun training. That just sounds like such a lame headache to take and hold.
A great example of the cost discrepancy in the context of drones: You see a "drone" flying towards you. Is it a) a dressed up $20 RC toy plane, or b) a flying bomb that can take lives or take out hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars of hardware? Presumably, you wouldn't want to risk b), which means for every instance of a) you'd presumably end up committing resources to counter it, if the odds of b) ar…
A "flock" of light unarmed vehicles surrounding with one or more armed vehicles that drop in and out of the flock to do their thing would likely be extremely difficult to deal with.
>What’s worse, say experts, it’s too late for the United States to do anything about it. This is an extraordinary comment to make, when they have used drones more than anyone.
And how would the USA stop other sovereign country's from building UAV's. FFS drones are basicly RC planes not Nukes
Ahem. It's a bit of a stretch to call Reapers and Predators RC planes. Not to mentioned UAV spacecraft[1, 2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
[2] http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/unmanned-air-force-space-plane-l...
This is too US-centric, especially as it implies that drone proliferation will slow down if the US stops its own development. This is nonsense. Fact is, the US was a late adopter to more modern drones, or UAVs, having fallen behind countries like Israel and South Africa who had developed propeller-driven surveillance UAVs and used them operationally in combat from the late 1970s. Both gained much experience in the us…
> This is too US-centric, especially as it implies that drone proliferation will slow down if the US stops its own development. This is nonsense. Where do you get that from? Some quotes from the article: Virtually every country on Earth will be able to build or acquire drones capable of firing missiles within the next ten years. Armed aerial drones will be used for targeted killings, terrorism and the government supp…
Less impressed, Sharkey said the U.S. still has time to
rethink its drone future. “Don’t go to the next step.
Don’t make them fully autonomous. That will proliferate
just as quickly and then you are really going to be sunk.”
The rest of the article is ok, particularly the quotes attributed to Singer (an excellent writer on the subject), Sam Brennan and Mary Commings and the maps showing which countries are using or developing armed and unarmed UAVs. I just feel it's let down by the editorial slant and US-centric focus.
Its way past technology outpacing our ability to react. The brave new world is here, with such wonders in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how would the USA stop other sovereign country's from building UAV's. FFS drones are basicly RC planes not Nukes
> FFS drones are basicly RC planes.... Ahem . It's a bit of a stretch to call Reapers and Predators RC planes. Not to mentioned UAV spacecraft [1, 2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 [2] http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/unmanned-air-force-space-plane-l...
[1] EDIT: I suppose, really, all of them are custom and not COTS, yet. I meant one-off, low production UAVs with a specific application in mind. Their design standards are far lower (because of cost) and have no real maintenance plan (again, because of cost). They just need cameras in the sky in a specific area, and sending another aircraft (like Predator) out may not be feasible (cost, time, risk).