Air Force Planning New Drone Fleet For Pakistan 240
mattnyc99 writes "With tensions high on the border, a new commander in Afghanistan, and complaints of civilian deaths from robotic US strikes in Pakistan raising anti-American sentiment, the Air Force is sketching out concepts for new robotic hitmen, reports Esquire.com. Among the new drones (which are all very small) are the Suburb Warrior (loaded with four or five mini missiles for semi-urban environments), the Sniper targeting system ("that can lock on to multiple targets, allowing a single drone pilot to coordinate the attacks of a squadron of robots"), and a backup fleet of flying buggies that act as suicide-bomber snipers. From the article: 'Picking through the dozens of systems in this briefing, many of which will be flight-tested within five years, there's a clear set of goals: build smaller, even microscopic drones with smaller weapons that can hunt in swarms and engage targets in the close quarters of urban battlefields. And hunt as soon as possible.'"
Esquire the Magazine. (Score:4, Interesting)
This one.
The greatest karaoke song of all time.
How the american man "really" spends his day.
Not sure that I would put all my magical beans into that lone basket.
Re: (Score:2)
However, a second reference which were to collaborate the esquire.com article might have been in order since I'm not sure that esquire.com has anybody on staff that one could call informed in the field.
loss of ressources (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:loss of ressources (Score:5, Insightful)
We have the same thig in the U.S. (Score:2, Interesting)
Just last weekend I went to the American Modelers Association's Futaba Extreme Flight Championships. It was basically figure skating for R/C aircraft done to music.
The fixed wing aircraft were impressive for the things they could do that their bigger piloted cousins could never do (such as nose-up hovering). But the real eye openers were the helicopters.
The small R/C helicopters in those experienced fifteen-year-old hands could pretty much do anything you could think of: Instant transitions between verti
Re:loss of ressources (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
It's modern technology, Bobby!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:only a matter of time (Score:4, Interesting)
It's only a matter of time before anybody, anywhere in the world can be picked off by a robot without any warning.
Correct, and the vile idiots designing and deploying these systems for the United States should be asking themselves, "How will I feel when one of them kills an American president?"
Because they will. These are assassination machines, and the only thing that has kept assassination at bay as a first-line political tactic is the certainty that the assassin will die or get caught, and therefore be traceable back to their handlers.
The incredible thing, to me, is that we are still so far from a world of ubiquitous political assassination. The writing has been on the wall since the early '90's. And as is usual with these things, once the cycle of tactical violence has begun, it will be very, very difficult to stop. Even in cases where it is screamingly evident to absolutely anyone with two brain cells to rub together that more violence will never under any circumstances improve the situation, people on both sides keep doing it (I'm thinking of the Palestinian-Israeli situation, ON BOTH SIDES.)
So after the first presidential candidate dies, say around 2020, the urge to retaliate will be overwhelming. After that, it's tit-for-tat, all the way to hell.
It won't be the parties doing the killing, either. These things are, or should be, relatively cheap, and the programming is not that difficult. The only reason they are currently expensive is that it is the US government doing it. An "open source" killer robot drone would cost at most a few thousand bucks (use an off-the shelf 1/10th scale RC model as the basic platform).
How would you like to live in the world when any nutjob with a few thousand bucks to spare can assassinate anyone? Because that's the world you'll be living in, soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:only a matter of time (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It is only a matter of time, and it doesn't matter if the U.S. government does it first or not. Admittedly, throwing money at the problem accelerates the process, but it's going to happen regardless. As you pointed out, once the R&D is done it won't be difficult or expensive to make them. The U.S. is not the only party interested in such devices -- do you propose to stop China from throwing money at the problem? These aren't big, ugly nukes, and a disarmament treaty isn't going to stop them from being m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These are assassination machines, and the only thing that has kept assassination at bay as a first-line political tactic is the certainty that the assassin will die or get caught, and therefore be traceable back to their handlers.
Nonsense. What stops assassination from being a matter of global policy is a sort of tacit mutual consent to not do it. When you order the assassination of a world leader, you make yourself vulnerable to the same thing. It's the same thing which kept nuclear weapons out of every war since the first one they were used in - the realization that you don't want to live in a world (and probably can't) in which that sort of thing becomes the Right Way To Do Things.
World Leaders (tm) don't want to be assassinated
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When a politician puts his own personal life on the line when he decides to do something nasty to another nation and decides that it is worth risking his personal life, it is vastly more likely that the cause is 'just'.
You're not thinking this through. You're assuming we can have pretty much the same kind of social and political structures that we have now in a world where political assassination is pretty much consequence-free for the perpetrators.
Take a look at English society during the first generation
someone has been watching scifi (Score:2)
If the technology gets in wrong hands (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Setting ourselves up for failure? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of these UAVs still require input from a human operator in order to receive authorization to fire. What happens when we fight anyone with moderate technical capabilities? The first thing that I would do when up against a drone army is to break out the RF jammer or a moderately powered microwave dish effectively denying the UAV access to the battlefield.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why waste jet fuel and HARMs? (Score:2)
Have drones working in pairs or larger swarms.
They lose contact - all drones switch to autopilot, start recording a video of the area, mapping the source of the jamming signal, while lifting off to a safe altitude and trying to recontact the HQ.
They then stream the video and the jammer's location to the HQ, where humans inspect the data, make a visual and/or thermal lock on the jammer and send one drone on a scripted assignment to take it out while others are used for visual confirmation from a safe altitud
Re:Setting ourselves up for failure? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The first thing that I would do when up against a drone army is to break out the RF jammer or a moderately powered microwave dish effectively denying the UAV access to the battlefield."
No chance UAV designers would take THAT into consideration! :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure this system will not be used when fighting a medium/high tech enemy. It's to minimize collateral damage when fighting against guerrillas, who tend to be badly equipped.
It's not the only tool in the arsenal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why Air Force Space Command has spent money investing in Wideband Global SATCOM, Advanced Extremely High Frequency, etc. Spot beams, EHF and powerful transmitters make any signal to a UAV extremely difficult to jam.
i see that you are familiar (Score:2)
with one of the plot points from terminator salvation
and it didn't even work in a fantasy movie
It's all fun and games until.... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Oz
Re:It's all fun and games until.... (Score:4, Funny)
You were there when we lured perverts into the spotlight with Chris Hansen... You were there when the "busts" went down. Now, join us as we team up with local law enforcement in an effort TO CATCH A PREDATOR DRONE!
BigLaunch42: Oh baby, you sound HOT.
Sparkleflames12: I am, honey.
BigLaunch42: Right out of the factory, you say?
Sparkleflames12: I'm so new my sparkles are still compartmentalized top-secret.
BigLaunch42: Is your operator at home?
Chris Hansen: Why don't you have a seat right over there.
Re:It's all fun and games until.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Almost all"??? Bullshit.
Lets start listing breakthroughs and developments that aren't militarized first:
heart surgery, anigioplasty, television, cellular phones, CAT scans, chemotherapy, vaccinations, dental implants, hearing aids, digital photography, digital video recording, dark matter, DNA, plate techtonics, AIDS medicine, gene therapy, mapping the human genome, HIV testing, the remote control, insulin, kidney dialysis, plasma television, flat panel television, MRIâ(TM)s, pacemakers, photovoltaic cells, antidepressants, robots in production lines, scanning electron microscopes, smoke detectors, the birth control pill, performing organ transplants, UPC codes, and Viagra
In addition practically all modern electronics were not built with the military in mind nor were they initially used for military. This includes things like multi-million transistor processors, gigabit memory chips, high resolution flat panel displays, gigabit eithernet, etc. The military has a different set of requirements before it uses technology than corporations. They demand a higher level of stability and reliability than a commercial enterprise requires. As such a corporation is going to use the highest performance CPUâ(TM)s on their workstations and desktops while inside a nuclear sub theyâ(TM)re going to still be using Pentium IIâ(TM)s that have been thoroughly evaluated and proven to work.
Commerce drives way more R&D development in this day and age than does the military. There are lots of exceptions because the military has a different set of requirements and therefore they research different things, but the time when the military drives "almost all scientific break-throughs" is long dead. The military still drives some scientific development, but itâ(TM)s a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the scientific community.
d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have many bad examples.
First of all, there is a difference between a final product and the original discovery. For example, plasma televisions are a product.
Secondly, during early days of semiconductor industry almost all US output was bought up by the military - to the degree that first consumer transistor radios were made by Japanese who were prohibited from having their own military. CCDs and digital cameras were widely used in satellite imaging - Hubble had at least two military twins that were po
The biggest issue of the 21st century... (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.
Nuclear power, biotech, AI, robotics, nanotech, the internet, and social bureaucracy -- each of these technologies could make the earth a paradise if developed for humane ends.
Albert Einstein said: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
The same is true for robotics, biotech, and the rest. Even smart networked watches. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And he was wrong.
Sorry, but we use Atomic power fro a lot more peaceful ends then harmful.
We know how terrible they are, and as such strive for diplomacy.
Ironic, if countries without nuclear weapons would stop trying to build nuclear weapon, eventually they would go away.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If we use atomic power for more peaceful ends than harmful (like in medicine, or for structural analysis with x-rays), it is precisely because of aspects of the collective human heart that Einstein referred to. A lot of people out there are trying. But it might have been hard to imagine that in the 1940s. Examples are in this book:
"Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement In the World Came Into Being and Why No One Saw it Coming"
http://www.blessedunrest.com/ [blessedunrest.com]
"Paul Hawken has spent over a decad
Re: (Score:2)
"Post scarcity". Is that geekspeak for "technology will fix everything"?
If you figure out a way for technology to eliminate the scarcity of something as simple as water [whyfiles.org], then I will begin to take this concept seriously. Until then, it's more Wired Magazine nonsense, totally disconnected from the real world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.
Some things may not be scarce with the advancement of technology, but I would say it would certainly take a pretty big leap in technology to make the land between Israel and Palistine "non-scarce" (for example).
This stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
This stuff needs to be treated like nuclear weapons in terms of international condemnation. It is much harder to determine if a rogue country is trying to build such technology and is therefore MORE dangerous then nuclear weapons.
Drone weaponry, especially the microscopic crap they are dreaming about (but seriously working on), are just as dangerous as biological weaponry. Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.
I don't care if it IS us that will have this technology. It needs to be stopped before we have ourselves another Cold-War, or worse, a real war.
I don't trust ANYONE with this tech.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
GO live in a cave.
This tech works both ways.
And they are controlled, so yeah, borders will matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.
But everyone will have this technology, including the Timothy McVeigh clone down the street who thinks some strange collective entity he calls "the gubmint" should be attacked by force of arms. He will therefore send these assassination machines out to kill government functionaries, as for some reason he thinks his imagined nemesis, "the gubmint", is somehow associated with the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So then his drones will fight the government drones, and the TV newsdrones will be recording it, and then the SWAT drones will turn up, and then the blogger drones, and before you know it some smart-alec kid's wearing an EVA-01 suit and that's when things get *really* out of hand.
borders, sovereignty, nationalism (Score:2)
i view this as the enemy of peace, not the maintainer of it
a military technological development which leads to the inability of nations and states to maintain their integrity and borders seems like a good development to me
the world needs to move into a post-nationalistic world. so bring on the military technology which would destroy national integrity and borders. these are artificial constructs which render decisions based on tribalism and ethnocentrism. destroy all nations
i don't know (Score:2)
seems to me the iranian people are doing a better job of that right now than i ever could ;-)
perhaps you should learn something about exactly what, not i have been saying, but what the iranian people are now saying, no?
Manned or Unmanned? (Score:2)
Inquiring minds [npr.org] want to know!
BORING (Score:2)
Ian M. Banks (Score:2)
Death to Dust Bunnies! (Score:2)
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"refuse to commit atrocities when ordered to do so"
robots follow their programming. Wwhen they get the command to commit atrocities, they will do so without any hesitation, because machines do not hesitate.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:5, Funny)
Unless they run on Microsoft :)
Smartship (Score:4, Informative)
Because it is believed that a Microsoft-based machine will likely have an error/crash, thus causing hesitation, such as happened with the USS Yorktown [wikipedia.org] for a couple of hours.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't ever testify about the horrors of war, refuse to commit atrocities when ordered to do so, or have to deal with PTSD afterward.
Except these aren't robots - they're remote controlled. The controllers do see the horrors of war and can get PTSD even though their lives were not at risk. And ordering these remote controlled UAVs to commit atrocities seems like a way to make sure the court martial finds you guilty - their sensor input can probably be recorded for evidence.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. It's even easier to dehumanize your enemy when they exist only on a computer screen. And dehumanizing your enemy is what it's all about. They're not "people", they're "terrorists" or whatever word you've conditioned people to use as a substitute for thought. The article says around 650 people have been assassinated in Pakistan by US forces so far. No trials, no declaration of warfare, not even a tactical need to seize a position. Just US drones flying into another country and shooting people who are inconvenient. Disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This argument is a slippery slope; taken to its logical extreme, it would support the idea that the only kind of war should be total war of extermination, as bloody and brutal as possible. Unless you're willing to argue for that, if you want to draw the line somewhere in the middle, you'll have to argue for that specific position - using some other arguments.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
Or the other option is we could stop killing each other.
Sure we could. But I don't trust you, so I'm gonna have to ask you to drop the gun first. Once you do that, I'll drop my own, too... I promise! Honest!
to stop killing each other (Score:4, Insightful)
all you have to do is:
1. stop people believing in something
2. stop people from having passions in their beliefs
war and love are permanent aspects of mankind, two sides of a coin. you can't have one without the other. both are immutable unavoidable implications of having passion in something. we will never stop waging war, or love, as long as we exist as a species
Re: (Score:2)
1. stop people believing in something
The only thing you have to stop people from believing in is their right to impose their beliefs on others. Whether it be Islamists trying to convert the world into a Sharia state, or the U.S. trying to 'help' foreign countries be democratic, no good comes of meddling in others' affairs. Sadly it's one of the most basic human endeavours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. stop people believing in something
The only thing you have to stop people from believing in is their right to impose their beliefs on others. Whether it be Islamists trying to convert the world into a Sharia state, or the U.S. trying to 'help' foreign countries be democratic, no good comes of meddling in others' affairs. Sadly it's one of the most basic human endeavours.
OK, but what do you do if a tyrannical government is forcing its "beliefs" on a powerless populace that doesn't want them? Do you stand by and watch innocent men, women and children be forced into state sponsored slavery and/or get slaughtered by the thousands or millions? Do you turn your head when genocide takes place even though you have the power to stop it?
Most wars are not started by one state wanting to force its way of life on the population of another state. Most wars happen for resources and li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, so how are north Korea, Rwanda, and Darfur these days? How about that Taliban? We don't seem to care that much about 'other' people.
N. Korea, Rwanda and Darfur are all excellent examples of where we either didn't get involved or didn't finish the job. And yeah, they all suck. As for the Taliban, they are the guys that repressed the masses and harbored the guy that attacked us. So, the worse off the Taliban is, the better for us, and the better for the people of Afghanistan (most of them, anyway).
So how about examples of countries where the US/UN intervened and saw the job through to completion? Japan and Germany are the first two th
Re: (Score:2)
The Kuwaitis love us!
Of course they do - they slant drill into Iraq, Saddam bitchslaps them, and we go roll over him after telling him we wouldn't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Kuwaitis love us!
Of course they do - they slant drill into Iraq, Saddam bitchslaps them, and we go roll over him after telling him we wouldn't.
That is one of the bullshit excuses Saddam used to invade Kuwait. Of course, you believe it because a guy that rapes [wnd.com] the wives of the political opposition and sends the video to her kids has so much credibility. But I'll let it stand because I was talking about the people who live in Kuwait. This doesn't just mean the sheiks in their Rolls, but the Bangladeshi workers, the Bedouins, the jewelry store owners, the guy selling pots, pans and prayer rugs and so on. These guys didn't (supposedly) "slant dril
there are a number of reasons why the usa invaded (Score:3, Insightful)
but you cherry pick the reasons that support your tired cynicism
you have a prejudice, and you pick the reasons that support your prejudice, and you don't bother to examine alternate reasons, equally valid, and possibly arrive at alternate conclusions about what truly motivates nations and people in a dominant fashion
you are a propaganda victim. propaganda never lies. it merely traffics in half-truths: small bits and pieces of the overall puzzle, examined in isolation, to arrive at conclusions that are out o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The more "harmless" wars start to look, the easier it will be for politicians to convince the public to go to war.
One could argue that the opposite has been seen over the past century, as mobilization of antiwar sentiment happens earlier and earlier over the course of progressively less costly wars (in terms of American casualties). I would argue that the effects of mass media far out-trump an effective military when it comes to gaining popular support.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:5, Informative)
"Look at how itchy a trigger finger our "all volunteer" army has given US Presidents. "What do I care? It's not MY kid."
That statement ignores the many and frequent interventions, wars, and military actions before the advent of the Volunteer Force. Google ye some Smedley Butler for examples. :)
There isn't evidence that the politicians sending the military to war don't care about the troops, even if they mismanage them sometimes due to situational ignorance. The military itself during the pre-volunteer days often treated troops badly, and now that it must compete for recruits standards of living have _greatly_ improved.
Casualties are far more controversial than during the Cold War, and vast amounts have been invested in protecting troops. (Going into Iraq under-armored was provably and specifically the fault of the military, not the politicos. The Army refused to learn from Mogadishu years before.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but this means dewer men and women getting hurt and killed.
War has improved dramatically since WWII
Fewer deaths, more precision, fewer ancillary casualties.
It's not greate, but is is a lot better.
Ever notice how it's gotten 'easier' yet there aren't any world wars?
Not to down play the efforts of the men an women in are armed forces, but it sure take a lot fewer of them to do the job.
Why we need less military (Score:2)
Not to down play the efforts of the men an women in are armed forces, but it sure take a lot fewer of them to do the job.
Part of it is technological progress. But a lot of it is the nature of our enemies. In WWII we fought industrialized nation states. They weren't quite as industrialized as the US, but it was a close call.
Today we fight a bunch of losers who couldn't even build an effective industry and military. They use guerrilla warfare, which is notoriously ineffective, because it's the best they can d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They use guerrilla warfare, which is notoriously ineffective, because it's the best they can do.
It's what the who now? Guerrilla warfare is a P.R. and resource-denial strategy rather than an invasion strategy. That doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly effective, which is why the behemoth that is the U.S. military can't 'beat' a bunch of scruffy extremists hiding in schools and hospitals. The problem with guerrilla warfare is a moral one - in order to engage in it you need to be willing to get a lot of innocent people killed.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with guerrilla warfare is a moral one - in order to engage in it you need to be willing to get a lot of innocent people killed.
Exactly. It relies on your opponent being civilized. Great if you're fighting the US and maybe Britain. Might work if you're fighting the USSR, and they're at the end of a long logistics line, and their system is almost rotten to the point of collapse.
Other than that, how many cases of guerrilla warfare working do you know? Viet Nam is one, because of the US media. Argua
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe that's the goal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perpetual, low-level war.
With Oceania, no doubt. After all, we have always been at war with Oceania.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yea, if we can just convince both sides in a war to let the machines fight it out, we can cure war forever.
Well, until the machines form a union anyway.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But if the technology requires a certain level of infrastructure, then the poeple we act against may not have robots. SO we will win.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree it's better. Until now we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.
Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say the large numbers of civilians killed in conflict since WWII would disagree with you. There's been a lot of examples throughout history of making states capitulate by attacking civilian populations, but the axis & allied carpet bombing campaigns in Europe really put the idea in motion that civilians were responsible for the war making machine, so to kill the machine you need to take out the capability of making tanks, bullets, ball bearings, gas, etc. Once you go that far, why stop at the factories? Why not bomb the workers in the factories directly at their homes.
Having robots do the bombing doesn't change any of this, its just that one side has a lot less to lose.
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a continuation of the changes that began with the first mechanized warfare, and robotic warfare is indeed worse than what we have now.
When soldiers fought one-on-one the only way to pacify your enemy was to kill, capture or otherwise eliminate his soldiers. When we started fighting wars with machines, industrial power and the civilians that were responsible for it became more important. You could still win by killing or capturing the other guy's soldiers, but now you could also win by depriving them of the machines they needed to fight effectively. That means taking out factories or convincing the civilians that work in them that they don't want to be at war anymore. When we fight with only machines, no men involved, the only option will be to destroy the civilian's will or ability to fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Becasue we continue to make war more human.
The numbers of civilian killed sine WWII pales compared to other wars.
"Why not bomb the workers in the factories directly at their homes."
Because it's not humane.
we try to avoid that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed my point (not that my comment was particularly well crafted). The other reply to me hit it right on - the more we rely on machines and take the human aspect out of combat the more we'll need to destroy civilian populations to truly deprive the enemy of the will/ability to fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Douhet's theories on using air power to cow the civilian populace were proven wrong by WW2. The Germans didn't lose the will to fight by having their cities destroyed around them, nor did the Japanese or the Russians.
HAVE NO FEAR! (Score:2)
Robot drones patrolling the neighborhoods will protect little Johny.
Re: (Score:2)
So with no soldiers to kill, it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure ...
I agree it's better. Until now we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.
Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport.
Except that war between major powers capable of fielding robot armies is the least likely kind of war that we'll be fighting. In particular it's not the war that these drones are being built for.
In that context, it'll be our robots vs t
Re:I for one welcome our robotic overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise with these drones and robots and what have you. The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground. Sure, it's not as bad as nukes, but to me it seems like a technology that is as game changing and disruptive.
Re: (Score:2)
Drop a fake on into the middle of the capital. Use everything else you would in a real nuclear bomb and put the usual nuclear decals on it. Maybe add a parachute deployment system or something so it'll land relatively intact.
Should scare the shit out of the civilian population without any direct casualties. And I really really doubt anyone will be walking up close to it right away.
As an added bonus
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is to have robots kill people...
Impossible. Robots don't kill people. People kill people.... I've been waiting to say that for a long time so just forget I was here.
Killing massive amounts of people (Score:4, Informative)
The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground
Did you read the article? The point of this technology is to kill targeted people with as little collateral damage (= dead innocents) as possible. To quote the article:
Instead of dropping Hellfires or a 500-pound bomb on an insurgent hideout, one or more Suburb Warriors could fire a volley of mini-missiles at confirmed targets, without vaporizing the wedding reception next door.
Re: (Score:2)
Souldn't this stuff make terrorism WORSE?? (Score:2)
After all, this would make more compelling to attack soft targets and use terrorist tactics. Even using robots and modern tech, it is really hard to have full surveillance in a city; and without human inteligence, the risk of hitting the wrong target goes up. Certainly, instead of blowing up a wedding party, the operators of this weapons could kill only the groom, but you still will end with a bunch of angry people not willing to support your policies and diminish the legitimacy of the local government.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You think weapons have changed anything? You're fucking retarded. Why does England have such a problem with knife violence. Weapons don't cause violence, encourage violence, or really do anything except change the shape of the wound. People cause violence.
Re: (Score:2)
The Air Force is a step ahead of you. They already have UAVs like the RQ-11 Raven [af.mil], which is launched by hand and weighs about 5 pounds. It can't carry weapons, but then, that's what more powerful UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper [af.mil] are for.
Re: (Score:2)