Effectivness of Drone Warfare Today and in the Past

[ATP]

But can they put the right sensors on those trucks?
We know they have problems with thermals even for their multi million dollar tanks.

Good question.But,even if it is impossible,China could deliver sensors for Moscov,and USA for Ukraine.
Unfortunatelly,i do not knew how many.

 

[Marduk]

One of smarter, potentially large scale counters to drone threat emerging - a sight that gets close to sci-fi smartguns in allowing every infantryman's rifle to become an anti-drone gun.

 

[Bassoe]

And that's part of the problem, the political will.

The people then failed to sell it as to why lives should be used up to continue fighting.

Wasting money's easier than the pine boxes coming home.

They still have that problem now even if technology does a lot to mitigate these problems encountered in foreign adventures to get VIP kills.

Anyone that actually has the technological solution to a tiring war bordering on another Vietnam will be a very rich weapon salesman.

Drone attacks are great for the opposer of a guerrilla war. They mean that there is a lower requirement for troops, and means that troops aren't being killed. This really blunts the anti war cause, as the war isn't directly harming many Americans anymore, which means we are much more capable of winning wars of attrition.

The problem with this logic being, drones aren't completely capable of replacing footsoldiers yet. The whole "nobody's won a war entirely with airpower" argument all over again.

The possibility of technology advancing to allow the creation of fully autonomous armies capable of occupying countries against guerrilla resistance indefinitely with dead "soldiers" meaning another check for the military-industry complex for another killbot rather than unpopular dissent on the homefront opens up an even bigger problem, what's stopping the state from turning said drones on their own people, rendering morale and popular will irreverent in an entirely different way?

Imperial boomerang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Marduk]

The problem with this logic being, drones aren't completely capable of replacing footsoldiers yet. The whole "nobody's won a war entirely with airpower" argument all over again.

The possibility of technology advancing to allow the creation of fully autonomous armies capable of occupying countries against guerrilla resistance indefinitely with dead "soldiers" meaning another check for the military-industry complex for another killbot rather than unpopular dissent on the homefront opens up an even bigger problem, what's stopping the state from turning said drones on their own people, rendering morale and popular will irreverent in an entirely different way?

Imperial boomerang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

>Foucault
One of the major ideologues of modern progressive left, complete with prototype of modern leftist whining about muh militarized police, in 1976, just in case anyone didn't get the association.

So to me it seems more like bullshit leftist concerning about "military industrial complex".
North Korea was doing perfectly well with oppressing its own population totally, without going beyond the most shit-tastic of cold war era tech, if the government is willing to go that far.
One thing is certain, we would much rather have our own governments to be the first ones with armies of killbots, than deal with the fact that the CCP has an army of killbots and sells spare ones to whoever they feel like and we don't.

 

[Bassoe]

we would much rather have our own governments to be the first ones with armies of killbots

Genuine question, why? Any given government's oppressiveness is dependent on what it can get away with. American oligarchs with an invulnerable defense against revolt would be functionally identical to Chinese ones.

One of my long term fears is for when large portions of the military - particularly ground forces - are automated. Because of the hard limitations of human beings, such a force could conceivably be far more lethal than human soldiers, while also being unfailingly loyal to its superiors. When the killing power of the state rests in the hands of a few elites, with no fear of disobedience, you're just the whims of the leadership away from tyranny.

When Skynet turns the Terminators loose on American citizens, rather than the start of the robot rebellion it will just be the machines following orders.

 

[Marduk]

Genuine question, why? Any given government's oppressiveness is dependent on what it can get away with. American oligarchs with an invulnerable defense against revolt would be functionally identical to Chinese ones.

Chinese ones with an invulnerable defense against revolt would be worse than North Korean ones.

 

[Bassoe]

My hypothesis being, goverments only limit their oppressiveness when forced by the necessity to maintain the loyalty of their citizens. Or did you think it was coincidence that Enlightenment thinking flourished right with the era in which military and industrial force was a numbers game dependent on soldiers and manufacturing workers? Any goverment which didn't need labor or fear revolt would be oppressive, any which did would treat their citizenry comparatively better.

 

[Marduk]

My hypothesis being, goverments only limit their oppressiveness when forced by the necessity to maintain the loyalty of their citizens. Or did you think it was coincidence that Enlightenment thinking flourished right with the era in which military and industrial force was a numbers game dependent on soldiers and manufacturing workers? Any goverment which didn't need labor or fear revolt would be oppressive, any which did would treat their citizenry comparatively better.

It didn't happen in all governments, even though the technological and economic demands were the same.
Even ancient times had democracies and republics alongside hardline dictatorships.
It's just not that simple.