Drone warfare vs manned spacecraft in sci-fi

[Darth Wong]

The arguments in favour of drone warfare have all been made here many times before, and they've been made all the more compelling in light of the real-life ascendance of drone warfare as the tactic of choice in today's military actions.

This begs the question: how do we rationalize the very heavy reliance upon manned spacecraft and away missions in science fiction? Is there some point where we must simply give up and say that the writers didn't see it coming?

[Nephtys]

Very easily. Nobody can say that adaptive decision making AIs are easy or even possible. For some mission that requires a great deal of discretion, such as a long range independent flight or away mission, you're going to need something that can make calls on really incomplete data. This would of course, require either unfeasible or unreliable communications and control, else you'd just have an operator doing these sorts of things. We use drone aircraft, because the communications latency is measured in seconds or less. With a spacecraft, who knows how long it could be?

On a long range mission, repair and maintenance also become a concern. Having completely automated repair robots again, would require very capable AI and robot design, to the point where you're basically replicating an entire human engineer.

In a hard or near-future sci-fi setting with limited magic technology and mass allotment becomes an issue, you may have smaller crews, but unless AI technology is extremely advanced, you're going to need at least some people.

In soft or far future/space opera sci-fi levels of technology, suddenly the extra payload problem goes away, which makes humans less costly relatively to post on ships.

[Gunhead]

That's a pretty big area to cover, but first thing that comes to mind what drones lack is the ability to get close to people. This doesn't mean exclusively some kind of first contact scenario, though it is included in this. Be it military foot patrols gauging hearts and minds to just keeping in touch with the feelings of foreign community, nothing beats the human element which we are a far far away from replicating with any sort of machine.
If we are talking purely about murder killing the shit out of everyone, manned planes / vehicles become harder to explain and even if those are still needed, the drones would still hold a very prominent role at least in the observation / strike role they hold today. Drones are breaking into law enforcement too in the near future or maybe I should say more visibly and in greater numbers.
I think space is where SF writers dropped the ball and I'm ignoring all laws of drama etc. since this is a pure tech discussion. Space is drone country. There is not question about that. I think the biggest issue is that no matter how advanced the tech in a SF setting is, sending people instead of drones requires the author to write in some sort excuse or reason to do this. Super tech makes the drones better too, so when we get to a point where it's feasible to send a man to do a job we are using drones now, the drone would still be the best solution.
If we totally ignore any type of space combat, drones are still if not more so the go to tool in space. No need to risk lives, high endurance etc. all the reasons why some jobs are given to drones today.
I don't think rationalizing manned spacecraft really works, nor has it really worked in a long time. I'm totally fine it being done in the name of drama etc. But someone would have to really come up with something amazing to just to make manned spacecrafts equal to drones without made up magic science. This is not to say it's hard to come up with specific instances where having a manned spacecraft would be more desirable to a drone, but if we are talking about where the current trend is pointing, trying to claim overall superiority for manned spacecraft is to my mind an impossible feat.

-Gunhead

[Sidewinder]

If we are talking purely about murder killing the shit out of everyone, manned planes / vehicles become harder to explain and even if those are still needed, the drones would still hold a very prominent role at least in the observation / strike role they hold today.

Contemporary "drones" are actually remotely piloted vehicles, and require the human operator's input to use weapons; that's because we still don't trust machines to decide who lives and who dies. The problem isn't just fear of a robot uprising, like The Terminator; the problem is accountability for the wrong decisions. If a human pilot or "drone" operator kills an innocent person, the pilot or operator must bear responsibility for his actions, which may include a court martial and judicial punishment. If an artificial intelligence kills an innocent person, who bears responsibility? The military leader who authorized the machine's use? The machine's manufacturer, for faulty programming? The government of the nation the machine was manufactured in, for faulty legislation of AI programming?

I think space is where SF writers dropped the ball and I'm ignoring all laws of drama etc. since this is a pure tech discussion. Space is drone country. There is not question about that. I think the biggest issue is that no matter how advanced the tech in a SF setting is, sending people instead of drones requires the author to write in some sort excuse or reason to do this. Super tech makes the drones better too, so when we get to a point where it's feasible to send a man to do a job we are using drones now, the drone would still be the best solution.
If we totally ignore any type of space combat, drones are still if not more so the go to tool in space. No need to risk lives, high endurance etc. all the reasons why some jobs are given to drones today.
I don't think rationalizing manned spacecraft really works, nor has it really worked in a long time. I'm totally fine it being done in the name of drama etc. But someone would have to really come up with something amazing to just to make manned spacecrafts equal to drones without made up magic science. This is not to say it's hard to come up with specific instances where having a manned spacecraft would be more desirable to a drone, but if we are talking about where the current trend is pointing, trying to claim overall superiority for manned spacecraft is to my mind an impossible feat.

You underestimate the appeal of sending humans to another world, i.e., the "drama." We celebrate human achievements, but will one by a creature of a different species be equally celebrated? If a remotely operated or AI-controlled vehicle set the land speed record, would we honor it the way we honored Richard Noble? If the machine was destroyed in a failed attempt at the record, would we mourn it the way we mourned Steve Fossett?

Then there's the practical issues Nephtys mentioned, which would be relevant if we want to exploit a planet's resources, e.g., mine Mars for uranium. Can AI advance to the point where no human supervision is needed for automated mining? What about transportation, i.e., getting the ore from Mars to Earth? Can we REALLY trust artificial intelligence not to screw up while piloting the cargo rocket, miss the space station where the ore was to be processed, and then dump uranium into Earth's atmosphere? (Yes, a human pilot can screw up as well, but then there's less of an issue with accountability, i.e., who to fine, sue, and punish for for the screwup.)

[Formless]

Pre-emptive ghetto edit: it looks like the ideas in this post have been ninja'd.

Unmanned craft aren't a completely new idea, at least not in sci-fi. There is a good old episode of Star Trek TOS where Kirk and his crew face the possibility of an experimental computer taking over their jobs. In the end, the computer goes haywire because it was programmed to be a little too human, and ends up blowing up an also unmanned civilian craft as a mistake during its test run. It then fires upon other allied vehicles because it fears for its own safety after the first incident. Kirk ends up using its sense of guilt after it kills real people to make it suicidal so they can unplug it (because somehow in Star Trek there is never a convenient off switch or power cable you can just pull out when the computer goes insane).

That might sound ridiculous, but it does raise an interesting point against using completely unnamed combat vehicles-- the issue of accountability. Certainly it will be an issue once lawyers and media outlets are involved. If the spaceship shoots civilian ships and infrastructure, even if there are no casualties, who owns up to it? And how do you correct a malfunction when the vehicle is so far away? After all, if there is ever going to be something worth fighting for in space then we can't assume a clutter free environment with only empty space and battle drones lined up for a game of explosive chess. There will be civilian habitats, mining operations, manufacturing infrastructure, communication hubs, scientific research stations, neutral planetary orbits, and everything else needed to bring civilization into space. And this is without factoring in the likelihood that multiple sovereign nations or similar entities, many of which will be neutral factions, are going to have orbital properties around the sun which further complicates the battle lines.

Mind you, there are hybrid solutions, such as having the "ground control" located in a second-line spacecraft that can sit just outside of the battle zone in relative safety. But that's not as safe a place to be as a true ground station, as battle lines can shift and previously safe zones suddenly become irradiated zones.

[Cykeisme]

Does the term "drone" imply AI-controlled unmanned craft, or does it refer to remotely-controlled unmanned craft?
The distinction is important because each of the two pose an entirely separate set of limitations to surmount, and advantages to benefit from.

Granted, since we're looking at this purely from a realistic tech perspective, without doubt many of the manned operations we've seen in sci-fi could be easily supplanted with either AI or RC drones, but I think for purposes of discussion it'll be good to lay this down first.

[Nephtys]

The advantages of drones now lie entirely in the cost savings in both mass and expense related to pilots. We haven't really even gone into exploiting a performance advantage yet, only endurance and disposability.

In a scifi setting however, we're generally talking about long duration ships. Less akin to aircraft, and more to naval vessels. A starship isn't very exciting if it's mission away from base only ever lasts 48 hours for example. So really, you're looking at a fully autonomous destroyer or cruiser. That runs smack dab in the middle of the maintenance issue at how complex a piece of equipment a naval warship is.

Likewise, due to the massive size of the craft and it's fuel, weapons and payload requirements, the cost of stationing some people aboard isn't that high anymore. They take up a lower percentage of it's full payload than a pilot would on a small airplane. Take this analogy to space, and you've got a perfectly good reason to use manned large craft, even without going into accountability or decision making.

Now, a drone proponent may say that unmanned vessels could have a serious performance edge from mass savings. Well, do you really need every scrap of performance out of a cruising warship? Half of the job of starships in sci-fi are related to something besides fighting as hard as possible.

[Connor MacLeod]

The only thing I can think to contribute to the discussion ATM is that before discussing the solution, we have to lay out the issues pertaining to the 'problem.' Alot of things I notice when it comes to discussions or arguments over what is or isn't possible in sci fi, or how to explain something is... it depends entirely on the sort of tech base your envisioning. Not just how advanced you are, but how the tech develops. And that's all very speculative, open ended stuff, and its stuff I've also noticed people disagree on quite a bit. Whether its 'stealth in space' or 'drones/robots in warfare' or space fighters or whatever. Hell the whole 'hard sci fi' argument has been recurring and noone can seem to agree what exactly that comprises (other than its 'hard'.)

I'm actually to the point where I find finding an explanation is easy as long as you're not bogging yourself down too much by needing/requiring things to be one certain way. Its usually teh assumptions like 'near future tech' where the complications set in.

I'm just throwing this out because I can envision this being the sort of conversation where people get into arguments over what is and isn't possible/likely, and what avenues science can/will take, and everyone differs lke that. we've had that issue with the stealth in space before, too. Probably something like arguing over AIs or some shit.

[Stark]

Some scifi has had extremely high performance drones in combat for ages. In some settings, simple remote piloted engines with a gun on are so high performance non-Jedi have basically no chance. In others, the AI craft are so powerful they're intentionally crippled to prevent them going nuts and when operating independently can defeat human piloted craft easily.

Serious speculative scifi also embraces both drones and AI business. I dont doubt that mainstream scifi will embrace the drone pilot with his 360 controller rather than the WW2 carrier pilot some time soon n

[Connor MacLeod]

Well one of the things that is creeping in already is 'depends on how they intend to be used'. I mean in cases where contact or communication is needed seems to be one example. I imagine if you have a universe without the super duper super-intelligent GOD-AI, or just a universe where there is distrust or discrimination against super intelligent computers, you may want a human element in the loop, and that may involve direct contact too for decision making purposes. Or maybe the human/AIs are in partnership and you need a human there to represent the human side of things.

That's again just speculation, and its hardly comprehensive.


Kinda reminds me of the 'robots vs organic troops' kick I was on some time back. I was all on this 'ROBOTS ARE SUPERIOR' and then someone pointed out to me 'well kinda but not in a way' because organic stuff does have some advantages WRT wear and tear and stuff.. at least out in the field. Living things grow and only need food and water and sleep and exercise to maintain themselves, whereas a robot needs machined spare parts, batteries, etc. There could be cases where one is more viable than the other depending on the tech base and resource availability.

[Gunhead]

Contemporary "drones" are actually remotely piloted vehicles, and require the human operator's input to use weapons; that's because we still don't trust machines to decide who lives and who dies. The problem isn't just fear of a robot uprising, like The Terminator; the problem is accountability for the wrong decisions. If a human pilot or "drone" operator kills an innocent person, the pilot or operator must bear responsibility for his actions, which may include a court martial and judicial punishment. If an artificial intelligence kills an innocent person, who bears responsibility? The military leader who authorized the machine's use? The machine's manufacturer, for faulty programming? The government of the nation the machine was manufactured in, for faulty legislation of AI programming?

That's just an issue of by who, at what point and to what extent the go / no go code is given. We now have manual operators to do that who follow set guidelines and ultimately fire the weapon. This will not probably change for some time but lets be honest, muddling the accountability issue would be seen as a bonus to many who are responsible for executing drone attacks today. I make no real distinction between an AI drone or human controlled one. Manned vehicle etc. means the person operating the vehicle is physically inside it. Drone is either remotely controlled or under AI control. I don't think anyone here is seriously concerned about Terminator style uprising either as that discussion would require people to make far reaching assumptions about AIs etc. And since this thread is not about specific SF setting or making far flung predictions I think the split is sufficient.

You underestimate the appeal of sending humans to another world, i.e., the "drama." We celebrate human achievements, but will one by a creature of a different species be equally celebrated? If a remotely operated or AI-controlled vehicle set the land speed record, would we honor it the way we honored Richard Noble? If the machine was destroyed in a failed attempt at the record, would we mourn it the way we mourned Steve Fossett?

Then there's the practical issues Nephtys mentioned, which would be relevant if we want to exploit a planet's resources, e.g., mine Mars for uranium. Can AI advance to the point where no human supervision is needed for automated mining? What about transportation, i.e., getting the ore from Mars to Earth? Can we REALLY trust artificial intelligence not to screw up while piloting the cargo rocket, miss the space station where the ore was to be processed, and then dump uranium into Earth's atmosphere? (Yes, a human pilot can screw up as well, but then there's less of an issue with accountability, i.e., who to fine, sue, and punish for for the screwup.)

I understand the appeal angle and basically I agree, but what we also must consider is our fragile meat bodies simply cannot do certain feats machines can. So, to put another angle on that, I don't think we ever will stop pushing the limit, but I can easily see the day when we are building a craft just to put a man on the surface of a gas giant or we celebrate a drone for doing the same.
Doing something "just because" is in our nature but I do think it pretty much falls under what I said about inventing general examples where manned craft is more desirable than a drone.
As to practicality issues, hmm.. those very much depend on the technology available at the time, so if you ask can we REALLY? I can answer there's no other way.
I don't think human supervision will go away for a long time, since what we can do is make judgement calls based on available information, but this is still pretty much in the realm of go / no go I described earlier. Accountability issues are not a small matter, but I don't think there can be a discussion on theses either before we know what kind of tech base we are talking about.

-Gunhead

[Connor MacLeod]

A good way to put it might be 'is there a way to explain drones vs manned in sci fi that satisfies all views and interpretations on the matter.' to which I'd say, probably not, because there are some sci fi fans who are verey hardcore in what they think is the 'proper' way sci fi should be.

By and large though I'd say yes there is, it will just depend entirely on the route you take with it. People will either not care too much or be willing enough to accept most explanations. It's not much difference than 'can you have starfighters' or 'can you have power armor'. Coming up with the handwaves or explanations usually isn't the problem, its getting people to accept it where the problems creep in (eg expectations, preconceptions, etc.)

[Boeing 757]

The arguments in favour of drone warfare have all been made here many times before, and they've been made all the more compelling in light of the real-life ascendance of drone warfare as the tactic of choice in today's military actions.

This begs the question: how do we rationalize the very heavy reliance upon manned spacecraft and away missions in science fiction? Is there some point where we must simply give up and say that the writers didn't see it coming?

Yup, that's most likely part of the reason why. I think that many authors' lack of imagination and awareness over possible advances pertaining to unmanned vehicles may simply explain a large chunk of why we don't see more unmanned missions in sci-fi, but like others have touched upon already a leading cause for it might just simply be that many fans and readers may have difficulty in connecting with the characters in the story (or lack thereof), and that would be deemed simply as unacceptable by publishing firms in terms of profit. Their profession does consist of entertainment after all, and like all entertainers they are greatly influenced by modern thinking and current societal trends. I can well imagine that stories dealing mostly with unmanned combat are seen as risky by them, and thus we get an overabundance of stories with manned missions, even when some of these sci-fi universes already possess very advanced AIs that make biological lifeforms essentially obsolete.

I think that it needs to be stressed out that despite the ever growing number of drones and reliance on automation, we still live in a world wherein most of our vehicles and equipment have some human element overseeing the operation of most of our infrastructure. It's interesting to note that many sci-fis like Star Wars, Warhammer 40K, Dune and Foundation have automated machines that could likely undertake the role of human oversight without any reasonable doubt, but because of human mistrust directed against these machines, their role has been by and large limited mainly owing to the fear of what may happen should these machines assume more control over their societies.

And yet you're right, and I've always wondered also why this is. I've tried to look at my own mindset in regards to this issue. Speaking as a pilot, within the last few years there has been some talk about aircraft being automated and doing away with pilots altogether in an effort to reduce labor costs for airlines. While we're still far away from that point in time (thankfully for me!) not only because we currently lack the technology to achieve it, there is still this widely negative perception among the public that a machine can not be trusted to think of the needs of human life during normal operations and especially emergencies, so the big aircraft manufacturers really don't even want to waste their resources doing R&D, what with it looking bad and all regarding public relations.

In spite of that, we will definitely see more and more reliance upon automated systems in our daily lives in the upcoming decades, especially in the military and unmanned space flight. Once we bridge that hurtle towards its prevalency, I bet that we will undoubtedly witness a paradigm shift in sci-fi towards unmanned stuff being more commonplace.

[Ted C]

The arguments in favour of drone warfare have all been made here many times before, and they've been made all the more compelling in light of the real-life ascendance of drone warfare as the tactic of choice in today's military actions.

This begs the question: how do we rationalize the very heavy reliance upon manned spacecraft and away missions in science fiction? Is there some point where we must simply give up and say that the writers didn't see it coming?

Given the general paranoia about AI in science fiction, we can probably say that advanced civilizations are unwilling to trust AI's with powerful military hardware. That limits them to manned vehicles or RPVs.

Advanced jamming and/or hacking technology could then be used to explain the lack of RPVs. If remote control signals are unreliable, military vehicles will require living pilots.

[Nephtys]

I disagree entirely with 757. It's not an 'inevitability'. Yes, nobody wants to read about the life and drama about Nuclear Torpedo X603, but it's not simply a matter of 'this will happen'. It has to be appropriate to the setting, not only for the reader's perspective, but internal perspectives.

Yes, a Reader may be more interested in a human crew on a ship. But in the internal context, it could well make sense that there's actual effectiveness-related reasons to use a manned crew as well.

[ryacko]

People relate to people.
People do not relate to a turing machine.

Furthermore, will a computer ever be able to truly think like a person? People's brains are made up of numerous components, flooded with chemicals, balancing out impulses, desires, and expectations. And no one is quite sure how brains work or how medication precisely influences it.

Would a machine be able to comprehend morality, considering that our criminal justice system is filled with those that don't? Would a machine ever grasp the fuzzy logic that people have, the gut feeling that an instrument is incorrect? Would a machine be capable of designing a better machine? So far, computer programs are only as smart as the people who write them.

[Guardsman Bass]

How much can you "harden" the computer system on an autonomous drone against exposure to space-related issues, without major mass-penalty problems involved in shielding them? I ask because I've read that's partially why we couldn't send more capable computers aboard probes like Curiosity - the energy costs and back-ground radiation pose some limitations with regard to what you can send. It was prompted by this blog post.

That could be even worse in a setting with space warfare, if your opponents are deliberately blasting out radiation and other ways in battle designed to disrupt electronics. Stuff that might "only" give your human crews a heightened risk of cancer could severely damage the electronics on your ship.

I'm also in the same camp as Nephtys: we don't know where AI's limitations will fall. Or whether it would be cheaper in a particular setting to go Full Robot, as opposed to using "humans plus machines" on site. Cynically speaking, it might be cheaper for the man/machine combo to die/fail, as opposed to losing a full AI.

[Connor MacLeod]

*snip post for brevity*

No offense but I get this massive 'fucking stupid sci fi authors and their ability not to be more up to date on REALISM' vibe from your entire post. I mean, really? You're going to call authors 'unimaginative' simply because they don't read all the scientific updates to keep on the bleeding edge of what's possible?

I can't say I agree or find this even remotely true. Sci fi has and probably will always be speculative to varying degrees, and that means it sometimes misses the mark. Authors like Asimov and Doc Smith have failed to predict some very significant technologies sometimes (or make the wrong predictions) but this hardly destroys the value of their work or breaks suspension of disbelief (at least, it doesn't for me.) I imagine if you asked people ten or twenty years ago, they wouldn't have predicted the way technology has progressed by now. Hell I can't think of very many authors who have ever predicted any of that stuff pretty reliably. So it seems that worrying about it to any great degree is more problem is simply asking for more trouble than its really worth.

I simply view it in more of an 'alternate history' sort of manner - the way things developed in their universe has clearly diverged from the way its developed in ours.

Again what it comes down to is individual 'suspension of disbelief' which is a very subjective thing - some people simply won't care about the sorts of things other people do, and the problem with explaining this is finding an explanation that the majortiy of people can agree on (or ideally, everyone, but getting a consensus like that is even more difficult.) And I think at least as far as story goes, I'd forgive an author for not keeping 100% on the bleeding edge of scientific development if he's constructed an interesting story, setting, and characters anyhow.

Edit: I would also say its not quite true to say 'humans are always ore interesting than robots' as far as story goes, because this is once more a matter of 'how the author envisions the setting.' sci fi is chock full of interesting robots who have character or even are humanlike (from C3-PO and R2-D2 to R Daneel to Robbie the Robot, and there are countless others.) so it is quite possible to construct a story around 'likable' robots if the author wished to. It may not be precisely 'realistic' to do so, but you can have a story that doesnt involve humans that remains interesting and characterful.

[Connor MacLeod]

Another interesting article I saw just a bit ago. Its not about drones in space per se, but I think it could have interesting implications in general:

Drones with fricking LAZERS on their heads

The whole angle with 'how easy it is to order drone strikes' is actually one I never give much throught on. Do you want to have people having a plethora of heavily armed drones that could kill you without you even knowing it like that? So there could be legal implications that might limit the usage of drones in the future too.

[Sidewinder]

We now have manual operators to do that who follow set guidelines and ultimately fire the weapon. This will not probably change for some time but lets be honest, muddling the accountability issue would be seen as a bonus to many who are responsible for executing drone attacks today.

Muddling the accountability issue is NOT a bonus, because without a convenient scapegoat to pin the blame upon, the public will assume EVERYONE with the slightest part in the decision to use killer drones, is GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION. For example, if a border patrol drone fucks up and fires upon a civilian car, killing an influential senator who was driving back from a vacation in Baja California, then everyone involved in authorizing the drone's use- from the Border Patrol officer who said, "Give the drones authorization to use force to stop illegal immigration," to the secretary of whichever department runs the Border Patrol, maybe even the President for appointing this secretary- will feel the heat.

[Sea Skimmer]

Drones have not gained ascendance in real life over comparable manned platforms. Spending on manned systems makes a complete and utter joke of unmanned spending. FY2012 the US spent 54 billion dollars on new aircraft production, modifications to existing ones, and R&D for new stuff. Of that only 3.9 billion was for UAV production, and while some of the generic R&D budget was also for drones, this was still only a few billion total. In comparison the manned F-35 program alone spent 9.7 billion on R&D and production of just 32 jets. This from the nation that overwhelmingly leads the world in unmanned systems.

Drones can't take over until they can make reliable, independent decisions without any human imput what so ever, on a very wide range of subjects, not just the most important kill or don't kill one. In space doubly so given the slow speed of communications compared to the distances involved, which would make even a low level of human command impracticable. Even sci fi with FTL communications often puts limitations on it which would still make this an issue.

It isn't for nothing that the number one use of drones in real life remains information collection, and generally with passive rather then active sensors. Until a drone can in effect, run its own life, its only going to be an information gather and auxiliary weapon much the way a active homing SAM or a land mine is. We've known drones are great at these jobs for a long time; spy satellites for example are all highly advanced drones and always have been, though they are not commonly referred to as such. Drones are good for such jobs because they can have superior endurance to human platforms, and that remains the focus of aircraft drone advantages.

The bigger and more complex a platform becomes though, the less tangible the advantage of automation becomes, because adding on the space for at least a small human decision making crew becomes less and less relevant. Compare the cockpit of a fight to the cockpit of a B-2 bomber for example. On a fighter its a big chunk of space, on a bomber, do we even care? That's why the US is designing a new manned bomber now. Meanwhile the more systems you have, the more weapons, more situations you wish to face, the more the flexibility of a human crew is useful in the first place. You also might need to rescue someone in space for example, it'd be nice if you had a habitable place to put them! The issue of maintenance also comes, making robots that can replicate human versatility is a pain, and you still need space for access anyway. Real life unmanned systems have proven if anything, more expensive to maintain then manned systems.

I do think sci fi tends to overload ships with people, though then some sci fi also has comically small crews claims for how big ships really are like Star Wars, but the advantages of taking humans completely out of the space war equation is not a foregone conclusion at all. A mixture of platforms seems most likely, and that's what everyone is aiming for today.

[Gunhead]

Muddling the accountability issue is NOT a bonus, because without a convenient scapegoat to pin the blame upon, the public will assume EVERYONE with the slightest part in the decision to use killer drones, is GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION. For example, if a border patrol drone fucks up and fires upon a civilian car, killing an influential senator who was driving back from a vacation in Baja California, then everyone involved in authorizing the drone's use- from the Border Patrol officer who said, "Give the drones authorization to use force to stop illegal immigration," to the secretary of whichever department runs the Border Patrol, maybe even the President for appointing this secretary- will feel the heat.

That's happening today already and is basically what I meant. If the faction controlling the drone can reasonably blame the manufacturer, software company etc. for it to escape the blame, you can be damned sure they'll do it or they can use the same to feed a convenient scapegoat to the the courts / public to keep their precious drones. Pulling shit like this is easier when it's unclear who is responsible of what exactly.
Now so far there hasn't been any accidental high profile deaths from drone attacks, but when and if this happens you can bet we'll see people bending over backwards to defend the drone program. As of late there has been calls to shine a light on who exactly is responsible and what of in U.S when it comes to drones, but I don't see anything concrete being done about it. Which is hardly surprising since for now they're just killing brown people in Iraq and Afganistan most notably, but it's just indicative of people's reluctance to give up the convenient smoke screen they already have in place.

That is to say I'm personally very much in favor of more transparency and accountability when it comes to drones as their use is increasing.

-Gunhead

[Zinegata]

Drones can't take over until they can make reliable, independent decisions without any human imput what so ever, on a very wide range of subjects, not just the most important kill or don't kill one.

Aren't present-day drones actually theoretically suceptible to jamming (which would largely shut them down), and the main reason this isn't happening is because the drones are used mainly against a bunch of guys in the mountains with no access to really powerful jamming gear?

[Sea Skimmer]

Depends on the drone, bigger ones like the Predators use a directional satellite link that is fairly difficult to jam without placing the jammer between the drone and the satellite, which would involve a very high altitude jammer aircraft, or else just using immense amounts of power that make the jammer an expensive and obvious target. Such EHF satellites are also the backbone of the nuclear command and control system and were designed for very high levels of resistance to interference of all sorts (nuclear radiation effects above all), but the number of such links is also very limited and very expensive. Expect drones to start using lasers sooner then later, but with even worse limitations on the number of possible links.

Smaller drones like Raven and Shadow are flown by much less robust UHF radio from the ground, that can be jammed a lot more easily, but the issue of the jammer surviving itself remains as it constantly radiates and yet has no self defense capability. The Soviets in some cases literally converted large air defense radars into radar jammers to jam aircraft at long standoff ranges, over a hundred miles possibly, but end result is the jammer is also the size and cost of a radar set, needs a crew and a serious generator, and is totally worth blowing up.

You can do the same thing for jamming communications if you want, some jammer aircraft are immensely powerful, and the Chinese and Russians have some huge jammers to blockout civilian skywave radio broadcasts but such things get expensive, and thus rare, quickly. So jamming is certainly an issue for drones, but not some magic countermeasure. Indeed manned platforms are becoming highly dependent on information sharing themselves, communications jamming is hardly a new or drone specific thing, but having that man in the cockpit or on the ship provides a minimal level of assured capability. We just cannot get that out of a robot yet, and for the moment the only thing we can even really guess we'll get soon is an ability to respond against hostile air defenses in very narrow situations. That's kind of easy since if the drone flies high only radar guided weapons are going to attack it, and we can be pretty certain a hostile radar is well, hostile. In space, guidance and sensing is bound to be all passive optical, so the situation is a lot more difficult.

Also, in general in the real near future world, we'd only expect to be flying anything like an automatic armed drone in wartime, so being lite up a SAM radar is automatically a threat, okay it can be allowed to respond to that on its own. If it gets caught in peacetime, well, who cares, it might get shot down but nobody on our side died.

If you have a drone space warship meanwhile, operating 10 trillion miles from home, and you aren't at war yet, you have a much more complicated situation to deal with because the drone must now be able to make the peace-war decision itself. And odds are its too big to be expendable. Does anyone ever want to EVER give a robot the power to declare war? If you don't, then does this mean you have manned ships for peace, and drone ones for war? Can they deploy fast enough to matter? Do the crews on the manned ones abandon ship after flipping a switch, and go home in a lavish escape pod? Do we gain anything by doing this? So you can see how analogies to drone aircraft have serious limitations in the first place.

[madd0ct0r]

I feel this is a good place for this: http://www.darwinaerospace.com/burritobomber

it automatically homes in on a GPS coordinate (sent from a mobile) and drops it's diet devastating payload. Met the guys behind this a few nights back. They're the good kind of crazy.