StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This video is made by scientists worried about killing drones. But is this future realistic? Won't there be counter-measures?

An immunesystem of friendly police bots, AI controlled lasergrids in every city... Anti drone drones...?

"8600 anti corruption students assasinated by drones today"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw

Not sure if it would be possible near term to cram enough computing power and battery power into drone that small to have it autonomously navigate around obstacles and search individual persons.

I mean, in a sense it is "realistic", in that it probably will be possible in the not-terribly-distant future to program small drones in a similar fashion. What is adamantly NOT realistic is the video's supposition that there are no possible countermeasures to such a weapon, and that they are a superweapon of unimaginable power. That's patently ridiculous.

Ziggy Stardust wrote: ↑2017-11-21 09:33am I mean, in a sense it is "realistic", in that it probably will be possible in the not-terribly-distant future to program small drones in a similar fashion. What is adamantly NOT realistic is the video's supposition that there are no possible countermeasures to such a weapon, and that they are a superweapon of unimaginable power. That's patently ridiculous.

The things could quite literally be countered by a shotgun. Full sized or a pistol full of snakeshot. Or a net. Or anything else that would entangle the rotors. Or hell, you could probably outrun such a kill drone. The motors will run out of battery power before you run out of stamina. And it wouldn't be able to zig-zag the way a human runner can.

Its not the greatest idea ever.

I think we're slightly missing the point by arguing about the finer points of the technology. This is supposed to be a morality tale about how progress can be a double-edged sword rather than ultra-realistic hard SF.

Well, we already have plenty of those, so that kind of morality tale is just a bit humdrum, in my opinion.

Zaune wrote: ↑2017-11-26 04:53am I think we're slightly missing the point by arguing about the finer points of the technology. This is supposed to be a morality tale about how progress can be a double-edged sword rather than ultra-realistic hard SF.

cosmicalstorm asked about realism, the reality is that because of their size and the limits that imposes on the rotors, these would move so slow you could just duck out of the way and keep your brains from getting splattered against a wall. If anyone is missing the point, I think its you for missing the point of this thread.

A much more realistic weaponized drone would be bigger and have a mounting for a proper gun. A kid already tested the concept (much to the chagrin of the press and some legislators), and the U.S. military is developing the same concept for infantry use. The kid only got away with it because he flew the drone over his own property just a few feet off the ground. If he had gone a few hundred feet higher or over someone else's property, its likely existing laws would have busted him, making the moral of the SF video a bit redundant.

If making an assassination gun drone then something that looks like a large bird to casual observer may be a way to go. Drones that use thrust to stay airborne have poor endurance and make ton of noise. A bird like glider with small motor and programmed to use thermals as much as possible could fly for hours using existing battery tech and actually be capable of quietly sneaking up to a target when in gliding mode.

Formless wrote: ↑2017-11-26 02:15pm

Zaune wrote: ↑2017-11-26 04:53am I think we're slightly missing the point by arguing about the finer points of the technology. This is supposed to be a morality tale about how progress can be a double-edged sword rather than ultra-realistic hard SF.

cosmicalstorm asked about realism, the reality is that because of their size and the limits that imposes on the rotors, these would move so slow you could just duck out of the way and keep your brains from getting splattered against a wall. If anyone is missing the point, I think its you for missing the point of this thread.

A much more realistic weaponized drone would be bigger and have a mounting for a proper gun. A kid already tested the concept (much to the chagrin of the press and some legislators), and the U.S. military is developing the same concept for infantry use. The kid only got away with it because he flew the drone over his own property just a few feet off the ground. If he had gone a few hundred feet higher or over someone else's property, its likely existing laws would have busted him, making the moral of the SF video a bit redundant.

Funnily enough, when I first saw this, I thought; hey, it's a Hunter-Seeker!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHL31-E4eXI

That's one way in which these kinds of small assassin drones might make more sense. If they can't explosives or guns, they can always inject poison.

That said, they still have to actually reach and touch the target. From what I know of current drone tech, and the points made here, it seems to me like you could bat the drone away with your arm.

As things stand, this kind of drone makes more sense as a short-range assassination tool rather than a terror weapon as shown in the video. Jumping one person in a relatively confined space would be relatively easy. It would also be much easier to develop if it could be remotely controlled; but that would require a datalink which could be jammed or otherwise interfered-with, much like current drone technology.

Even if you want to make an assassination drone that is as small as possible, you would still probably want to mount a small gun on it. Say a pocket pistol like the NAA mini revolver in .22 short. As you can see in pictures, the things are amazingly tiny. While they aren't very powerful, a .22 short is what nearly killed president Regan. You want as many shots as you can from as far away as you can shoot it, even in close quarters. A mini revolver has five shots, but that's four more shots than a bot that rams its target. I mean, a head targeting rambot like in Slaughterbots could be foiled by a person simply throwing up their arms instinctively-- and that is an instinct, which makes the whole thing ridiculous. A hole in your hand is better than a hole in your head. Poison doesn't make that any better, because the poison still has to travel up the arm before it becomes deadly. At least, if my understanding of first aid for snakebites is correct.

I see what you mean about small firearms. The only issue would be recoil.

Regarding poison, it would depend on the substance in question. The nastiest chemical weapon I know of is VX; the stuff that killed Kim Jong-nam, and was used by Aum Shinrikyo a few times, as well as Saddam Hussein at Halabja. Supposedly as little as 10mg applied to the skin (or 30mg vapour inhaled) will kill an average human male (weighing about 70kg); over a period of ten minutes to two hours depending on the dosage. I don't know enough about this stuff to say precisely how much would reliably kill an adult human before help could arrive; but it's the amount that an assassin drone would need to carry and apply in order to be effective.

For all that, it would still need to get fairly close and either land on the target or hover close by for a second or two at least; potentially enough time to evade or bat it away. A drone that small won't be very resilient.

No, Aum Shinrikyo used Sarin, not VX. Its easier to make. Moreover, those chemicals are considered weapons of mass destruction for all the reasons you point out, so anyone who might be crazy enough to make the stuff would consider it impractical to waste it on an assassination drone. Probably. Even if they did, you would just equip it with some method of shooting the chemical from several feet away, much like pepper spray. The only chemicals which would need a syringe are medical cocktails and animal venoms which all have the same issue of having to traveling through the body. Not to mention there are issues with storing poisonous chemicals long term. Except perhaps for flammable chemicals if you wanted to use a drone for arson (but that would be of little purpose). Overall, a gun-bot is always going to be the more practical weapon even taking recoil into account. Recoil can be countered with thrust, and I suggest a small caliber weapon for a reason. Small caliber weapons aren't a problem for the purpose of assassination. And as for combat, a larger drone can always have a larger payload, including options for grenades as well as guns. Size matters in combat vehicles. In fact, the Russian military is also developing drones of this type, only theirs are even bigger still so they can carry an anti-tank weapon.

Aum did use VX, but admittedly only once for an assassination. Sarin was used for the Tokyo Subway attack, and they even tried Botulism a couple of times; but their cultivation methods weren't up to snuff, and the spores had no effect.

I suppose it's a fair point in itself. There's been so much doomsaying about terrorists getting their hands on chemical or biological weapons, but they rarely seem to do so. When you need a fully-equipped and competently-manned chemical factory to produce usable amounts of what you need, that probably puts it out of reach of most terrorists.

I am convinced about the gun-bot concept. Larger drones for larger weapons do make a lot of sense, but I have this vague, hard-to-describe notion that they would actually be less of an issue, since their size would make them easier to spot and their weapons would enforce much the same limitations as they would on a human user; except that a hovering sniper drone has quite a few more line-of-sight options. I'm still thinking on this.

One thing I will say about this video is that I think the approach is wrong-headed. It reminds me of a video I saw a few years ago (unfortunately I can't find it) on the issue of 'sea blindness.' The video displayed a scenario in which all the cargo ships in the world suddenly and mysteriously disappeared, leaving Britain racked with starvation and riots. The point was to try and convince people that shipping is important and vital to the UK national interest, but the scenario was so bizarre that I found it completely incredible and off-putting.

This video has the same problem. In an attempt to get an emotional reaction and whip up support, they've presented an improbable scenario that doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone who knows about the technology. It seems extreme even to me, and I know relatively little about the technology.

Exactly. Its idiotic drek like this that is the reason my signature still has this quote in it:

“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." ("Rayneau", commentator on i09)

(requoted here just in case I ever feel like changing sigs; I want to immortalize that guy's words for all time)

I mean, the film was apparently made for an actual honest to god petition to try and stop the creation of things like this, even though a petition will do jack fuck to stop the government from developing drone weapons, and also distracts from the very real atrocities that have already been committed with Predator drones in the US's very real wars in the middle east. To top it off, the way the film is made it is apparently very easy for deceitful people on Facebook and the like to edit it and make it look like a documentary. Even though its based on a whole lot of bullshit, like facial recognition software that does not exist yet, drones with battery life that is not possible yet, treating the loudest kind of drone like its fucking silent as a sub, depicting human beings as having no functional survival reflexes, giving the things the stupidest imaginable weapon, and creating a scenario where apparently we are to believe that all civil rights have already been taken away from us even though real life patently doesn't work like that. There would be riots in the streets before we got to the phase where the government would just sick kill bots on anyone who voiced any kind of dissent, especially when a human oppressor wearing a badge is cheap and reusable, and murder is rarely the first recourse of oppressive regimes. The funny thing is, when that kid made that gun drone years back, the FAA took interest in legislating but the cops spoke up that they actually would like the option of perhaps weaponizing drones for SWAT use. But they weren't talking about assassination but rather creating new tactical options for dealing with hostage situations where options didn't exist before, and for however much people distrust the police at least in theory what they were saying was arguments for how the technology could in some cases save lives rather than being flat out harmful. At the end of the day, the technology is still very much a tool which we decide how to use, and not a monster with its own agency to either save us or kill us through its existence.

All around Slaughterbots comes off like cheesy science fiction because it IS cheesy science fiction, and the moral comes off as hokey and simplistic because it IS hokey and simplistic. Zor has come up with more compelling RARs in his day.