Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Graydon

@dr2chase @cstross @isaackuo You can do image recognition with insect hardware.

It's why I don't expect we're going to see a "recognise faces" approach. Think "biting insect"; it's got several sorts of toxin and enough circuitry to go "is it warm?" and "does it have a heartbeat?" and some way to prefer stinging skin to armour.

Add in a few simple eusocial rules and some return-for-reload capacity if you can, but even as a one-way munition, the cost per corpse is likely much lower this way.

33 comments
Charlie Stross

@graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo Yup. Another thing: I think we're going to see the end of standardized uniforms/rank insignia, sooner rather than later. We've already seen the end of officers in braid and distinctive uniforms on the battlefield (snipers) but this is going to be orders of magnitude worse.

Isaac Ji Kuo

@cstross @graydon @dr2chase

I don't think we're going to get rid of uniforms. The potential benefits of trying to pretend to be local civilians are not going to be great when you've got a helmet, weapon, heavy backpack full of stuff, night-vision equipment, etc ...

Charlie Stross

@isaackuo @graydon @dr2chase We're not going to get rid of mil-spec clothing, armour, and equipment: what's going to go is a consistent "uniform" appearance. (I have speculated, for example, about the ease of designing a drone with swastika-seeking firmware …)

Isaac Ji Kuo replied to Charlie

@cstross @graydon @dr2chase

Well, it's certainly possible to try and visually break up the "standard" appearance of your helmet or service rifle. But a uniform already looks really different all the time just from the movement of limbs and different angles.

Personally, I like to ponder audio sensing (with hidden ground based sensors). Disguising the clinking of your rifle isn't going to be so easy.

Philippa Cowderoy

@isaackuo @cstross @graydon @dr2chase If you're an evil fucker then it depends on whose civilians you're trying to pretend to be: you'd be an irregular and thus not protected by most of the laws of warfare, but your opponent's false positives amongst their own population will be a thing.

Plus the helmet's probably about to be a lot less useful and light, stowable weapons are still a thing when you're not on anti-armour duty. Given you're probably recon...

Isaac Ji Kuo replied to Philippa

@flippac @cstross @graydon @dr2chase

There are 2+ wars currently going on which make me rather cynical about how evil some combatants are willing to be, and whether or not something being a war crime is a deal killer.

Philippa Cowderoy replied to Isaac Ji Kuo

@isaackuo @cstross @graydon @dr2chase Well yeah (it's pretty clear that other players who like to be thought of as less evil often prefer to see it as "did we get caught?" too).

But fundamentally the whole idea of visibly-a-uniform is to separate regulars (the ones in obvious uniform) from civilians (supposed not to be fair game) and irregulars ("fair game" for worse treatment because they threaten the distinction, but also not uncommon: a lot of important actions in WW2 were achieved by allied irregulars). If the whole concept is under threat by military developments as well as political ones (one of the combatants you're referring to has been actively eroding it for decades where they are), it's worth noting the transition because it means we're headed somewhere that nobody could realistically sustain it when they're engaged in genuine defence.

@isaackuo @cstross @graydon @dr2chase Well yeah (it's pretty clear that other players who like to be thought of as less evil often prefer to see it as "did we get caught?" too).

But fundamentally the whole idea of visibly-a-uniform is to separate regulars (the ones in obvious uniform) from civilians (supposed not to be fair game) and irregulars ("fair game" for worse treatment because they threaten the distinction, but also not uncommon: a lot of important actions in WW2 were achieved by allied irregulars)....

Walter van Holst

@dymaxion @cstross @graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo Not seeing Russia adhering to the Geneva Conventions very much now.

pettter replied to Walter van Holst

@whvholst Just out of curiosity: Who do you see who _is_ adhering to the Geneva Conventions? @dymaxion @cstross @graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo

Walter van Holst replied to pettter

@pettter @dymaxion @cstross @graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo I don't think either party is fully adhering. I also do think there are glaring violation to them by Russia that are orders of magnitude worse than Ukraine's. Then there's also the Genocide Convention that is also clearly being violated by Russia and not by Ukraine. So this is a "Both sides are not equally bad" situation.

pettter replied to Walter van Holst

@whvholst I wasn't talking about "both sides", I was more talking globally. @dymaxion @cstross @graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo

Walter van Holst replied to pettter

@pettter @dymaxion @cstross @graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo I think the Falklands War was the last one that may have been more or less in adherence to the Geneva Conventions, but I don't think any of the more recent ones ever was.

Eleanor Saitta replied to Walter van Holst

@whvholst
They also don't want to make it trivial for the conscripts they're pouring into the meat grinder to defect.
@cstross @graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo

Walter van Holst replied to Eleanor

@dymaxion @cstross @graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo There's also the time-tested use of barrier troops shooting anyone who appears to be retreating...

Billy Smith

@cstross @graydon @dr2chase @isaackuo

This happened in Africa during the boer war, where the Scottish regiments were always being commanded by English officers, who were presented with a very bright white horse as a "token of respect" from the regiment... :D

Eleanor Saitta

@graydon
The Geneva convention is pretty damn firm on the requirement to positively identify a target as a combatant, notwithstanding the massive criminal negligence we've seen from the US and Israel there, and even the Israelis are still meticulously faking a paper trail. I think there will be a lot of hesitancy to implement something that dumb, and even if you did, you'd need to implement serious IFF systems in them, which adds cost and attack surface. IFF hardware is usually pretty heavily protected with self-destroy-on-tamper devices etc, which is hard to do when you need it on munitions you're buying by the 100k, not to mention key distribution, etc. It's not that this is impossible, but it's neither cheap nor easy. Yes, folks outside of conventional militaries may do this stuff anyway, but it's not a straightforward set of choices even there — human in the loop solves a ton.
@dr2chase @cstross @isaackuo

@graydon
The Geneva convention is pretty damn firm on the requirement to positively identify a target as a combatant, notwithstanding the massive criminal negligence we've seen from the US and Israel there, and even the Israelis are still meticulously faking a paper trail. I think there will be a lot of hesitancy to implement something that dumb, and even if you did, you'd need to implement serious IFF systems in them, which adds cost and attack surface. IFF hardware is usually pretty heavily protected...

Wilfried Klaebe

@dymaxion As if ruZZia cares much about conventions. They shell and bomb nuclear power plants, kindergardens, schools, hospitals!

@graydon @dr2chase @cstross @isaackuo

Eleanor Saitta

@wonka
Not having effective iff or visual human confirmation means you turn your semi-autonomous munitions into fratecide machines.

Shockingly, there are reasons for many of these laws and reasons why states signed them that don't have anything to do with human rights, too.
@graydon @dr2chase @cstross @isaackuo

Isaac Ji Kuo replied to Eleanor

@dymaxion @wonka @graydon @dr2chase @cstross

Yeah, I didn't want to get into the legal and ethical considerations, since there are practical reasons to consider that I felt like diving into.

Now, the thing is ... we don't have to just speculate on autonomous munition fratricide machines. We've had them for some time in the forms of mines and homing torpedoes. And these are still relevant as the heavy use in Ukraine shows.

Basically, it's about defining a kill box. Mines are, of course

1/2

Isaac Ji Kuo replied to Isaac Ji Kuo

@dymaxion @wonka @graydon @dr2chase @cstross

passively limited to an initially set kill box.

Homing torpedoes, in contrast, need navigation capabilities to be able to use a kill box. But the idea is quintessentially the same as a mine field - the torpedo will try to kill anything it finds in the kill box (possibly with additional sensor profile parameters), but it will NOT try to kill something outside the kill box.

This system isn't perfect, but it's a starting point.

2/2

Eleanor Saitta replied to Isaac Ji Kuo

@isaackuo
Yeah. I feel like the ground environment is a lot more complex, though — like, yes, if you're using this in the context of an initial push on a trench line or defense against the same, sure, but once you're in the middle of breaking through or reacting to contact in a disordered environment, or in basically any urban context at all, it's going to be a lot messier, especially if you're taking advantage of them as light standoff weapons and running them a couple km out
@wonka @graydon @dr2chase @cstross

@isaackuo
Yeah. I feel like the ground environment is a lot more complex, though — like, yes, if you're using this in the context of an initial push on a trench line or defense against the same, sure, but once you're in the middle of breaking through or reacting to contact in a disordered environment, or in basically any urban context at all, it's going to be a lot messier, especially if you're taking advantage of them as light standoff weapons and running them a couple km out
@wonka @graydon @dr2chase

Isaac Ji Kuo replied to Eleanor

@dymaxion @wonka @graydon @dr2chase @cstross

Yeah, there's definitely limitations. It's like using artillery laid mines, although these could probably be reused so that alters the logistical calculations.

I'm just pointing out that it IS possible to employ fully autonomous killbots, in a manner that is already familiar to military users, even without IFF systems.

Eleanor Saitta replied to Isaac Ji Kuo

@isaackuo
Definitely, with sufficient limitations. It feels like a lot of the lethality is down to the precision of fully-intelligent terminal guidance. As a jamming backup it's an on obvious win, but as a primary, it's less clear.
@wonka @graydon @dr2chase @cstross

Isaac Ji Kuo replied to Eleanor

@dymaxion @wonka @graydon @dr2chase @cstross

There's this vision that many are fascinated by, of locust swarms of drones sweeping the enemy off the battlefield.

I can understand the appeal to Raytheons and Raytheon wannabes. Selling millions of expensive drones to the US military sounds like a pretty sweet way to rake in megabucks, right?

But I'm more puzzled by how much this idea dazzles ordinary folks. Without full autonomy, massive drone swarms are a C3 non-starter. With it ... ehh ...

Graydon replied to Isaac Ji Kuo

@isaackuo @dymaxion @wonka @dr2chase @cstross The problem is incredibly hard. Rested, trained humans aren't good at it. (and in a conflict like Ukraine, with similar troops, uniforms, and equipment, it's even worse.)

The capability to do "artificial biting insect" is near-term, if it's not poorly-distributed-present.

I expect someone is going to go for what they can build. It's how we got chemical warfare in the Great War; it's at least a chunk of how we got napalm and cluster munitions.

Isaac Ji Kuo replied to Graydon

@graydon @dymaxion @wonka @dr2chase @cstross

I don't really know precisely what you mean by an "artificial biting insect", but Ukraine is already using pretty much the least expensive FPV drones practical. If you want something smaller, it'll be more expensive and have much less range and endurance.

Eleanor Saitta replied to Isaac Ji Kuo

@isaackuo
See up thread — an absolute minimum hardware cost terminal guidance package that e.g. might not even be able to handle a bounding box in a gps-denied environment, because good inertials are expensive and video terrain guidance is expensive at the resolution needed.
@graydon @wonka @dr2chase @cstross

Graydon replied to Isaac Ji Kuo

@isaackuo Ukraine's adapting commercial hardware, like early Great War aircraft using rotary engines originally designed for motorcycles. A state-equivalent actor starting today and setting out to make an invader's costs unbearable isn't going to start there.

There's work going into "looks like a bird", "smallest practical flying robot", and so on. "How small and cheap can something be and have a 5% PK against human targets for a day?" isn't a quadcopter.

@dymaxion @wonka @dr2chase @cstross

Isaac Ji Kuo replied to Graydon

@graydon @dymaxion @wonka @dr2chase @cstross

How do you know it's not a quadcopter? A quadcopter is extremely simple and cheap. The monospinner is even simpler and cheaper, but it's much slower and less maneuverable.

There are a lot of cheap RC toy drones, including drones with only two props and motors. But these aren't maneuverable enough to attack a target. The quadcopter seems to be the cheapest option that's also maneuverable enough to be used as a guided weapon.

Eleanor Saitta replied to Isaac Ji Kuo

@isaackuo
I think with r&d time and volume to get the quirks out, tricopters might win — slightly more complex, but less battery (and thus more payload) for the same weight and perf envelope. I don't see much going further afield than that winning soon, though.
@graydon @wonka @dr2chase @cstross

Ingvar

@graydon @dr2chase @cstross @isaackuo Disabled is more efficient than dead. A dead soliditet is one less on the other side. A live but Disabled soldier is minimum one less, but is also demoralising and may take one or s few more or off action, for care purposes.

Joborg

@vatine @graydon @dr2chase @cstross @isaackuo Unfortunately, Russia doesn't agree with western conventions on which wounds are disabling, or which require care, evacuation or hospital treatment.
Under-treated wounds obviously affect performance, but my impression is that RF soldiers who complain too much are demonstratively punished or used as cannon fodder.

Go Up