"I've planned ahead. We're just three miles from a primary target. A millisecond of brilliant light and we're vaporized. Much more fortunate than millions who wander sightless through the smoldering aftermath. We'll be spared the horror of survival." -- War Games

I'm glad I live only a few miles from Moffit Airfield, which is almost certainly a primary target (given that besides taking out NASA you'd also get Google HQ). Knowing that I most likely wouldn't even perceive a nuclear attack is strangely comforting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qc8jJ0TjSY

Kid: What started it?

Col: I don't know two toughest Kids on the Block I guess sooner or later they're going to fight.

Kid: That simple?

Col: Maybe somebody just forgot what it was like.

Kid: Well who is on our side?

Col: 600 million screaming Chinese.

Kid: Last I heard there were a billion screaming Chinese.

Col: There were.

Red Dawn.

Depending on who invades who, that's more or less what we have.

We have different interpretations of what suicide means

AliExpress?

In bulk, that'll cost you what, $50 or so?

I wouldn't be surprised if the battery, camera and optic cable and such could be harvested from a smartphone nowadays

Engine probably still needs to be custom but lightweight drone engines are off the shelf products so...

Prisoners do get taken in situations where they'd be taken without drones. Drones hitting support groups behind enemy lines are akin to airstrikes. When drones are used on the frontline to support ground forces, the enemy will emerge and surrender. Some Russian units in the current invasion of Ukraine have surrendered to drones when ground forces haven't been as close as they'd like to accept the surrender.

There will always be war crimes in a conflict of any scale. That is human nature even if we don't like it. If both sides aren't doing it with drones they are doing it with something else. You now see the action in every situation because there are cameras everywhere and incentive for all sides to shape the narrative with this content.

As far as AI is concerned, there is the huge risk for problems. That said, you can have entire sectors of a battlefield that are kill zones for artillery but now you have drones taking more targeted action. Western artillery capabilities and approaches are more precise than those used by the likes of Russia, but it's a still a case of pummeling certain places. Drones hitting within a sector aren't much different and possibly have some long-term benefits.

I actually am not super worried about "robot killing machines." The trigger is "pulled" when the commander decides to deploy them. A pilot fires a missile or drops a "smart" bomb and it's guided onto it's target. I hardly see this as being any different.

Much like a shell that gets fired, after the gun goes off there's no way to make the bullet come back. Same with a rifle for that matter? Autonomous hunter-killer robots that look for things that appear to be the enemy are almost certainly better than what we have now...

If you're fighting a war, a machine that "kills everything that looks like a human with more than 65% accuracy" in a region that is run off of a series of Haar Cascades would probably be better than shelling the region into oblivion.

I don't know, I get the hate and reticence to give decision making over to the robot, but... maybe the real answer is we should stop having wars?

>Another chilling aspect of drone warfare is that you don't get to surrender. No prisoners are taken.

This isn't true, you can surrender and there are videos of people doing so.

You've perhaps seen videos of drones loitering, waiting a bit, and then moving in when the soldier does nothing. This is often waiting for a surrender sign.

Normally the soldier in these videos is Russian. Why don't they surrender? First they may be shot by their own side if they try to follow the drone.

Second, Russian soldiers have generally been recruited with large bonuses and even larger bonuses paid out in the event of their death, paid to their families. However, if they try to surrender and are shot for desertion there is no payout. Whereas if they stay still and die the Russian government gives their family money.

> One scary aspect of drones is that they can loiter around an area.

There are some new ones that work like landmines, too; they sit on the ground until they detect something worth going after.

> Another chilling aspect of drone warfare is that you don't get to surrender.

You can. First one happened in 1991.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/featured/humans-surrendered-t...

It happens fairly regularly in Ukraine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukrai...

> And soon enough (some psychopath is vibecoding it this very second for sure) drone control will be surrendered to some LLM based system to make the final life/death decision. Another chilling aspect of drone warfare is that you don't get to surrender. No prisoners are taken. You just get blown up even if you are clearly cornered, and helpless and in a traditional setting you'd have surrendered your weapon and became a POW.

Okay I need to refute some of this.

1. LLMs haven't been used so much for terminal phase targeting to my knowledge. There's not really any benefit. It takes a lot of power and electronics that aren't needed when you can just do optical image matching.

2. Drones have taken a fair amount of prisoners. They're way more valuable alive than dead for intelligence purposes and prisoner swaps.

https://www.facebook.com/NYPost/videos/ukraine-drone-spares-...

Counterpoint from my time in a brutal warzone, as a civilian.

Maybe if you voluntarily join the military of a country known for invasions and war, you're not that helpless to begin with. And, if you get sent to another country with the goal to kill soldiers and civilians, and you yourself get killed by a drone it’s not that chilling.

You can flatpack the cardboard frame.

I presume that includes the engine, sensors, etc.

its Military-grade cardboard

Cardboard is heavy and not very strong. Quadcopter drones carry their payload all by the motors' thrust, and experience large accelerations; they would break if made out of cardboard.

OTOH small airplanes like the one pictured derive most of their lift from wings, and are not expected to do aerobatic, so they have somehow lower requirements for strength, and cost considerations can take over.

I wonder what would be the military usefulness of such a drone: it's much more visible, likely has rather low payload capacity, and cannot hover. It could work as a recon drone, or a retransmitter for extending communications range. It may be significantly more quiet than a quadcopter, it could even glide with the motor off, so it could sneak towards manned positions, especially in the dark.

The airframe isn't the main cost driver for these things and cardboard is aerodynamically inefficient. You could blow mould or a million other techniques and get a better, possibly cheaper airframe.

weather and protecting it from it?

> Naoki said that the AirKamuy 150 could carry around three pounds, which is just enough to carry a small amount of supplies or munitions to a target and it’s not hard to imagine swarms of incendiary cardboard drones slamming into targets in the near future.

"so far" is for the next five minutes or so.

It's a bit silly to claim a misleading headline when you can't read the article. https://archive.is/5Pqg6

> "unconditional peace" brand after WWII.

It was not by choice.

Ballistic missiles are also kamikazi. Also, proximity detecting artillery shells. and torpedos.

Kamikazes have been described as anti-ship missiles before it was possible to build anti-ship missiles.

Doolittle: “What is your one purpose in life?”

Bomb: “To explode, of course.”

I had a similar reaction to the headline. The idea that munitions 'suicide' doesn't seem novel enough to have it in the headline. We don't say suicide icbms, or suicide cruise missiles etc.