Remix.run Logo
YeGoblynQueenne 5 hours ago

A few thoughts.

First, I advise a modicum of skepticism to be retained in the face of such news. Ukraine is, after all, in the middle of an existential crisis and must take every advantage it can, even if it's just scaring Russian invaders further (I bet both Russian and Ukrainian soldiers are already pretty scared of drones).

Additionally: "“There is no connection to the drone at all, you cannot see the video, nothing…". So there's no way to know exactly what happened which adds a lot of uncertainty.

Finally: the system was first used two years ago once, then never again. That doesn't sound like it's giving much of an advantage. Sorry, I don't believe that it's a matter of military ethics. If Ukraine could deploy actual Terminator robots to the front line it would do it in a heartbeat. Again: existential crisis. They're fighting for their country's existence. I would use every weapon in my disposal; and I'm a pacifist who hates violence. So I don't think that "test" really worked well at all.

Now, taking the New Scientist's reportage at face value, the announcement seems to describe a system that is only marginally more capable than a self-guided missile. It seems that a quadcopter swarm of undisclosed strength flew to a predetermined location (nothing new to see here), then a target acquisition system was activated.

Is the latter a new capability? Hard to say without more details that we're not likely to know. Maybe the drones simply locked on to whatever moved. Motion sensing is not new technology. Nor is it a great idea to put it on a flying grenade that you fire-and-forget.

Maybe the drones had some on-board machine vision system that tries to identify useful targets like persons and vehicles. That's eminently possible with modern tech, I have a Raspberry Pi-powered quadruped from China that can detect my face, identify balls of different colours etc. All this is more than enough to automate target selection, with a bit of creative cobbling together of existing components and if you don't care too much who the target selected, is.

Without more information it's very hard to guess exactly what happened. However, "Slaughterbots" these don't seem to have been.

Later, a different, human-piloted drone was sent in to inspect the outcome. Why human-piloted? Well, because there's no way to ensure that an autonomous drone will be able to do the job, that's why.

So in other words: we're not there yet. "There" being a nightmare where machines kill humans autonomously and we unlock a new level of horrors and war crimes. There is still time. We can still pull back from the brink. Resistance is not futile.

sebastiennight 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> They're fighting for their country's existence. I would use every weapon in my disposal; and I'm a pacifist who hates violence.

I'm not sure it's accurate to define yourself as a pacifist if you believe safeguarding the concept of a nation-state is more important than human life, ethics, or the downstream effects of using "every weapon at your disposal".

I don't think you realize the creativity and variety we humans have put to use when designing weapons. If you can imagine a biological, chemical, radiation, concussive, or other weapon, it's been worked on. There has been more than one project to build a "world-ending weapon" and go way beyond the MAD theory.

inigyou 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They're fighting for their own existence. Russia has killed, enslaved, and/or tortured most of the citizens of the regions it's already captured, and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

dash2 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think "killed, enslaved, and/or tortured most of the citizens of the regions it's already captured" is an exaggeration. That is not to deny Russian war crimes, which are clearly large-scale and horrendous. But I don't think the majority of people in those regions have been killed or enslaved.

I'm a big supporter of Ukraine and have donated to the war effort and hosted Ukrainian refugees.

inigyou 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

What happen to Bucha and Mariupol? Why did they get wiped off the map? Was it a tsunami?

holoduke 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

grey-area an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Mariupol

https://khpg.org/en/1608815715

https://kyivindependent.com/russians-buy-up-mortgage-housing...

elteto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t imagine you get paid by the FSB, so I gotta ask, do you really do this for free?

IAmBroom 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would, but Russia won't let me collect data on Crimea. As well you know.

jimjimjim 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, you site sources for your response or retract your response. see how that works?

YeGoblynQueenne 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> I'm not sure it's accurate to define yourself as a pacifist if you believe safeguarding the concept of a nation-state is more important than human life, ethics, or the downstream effects of using "every weapon at your disposal".

Wait till you hear that I'm also an anti-nationalist :P

But I'm also pragmatic. Nations aren't going away and they have armies and they like to invade each other. If my country were to be invaded (not a zero probability; I'm Greek and if NATO collapses...) I would put the good of my people above my personal beliefs before you could say "peacenick". C'est la vie.

>> I don't think you realize the creativity and variety we humans have put to use when designing weapons.

I think I do but why do you say this? I didn't understand how it connects to the rest of your comment, or to mine.

somenameforme 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But don't you think Greece, if nothing else, emphasizes that a country isn't defined by whoever happens to declare it as part of their borders, but the people within those borders? Greece persisted for millennia, even when there was no Greece. The state disappeared but the people persisted.

I'm not at all a pacifist but there is no country I would fight, let alone die, for. Because when we say that we're really speaking of fighting and dying for politicians, not a country. And there is no political group that, in my opinion, deserves anywhere near that level of loyalty.

john_strinlai 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>I think I do but why do you say this? I didn't understand how it connects to the rest of your comment, or to mine.

not the parent, but i have a guess.

they mention the variety of weapons because some weapons are abhorrent. designed to be maximally painful, for the maximum amount of time, purely to bring about maximum suffering.

"every weapon at your disposal" includes those weapons. and that is really difficult to square with "im a pacifist", even when considering conditional pacifism.

somenameforme 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Using every weapon at your disposal would entail, at the extreme end, unleashing weapons which could viably kill every person on this planet - to defend a state. It's not exactly a typical foundation for pacifism.

elteto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Being a pacifist doesn’t imply being a doormat. At any rate, I don’t think Ukraine would have attacked Russia under any credible circumstances.

wat10000 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think you realize the creativity and variety we humans have put to use when oppressing conquered peoples if you think resisting an invasion with every means available is the incorrect choice because it kills people.

victorbjorklund 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I bet you think it was wrong to fight against Hitler.

doctorpangloss 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If Ukraine could deploy actual Terminator robots to the front line it would do it in a heartbeat.

Completely false. They are beholden to their allies. Ukraine could also reach Moscow with missiles, why doesn't it? It could build a nuclear bomb in 6 months, if not 6 weeks, they have the capabilities, why doesn't it? It's not so simple.

machomaster 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Ukraine could also reach Moscow with missiles, why doesn't it?

Ukraine doesn't have enough missiles to reach and hit important targets in Moscow.

Due to Moscow having the best defence, it doesn't make sense to try to hit it only for lulz, instead of hitting actually important target elsewhere, like oil refineries.

Otherwise, Ukraine has constantly been trying to hit targets in Moscow and around it, mostly with long-range drones, not missiles. Sometimes this has been successful. I mean, the dome of the Kremlin itself was hit a few years back.

YeGoblynQueenne 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the reason Ukraine has not attacked Moscow with missiles is that this would force Russia to retaliate with nuclear missiles. There's a long discussion on this in sources I follow (full disclosure, I tend to listen to John Mearsheimer a lot although I don't believe everything he says) and the consensus is that the latest attacks in Russian land will have consequences.

So I agree that it's not so simple but I also don't believe for a minute that it has anything to do with ethics. Not in that war. And I have to be honest but I can't think of a war were ethics played an important role in determining belligerent's behaviour.

victorbjorklund 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Russia been saying they will nuke everyone since before the war. They never do anything when meet with strength. Russians even didn’t use nukes when Russian land was under occupation for months. They just raised their fist in the air shaking it and said ”we will show you”.

pepperoni_pizza 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

At this point I just consider anyone taking Russian nuclear threats seriously a Russian propagandist (knowing or otherwise).

postsantum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>said ”we will show you”

I didn't follow the news. How did it end?

doctorpangloss 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

holoduke 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are misinformed. Ukraine is used as cannon fodder by western institutions. You talk about Ukraine taking decisions. I can tell you that the normal Joe in Ukraine is completely sidelined in decisions. The whole country is controlled by foreign powers. A lot of western people call this Russian propoganda. They can't see that their own governments are at the wrong side of history. In the meantime it's hypocritical behavior is visible all over the world.