Home
Every time I hear about another drone blowing up another terrorist leader in Pakistan, I wonder how far that method of warfare can improve. Drone technology and tactics have made great strides. What is the limit?

You can expect normal improvements in drone flying time, vision, weaponry, and the obvious stuff. It's a safe bet there will be more drones in the sky. And the human intelligence that is necessary to find targets will probably continue to improve. For a place like Afghanistan, are drones plus effective intelligence enough to control the country?

Imagine the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan. The problem with being in power is that it makes you relatively easy to locate, and drones can destroy anything they can find. There is no practical way for the Taliban to hold power if our drone capabilities reach a certain level. I doubt we are at that level, but could we get there?

I can't imagine a terrorist training camp lasting long if the sky is full of drones. And the heroine fields would only last as long as we wanted them to. We could also force people coming into or out of the country to use border crossings we control. Everyone else gets attacked by drones. That takes a lot of drones, and that's expensive, but probably not as expensive as old-fashioned occupation.

I think the next big leap in drone technology will be artificial intelligence for locating targets. Humans would still have to make firing decisions, but I can imagine drones finding suspicious patterns of movement on their own and alerting humans. For example, any vehicle that stops at night on a road used by U.S. ground forces might be suspected of planting an IED. A human could decide if the suspect was up to no good.

There are probably a number of movement patterns followed by insurgents and terrorists. Maybe drones could learn to detect children in any outdoor group, based on their relative size, and assume such a group is not looking for a fight. Perhaps combatants follow routes less travelled by enemy ground forces, or travel only at night, or have more metal objects with them. The point is that drones will someday do a good job of identifying suspected bad guys automatically.

One great benefit of using drones to target Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders is that turnover creates leadership incompetence. After the tenth time drones kill the number three operations guy, only an idiot is willing to take that promotion. The smart terrorists ask for transfers to the Quality Control Division to wait things out. So while it might be true that there will always be replacements, quantity doesn't compensate for smart leadership.

Perhaps the exit strategy for U.S. conventional forces from Afghanistan is more linked to drone improvements than to anything else. We just don't know it yet.


 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +31
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Mar 23, 2010
The problem with guerrilla warfare is that no army ever did won a war against the guerrillas by using technology on them. Guerrilla warfare is long and gruesome, and if you wont engage in extermination and concentration camps (like the brits did in the boers war, the germans in wwII and the communists since 1919 to the present) you can never “win” as for every casualty you produce 5 more will spawn in vengeance.

The US was pretty close to wining on Vietnam, and in fact Nixon did manage to force a settlement on the communist to not invade southern Vietnam thanks to the US airpower, but soon the congress sabotaged that settlement by making it pretty clear that they would not support the south in case of a communist invasion. The results were a full scale invasion, the annexation of the south under the communists and the boat people.
And the North was a country. The talibans are not a country, nor is currently iraq. Todays armies are based on post Westfalian warfare and they are designed and operate to defeat countries that engage more or less in the same kind of war. Using a tool for a work different from the one it was designed is always a bad idea.

You just cant use tanks (not to mention air force) against irregulars that hide among the population, and engaging in a war of attrition plays in the side of the insurgents. Thats what they want! Every casualties they take makes excellent PR on their supporting media. That is the game the Palestinians have been playing since the beginning for example.

In asymmetric war, tech for military purposes is completely useless. What you need is to find were those people are getting the money to finance themselves and squeeze that till they are willing to accept a settlement that will make both parties look good on tv. In the case of Afghanistan I understand that is poppy fields and heroin trade. Use all those huge amounts of money the government is wasting in useless military operations and set up police ones (which Im sure will cost much less) and close down that trade. That has a pretty much bigger chance of success than military operations with one hand tied behind their backs. It not like if that has ever worked before but Im sure that will not deter keynessian goverments from trying it over and over again sadly!
 
 
Jan 8, 2010
The new year coming, click in. Let's facelift bar!

===== http://www.brandgoing.com/ ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.brandgoing.com/ =====
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 21, 2009
I love beating dead horses among other things:

According to Merriam-Webster (paraphrased):

Heroin: A strongly physiologically addictive narcotic that is more potent than morphine and is prohibited for medical use in the U.S. but is used illicitly for its euphoric effects.

Heroine: A mythological or legendary woman having the qualities of a hero.

(kh.qbert: "You don't like her? What's wrong with her? She's rich! She's beautiful! She's got huge...tracts of land!")

 
 
Dec 21, 2009
Sounds both naive and horrible.
For one thing this drone fantasy strategy assumes Taliban will not be able to adapt. All they have to do is to hide in grounds, work without centralized command structure and blur the lines between hard core Taliban and ordinary Afghan. That means developing Sleeper cell operations to perfection and creeping into politics.

You can't win an asymmetric war. The best you can do is declare yourself winner and get out.
 
 
Dec 21, 2009
Heroine fields: I'm imagining vast tracts...
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 21, 2009
(You wrote) "I think the next big leap in drone technology will be artificial intelligence for locating targets. Humans would still have to make firing decisions ...".

Associating artificial intelligence with drone technology may indeed be a small step for mankind, and a HUGE leap, and SCARY

!!
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 21, 2009
I'm not saying this is a good film in a lot of respects, but on this subject I can't help but recommend the 2008 movie Eagle Eye.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 20, 2009
Drone technology is proving itself beneficial given the difficulties the U.S. forces (and all previous armies) face fighting "conventional warfare" in an incredibly difficult cultural, ethnic, and geographic environment.

However, drones are susceptible, at least in theory, to computer hackers.

The data links connecting the drone-satellite-ground control present a window of opportunity for a hacker to intercept, and reconfigure, commands.

What if the Taliban acquires the ability to reconfigure command signals, and either nullify orders to launch missiles; or worse yet, redirect launch orders such that the drone identifies and attacks U.S./NATO fores?

Yes, there is a high level of security to prevent this, such as encription, and yes, it is highly improbable this scenario could be carried out.

Nonetheless, I cringe every time I hear of another credit reporting agency, bank, or defense department computer being hacked.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 19, 2009
Its safer to kill from far away. I know what it means to be shot at and the farther the better.. But you can't snipe a few people with drones or 500lb bombs. They got a training camp, they think. But they have been bombing places from intel given to them from someone who's tribe has been feuding with the dead people for decades. Remember, a lot of their religion comes from the old Testament. They really believe in a eye for a eye. The more we kill just the more want to kill us. Collage boys, in real war games kill and risk a lot more that the people who know what war is. The worlds only super power guys who got us in this mess were all Collage boys who kept out of the draft. But they saw Rambo.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 19, 2009
I just got a new computer and this is the perfect opportunity to see if the problems that I had with the old computer are caused by the old computer settings or something else. If it was the old computer, I'll be able to drone on and on and on instead of restricting my comments to a couple of lines, making this the perfect inaugural thread.

On the subject, technology is erasing the notional lines between warfare, which is legal under international law, and assassination, which as the CIA website will tell you, is something that the USA never, ever does.

When even Al Gore, as Vice-President, advised to go into Afghanistan and Pakistan and kick some albundy, you know you may have a problem.

But I can see an upside to this as well. Assassination means that you can leave a lot of civilians out of the picture and go after targets as precise as one Senator or a handful of lobbyists who are the real cause of all your problems.

It may be illegal and immoral, but it is still better than land mines.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 19, 2009
from Jibble67
""heroine fields"?

IS that where you sow dragon's teeth and might Amazonic warriors sprout from the ground?"

If not, it certainly should be!
And thanks for saving me the trouble of correcting not only Scott's spelling, but his botany.
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
As someone once remarked I think some British empire guy, you can't conquer and occupy Afghanistan but you can rent it.
Nah drones won't work to leave Afghanistan it's easy nuke all major towns and cities, spray the fields with agent orange and all the people as well. then leave em to it. If they get around to rebuilding nuke again.
Is this wrong my morality is stuck on satanic.
However using drones here could be fun for traffic offenses, one mile over and boom, although this may get many of our police force zipping back to the doughnut house.
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
"We will beat them and beat them and beat them until they stop hating us". - saturating the skies with toys that bring down an endless rain of death and destruction seems like an unlikely path toward success.

"How can you shoot women and children?" ... "It's easy, you just lead them a little less". Watching drone cameras has to be one of the most boring jobs on earth these days. Increasing the number of drones will increase the number of (bored) watchers - eventually some of these bored kids will start pushing the button just for a little excitement. And talk about dysfunctional "justice" - even in the "Judge Dredd" universe, Sylvester would at least ask "how do you plead?" - in the drone universe, some pimply dweeb half a world away spots you jay-walking and blamo - you're a pot-hole.

Drones are cool in that they keep "our" people out of harms way... but they are essentially a continuation of the failed lessons of Viet Nam - this notion that we are fighting a 'traditional' war where everyone dresses up in their finest, marches out onto the battle field and dukes it out until only one is left standing. That's not what we have here. We have a bunch of smiling (yet pissed off) farmers who's lives were made a we bit worse by the arrival of some invaders who very politely present themselves as obvious targets. It's a game they've been playing for thousands of years - torment the invader until they go away.

"Three cups of Tea" - how many schools could be built, staffed, stocked and operated for the cost of one drone? If there's a US or UN budget for improving education infrastructure - it's certainly not making the news anywhere near as often as the body count. (And that's an amusing change since Viet Nam where the number of enemy killed was always listed before the number of U.S. casualties). Unfortunately, large scale (re)education efforts were largely jinxed by the recent Russian occupation. (The funniest part of their eventual victory over the Russians being that "we" trained them how to harass a modern military occupation, but we never considered how to prevail over such techniques).
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
Regardless of who you are attacking, it will ultimately end up being drone vs drone. I can imagine both sides having drones, whether it is because both sides created them independently, or one side hijacked the others. Its kind of like guns. One government funded the manufacturing of a gun for their military, somehow they were sold to what was or became that government's enemy, and now the guns are used on both sides to kill each other. Modifications to the guns abound on both sides. But now this can apply to drones.

Eventually, people will make offensive and defensive drones, as well as intelligence gathering, maintenance, and building drones. Its kind of like a video game. If we just change the war to a video game, then the winner would be the team with the best gamers. In this game however, you don't get a replay, you can't save your progress, and there are no cheat codes. If we try to transfer everything to a digital battlefield instead of a physical battlefield, there probably wouldn't be any way to enforce the win, so you would have to have everything in the game happening in real life.
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
Okay everyone, the topic is not islam or drugs, it's robots. Killer robots.
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
@ Humility: the wiki Islam piece is one person's ideas about the afterlife, not the Quran or hadith.

The "Hour al Ein" (houri - plural) are servents, not necessarily for sexual pleasure. They are androgenous and have large (beautiful) eyes. Men and women are both assigned 2. None of "Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham 'Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri" are among the more trusted narrators. If it were Bukhari or Muslim, I'd have to concede, but I haven't read up on these guys.

The next link mentions that various translations see it differently. I don't agree to his ideas that the French tell the truth that the English are afraid to say. The author assumes the "virgins" aren't there to "fluff pillows" but in fact, they are.

It should also be noted that the word "virgin" is thrown around a lot in translations. The actual meaning is not necessarily "virgin" but rather a youthful/shy/pure (of nature) woman. 60 can be youthful if you take my meaning. It's frequently translated as virgin, but it's not exclusively intended that way. Even when it is, it is more the way we would say "girl" as opposed to "woman". Old english "maid" instead of "matron". Since women are supposed to wait for marriage (in virtually all religions) the assumption is that an unmarried woman is a virgin.

As I said originally, there are even Muslims who speak Arabic who believe false ideas about Islam. They don't study the religion, it's history, the hadith narrators works and all three of those in their contexts. It's not something you can just go to a wiki and find all you need to know. Look up the original hadith, read several translations, and the contexts and see if you still think that's what it means. I can ask around if anyone I know already has a document drafted on this topic or not, if you like.
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
It's quite clear that the Taliban can gain some advantage from being able to see where drones are going by intercepting their feeds.

How long before they could take over the drones themselves? Without looking it up I believe that there have been reports of UAVs being partially compromised in Iraq? There was an Indian programmer who used pretty rudimentary equipment to interfere with satellites also? Drones are probably less fun when they come back shooting at you.

More likely given their low tech bent, I think the Taliban might work out how to broadcast some serious interference for the control frequencies or similar. Still, an interesting post anyhow.
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
The drones will win until the Earth's bacteria kill them.

That might be a different movie though.
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
Every technology follows the curve that the next generation is much better, and successful, until it gets to the point that it's good enough to satisfy most of the people most of the time (like a 3Ghz PC running XP). Then, the battle is for the cheapest way to implement the "good enough" generation. When drones get to the point that the government is asking for ways to make them cheaper rather then better, you might see what you're asking for.
 
 
Dec 18, 2009
@juvegirl,

You say that no one can provide references for these things, here are a couple that summarize the facts pretty well and link to the passages of the Koran in question, as well as the hadith:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/72_Virgins

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2329/does-the-koran-really-promise-islamic-martyrs-72-virgins

The Koran doesn't promise 72 virgins, that is true. But it sure looks like that is about the number 72, and not the promise of loose women.

Women as heavenly reward for the faithful, is repeatedly mentioned in the Koran.

Further, the bit on "72" does have a basis in Islam. It is found in the hadith, or sayings that surround Mohammed. Granted, the hadith has huge problems in credibility, with people quibbling about "true" and "false" sayings... but to say that it has no basis in Islam is like saying the notion that Peter was the first pope has no basis in Christianity. That isn't anywhere in the Bible, not all Christians believe that... but it is firmly within the tradition.

As to Scott's larger article, I agree.

I think the war on terror is better served by a busboy with a silencer, or a drone, versus an armored tank division.

The down side is that if we can do that, eventually, so can they. So you don't need to hijack a plane to have another 9/11 - just a handful of drones and the mall of America.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog