What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
67 Comments
- DigitalisAkujin, on 06/24/2009, -0/+21I for one welcome our new drone overlords.
- Nekura20x6, on 06/24/2009, -0/+18As it should be! This is all part of a "fight smarter, not harder" attitude that the military needs to embrace. If you lose a drone, you don't lose the pilot. Drones are smaller and lighter meaning you can fly farther on less fuel, they are more resistant to detection by RADAR, and they can go places manned planes can't. They can also fly faster because you don't have to worry about a pilot blacking out from the gravitational forces. Also, drones are cheaper to build meaning you can have an armed-to-the-teeth aerial arsenal at a fraction of the cost. We need to replace most of our fleet with drones.
- Suzilla, on 06/24/2009, -5/+17I think if you're gonna kill someone, it oughta be face-to-face, with your bare hands or a sword or knife. You should see the blood course out of his wounds, and the life fade from his eyes.
Dehumanizing war is a step in the wrong direction. (And Tesla, for all his genius, was a psycho, too.) - IndigoChill, on 06/24/2009, -1/+12Absolutely agree. Drones are better in every way. They're perfectly replaceable, they're lighter, and your morale doesn't drop as much when you lose a drone as when you lose a pilot. It's the next step towards completely dehumanizing war (one of Tesla's dreams).
- kemp34, on 06/24/2009, -0/+10Video game bombers, how sweet.
- EvansHall, on 06/25/2009, -0/+8"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
- tandrews, on 06/24/2009, -0/+5Works for me. Meet my drone at 0800 at 21'24.212.21 583'23"32.233.21 and we'll have it out. :)
The final step will be to virtualize the combat. Why pay for a $100M drone when you can just beat the crap out of some other country's WoW army?!? - shdwfx, on 06/25/2009, -2/+7http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31529016/ns/world_news ...
Quick summary... yesterday the US tried to kill a bad guy with drones, but failed. Killed 60-80 people or so instead, most of them civilians.
Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the US cares or even pays attention, while everyone is still in uproar about how barbaric it was to kill Neda. - bluekangaroo, on 06/25/2009, -0/+5Top Gun 2 won't be quite as dramatic. At least Goose will live.
- coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+4I think the solution to that would be more public awareness when stuff like this happens. There's no reason that the operator of that drone shouldn't have the blood of those innocents on his hands, but there's also no reason to endanger our own if there is a method in which to avoid it.
I understand what you're getting at. It's hard not to get enraged about stuff like this. It's also hard not to get enraged about the public completely ignoring it. - ARTLUKM, on 06/25/2009, -1/+5Are you too short-sighted to see future drones will excel at air-to-air combat, too? You realize a drone could in theory pull higher g-forces than a plane with a pilot, right? The pilot is the bottleneck for maneuverability.
***** yeah: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tanari ... - shdwfx, on 06/25/2009, -1/+5The danger that I see is that the use of drones turns killing people more into a video game like experience. 100 years ago, if you wanted to kill someone abroad, you had to send soldiers in, and you might have losses yourself. Whereas today:
operator: there's a bunch of guys. I think out target is there too...
commander: let me check...
president: sure, fire at will
<80 people die>
intelligence: missed him
commander: let's try again tomorrow
president: sure...
public: [oblivious] give me a beer and don't bother me. - TheTaoOfBill, on 06/24/2009, -0/+4But can you teach a drone to love?! I think we should wait until the morality chips are released.
- howyudoin, on 06/25/2009, -0/+4YES!
I KNEW my Ace Combat skills would become handy someday. - sockpuppets, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3At least I have chicken.
- coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3Would it have been better if a guy in a jet had missed their target and killed 60-80 people?
I can't tell if you're taking a stance against drones, or just posting this because it's remotely related. Either way, it's important news. I was just wondering. - Railz, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3I think Tesla also meant for the other side to follow the same route - IE stop hiding behind civilians.
- Ruger11mcrdpi, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3I used to make jokes when I was in the infantry about how one day instead of a medic/corpsman we'd need a Symantec or Norton antivirus guru in your squad. "Help man, my Rifle downloaded a virus!" This is rapidly becoming reality.
Still... We can make a robot plane that's flown from a desk in Nevada, takes off from Uzbekistan, bombs a bunker in Peshawar, blows up a car with a hellfire near Kandahar, then flies itself home and lands itself... But I can't get good body armor that weighs less than 40lbs? And I need to carry 4 types of batteries?? (firefly: 9voltx1) (surefire: CR123x2) (PVS-14's- AAx1) (PSQ-18- AAx1) (PRC-148 proprietary battery or plastic case with EIGHT CR123 batteries) - whatit, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3I ***** hate spiders, they're lethal enough.
Gonna go drown in a flame now, thanks. - f0dder, on 06/26/2009, -0/+2The problems w/drone vs fighter pilot is that realistically you can't hack a pilot. The Chinese & Russians are looking for ways to hack into our drone armies.
- joejitsu, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2TOYS was right...
- yocouchdigga, on 06/24/2009, -1/+3one step closer to nanobot swarms...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/usually-ou ...
FTW? - sockpuppets, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Pew! Pew! Pew!
- Ascus, on 06/25/2009, -1/+3The US is so screwed if we have to fight South Korea with Drones. "I'll take the the Tank Drone, you get the Healer Drone, and he takes the CC drone, and the rest of you take DPS drones."
- iancgi, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2doesn't say much for the people they are bombing does it?
You cannot justify turning war into a video game, im sorry. - 4rp4n3t, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2@ Ymeg - it's not an overstated scenario. Read the news story at the top of the this comment thread...
- Railz, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2@Azuvector
In a conventional war, between 2 modernized nations there would be no dog fighting between Jets of the sort you're imaging. Most of it is reliant on long range targeting from various sources and stealth.
Sure they're vulnerable to electronic warfare but so is any manned aircraft to what you just mentioned. The F-22 and F-35 have a heavy reliance on a junction of targeting systems, not just their on board.
Here is what you're getting:
A System that is capable of much more then the average pilot in terms of endurance and physical capabilities
A System that could potentially make it so that the amount of Drones you lose relative to your enemy is meaningless - you don't lose a pilots training and drones are relatively cheap compared to the amount of manned fighters today
It is Cost vs Opportunity Cost. What are you losing from using a manned aircraft?
Judgement - for the time being. If you put enough training into drone pilots it will balance out the scale and potential rid the need to put single manned fighters up in the air. - zigardne, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2xboxlive
- yocouchdigga, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2maybe you should have replied to IndigoChill, if this was directed at IndigoChill?
/logic - cjh24, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1he invented the remote control vehicle (ie. his remote control boat), and was a proponent of de-humanised warfare (ie. war where only one side has anything of value to lose)
- xixphz, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1lol
- Cloned, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Thousands of children who wanted to become fighter pilots just had their dreams crushed.
- kaosethema, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1where do i sign up?!?!?!?!
- Victorface, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Ever read Wired for War by P.W. Singer?
- Azuvector, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1@ARTLUKM
Well, there's a connection lag that would slow them down. They're also vulnerable to radio jamming, or shooting down whatever satellite relay is used for their control. Unless you stick an AI in it and take humans out of the equation.
I suspect manned jets would beat out drones, in a war between two militarily sophisticated nations. - Faasnat, on 06/26/2009, -0/+1I was expecting a screen cap from the movie Stealth.
- iancgi, on 06/25/2009, -3/+4The future is grim when your job is 9-5 at the local air force base drone bombing a country across the world through a LCD monitor and even worse one day with some kind of direct sensory input.
- poitzort, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2Right, which is why instead of flying aircraft and bombing people from several thousand feet, we should have them on the ground... because we wouldn't want to separate death and emotion. Better yet, let's give them swords since I hear that stabbing someone at close range is more emotional than bombing them from an aircraft.
- Chrysalii, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1No it lowers the risk of war. If you have a problem, and war seems like a more viable option since there's a lot less risk (on your side), what's stopping it from being anything but a last resort?
- Railz, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Eh, the Air force and Navy get a pretty disproportionate amount of money for sure.
- insanebrain, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1not yet...
- insanebrain, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2Why don't they simply stop invading other countries ?
- Railz, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1If you take out the humans from both sides of the equation of war, what is the problem. They fight with their tools still on equal footing. Logically when the loosing side has no more tools they would surrender. If they don't follow logic, maybe dehumanizing a good tool - I mean whose to say the Atomic Bomb wasn't dehumanizing; it was but it got the irrational emperor at the time to surrender when he was out of tools.
- erikvonvicious, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1Welcome to the Chair Force son! Grab yourself a joystick and a mountain-dew were at war !!!
- cjh24, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1the film you are thinking of is "Wargames"
- omgwtflawl, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Just get it struck by lightning.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=johnny ... - Suzilla, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1You guys never watched much ST:TOS, did you? (http://www.virtualworldlets.net/Resources/Hosted/R ...
- yocouchdigga, on 06/24/2009, -2/+3Why are you bringing Tesla into this?
Buried for ignorance. - poitzort, on 06/26/2009, -0/+1You really missed the mark on that one ryanparkdotme.
We already bomb people without seeing them. Whether you're looking at a target a thousand miles away or at the site there is no difference. You also missed the point that in modern warfare that pilots rarely make bombing decisions on their own. Therefore seeing your enemy would make absolutely no difference. -
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 