Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fasteddie31003 1347 days ago
The Ukrainian-Russo war has shown the military the power of offensive drones. You think they are going to allow civilians to own such powerful potential weapons in the future? I think offensive drone warfare is just scratching the surface. I can think of a few modifications to drones, I've yet to see in Ukraine, that could increase their lethality 10x.
6 comments

Some of the drones used by Ukraine have pretty wild so far, one ive seen rarely mentioned is this unknown larger drone that drops 10 grenades at a time, carpet bombing an area.

https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1555657070245986309

I imagine the ukranian weapons industry will make a killing post war. Some of their tools are impressive mvps that have a proven product market fit.
I saw a large one with eight rotors and two! anti-tank launchers strapped to it.
Both sides are purchasing these specific DJI drones in large quantities to be used by personnel on the ground to spot each other. It is a commodity not unlike binoculars were a century ago.
But the obvious difference is that binoculars were not sold with citizen from the other country attached who would stand near and occasionally would peer through and also report to office worker exact position of the binoculars owner AND also recite content of his personal notebook. Quite difference isn't it?
AFAIK, soldiers flash a custom firmware on these drones before they are deployed to the battlefield. I imagine it has phoning home and tracking features removed.

It's not like the battlefield will have reliable wi-fi/4g coverage anyway.

Assault Rifles seem to be ok for the US government to place into the hands of US civilians.
Agree. But I think the idea of flying a bomb into someone's car (the first thing that came to mind when I thought about it for a few seconds) is, to the powerful, a whole 'nother level of terror.

Not to be so cynical/dark, but I'm surprised to have not yet heard of a targeted assassination done by an amateur with an off-the-shelf drone. I have to admit the idea is frightening.

Remember the D.C. Sniper attacks?

Not sure if grenades are as available to the public as bullets and if I remember correctly bombs are illegal to make.

> bombs are illegal to make

Tell that to Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, the Tsarnaev brothers and that guy that brought pipe bombs to the January 6th insurrection.

You have it backwards: the U.S. government is explicitly prohibited constitutionally from infringing the human right to bear arms.
That's why everyone can buy sell and own nukes!
Seems tactical nukes that can be fired by a single individual may constitutionally be held. Firing them appears extremely illegal, owning them is likely subject to physical monitoring, and motorized missile launchers and such are regulated by state regulations under the Tenth.

cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258#31869185

^^^ this comment was posted by someone who does not know what an assault rifle is. it is very difficult and expensive to get ahold of a assault rifle these days and has been for almost 40 years.

though yeah i think we should repeal that law, there is nothing wrong with civilians owning assault rifles. the federal government is literally not allowed to pass or enforce laws against this because it clearly infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms. we can only hope some time in the next few years the NFA, GCA and FOPA are struck down, along with all the asinine regulation that has forced so many small gun manufacturers out of business, increased gun prices for American consumers and retarded innovation in civilian small arms.

Yep - TBF, I have no idea really.

I just see what I see on the news out of the US with headlines such as:

"Student arrested in Texas after walking to school with assault rifle just one day after tragic Uvalde shooting"

So it's understandable the world believes that Assault Rifles are purchasable by civilians in the US.

Yes same for tactical nukes
I hate this argument because it's fucking stupid. I think we can draw a clear and logical line between "gun" and "doomsday device".
I think it's a lot more stupid to assume that laws put in place to allow for single fire muskets that took significant amounts of time to load and fire should automatically equally apply to machine guns.

We should be able to draw a clear and logical line between the kinds of guns the people who wrote the constitution envisioned the American people owning and the kinds of guns we have today, but obviously not everyone agrees with that. They all agree there is a difference and that lines exist, but feel that they should just be ignored.

single fire muskets... or fucking warships and cannon.
Yeah, there’s a line somewhere obviously, but it’s also not defined by “is it an arm? Okay then you have a right to bear it!”

As technology advances, either we have to be comfortable with more and more destructive devices being in the hands of everyday people, or we have to be comfortable with restricting access to more and more devices that qualify as “arms.”

Legalize recreational nukes
legalize nuclear bombs... bees make honey
Please let me know how to buy one, they are forbidden since 1936 with very few exceptions and astronomic prices.
They're certainly an optimal delivery device for biological and chemical weapons, and I imagine it's only a matter of time before such programs are revived by various powers, given the current breakdown in international treaty regimes governing what I'd call the four horsepeople of the apocalypse: nuclear, chemical, biological and cyber warfare.
How are they more optimal than the "traditional" (for the last few decades) method, a missile? Missiles have the advantages of bigger range, faster, different profiles (hypersonic cruise, ICBM). A drone might be harder to detect today, maybe, because anti-air systems didn't need to deal with them (while they did have to deal with missiles, so are optimised for that use case), but that's about it?
Availability is much higher, so that opens the door to use by non-state actors. Stealth is probably also higher. I suppose the combination, i.e. missiles delivering cluster-type munitions (releasing hundreds of drones instead of hundreds of bomblets) is what state-level militaries would pursue.

Little-known fact: cluster munitions (essentially, hot-water-heater-size cylinders packed with hundreds of small devices) were originally developed for the dispersal of chemical and biological warfare munitions over wide areas.

I know you were talking about conventional warfare, but unless your apocalypse-causing list includes inflation upfront, it's not complete.
The past thirty years of offensive drones has shown the military power offensive drones. The US fields drones from the size of passenger aircraft to tiny little palm sized ones. It's also been firing missiles from them for decades now.

Drones in warfare are not new at all. Even the use of commercial drones is not new.

There is nothing to allow. The cat is already out of the bag. Best you can hope for is regulation, which is what FAA is attempting to do and mitigation ( some companies have ideas on how to counter 'bad' drones ). In a sense, it is no different than it was before. People can still drive cars. People can still use RC toys. And people will do all sorts of horrible things will all manner of technology.

<< I can think of a few modifications to drones, I've yet to see in Ukraine, that could increase their lethality 10x.

I don't know this, but I suspect we are only seeing some rather selective footage ( as with most warfare propaganda ). Just thinking what one could do with coordinating drones makes me shiver a little.

Still, as a species we are oddly adaptable. Here is to hope permanent drone sky will not become our new normal.