[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

That first paragraph is a good argument for using this defense in occupied land, less so for domestic bases per the hypothetical. It becomes laughably bad if the target is changed from military to civilian; the defense seems likely to cause as much or more damage.

[parsimo2010]

This is partly why most military bases are not in a city- open space makes it easier to defend. (Another reason is that the dangerous chemicals and loud training make residents hate the base even in peacetime.)

And attacking civilian targets is a violation of the law of armed conflict. It would be a war crime if a country were to use drones (or any weapon) to intentionally attack civilians who are not participating in the fight.

I don't even know why people are still arguing. The US has been bombing Iran for nearly a month now. If drones and drone tactics were a particular weakness, why hasn't the US lost more equipment because of it? Out of 25 losses recorded for the US only one has been because of a drone. The US has lost more due to crashes and friendly fire than enemy drone action. Until drones are more effective than just someone not paying attention then it's hard to make an argument that there is a serious weakness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_an...