There are weapons that use sensor fusion already, with computer vision being used mostly on the offensive side. The issue for fixed defensive emplacements is that the attack drones are quite fast, and small for their lethality. The fusion is built off radar, acoustic (sound) and visible spectrum, but isn’t reliable and only recently portable. Humans (which have excellent sensing capability) have been in the loop with aimed jammers, and this has become standard equipment at the platoon level.

Timely detection is hard, and the interception is tricky too. Costly interceptors work better than bullets, and can protect a larger area, but even a 95% interception range isn’t super effective, as we saw with some of the $1b radomes lost by US Forces this year.

Personally, I think we’ve sadly only seen the start of autonomous, self-guided ‘suicide’ drones. These are the weapons that terrify me. Not accountable, cheap, and they can easily be turned against civilian infrastructure. Computer vision is robust, but shrinking the sensor + decision maker still needs work (at least, thats what the unclassified info tells me)

The main difference between WWI and Today’s trench warfare the the level of intelligence available, combined with the ability to precision-strike.

It’s interesting because drones are very mobile, able to be deployed close to the front, and extremely deadly, but simultaneously limited. The heavier payload ones can also be longer range, but counter-UAV technology (mostly jamming) makes these harder to use. In comparison, the shorter-range drones can be sent via cable - impossible to jam, but limited flight distance due to the trailing wire + weight.

The application of drones on the battlefield also favors the defender. The small-payload drones are exceptional at taking out moving vehicles and light infantry, and overhead imagery (via drone or satellite) is nearly omnipresent. With neither side able to secure complete air power, the normal target softening approach of airstrikes followed by troop movement isn’t viable, and then drones take out even the most spread-out groups moving forward. The result is that the doctrinal 3:1 attacker ratio that favors defenders is even more lopsided with drones. I fear that we’ll see a greatly increased use of autonomous weaponry as a result, which is extremely dangerous for humanity.

I’m convinced this is astroturfing in the same vein as the “Just stop oil” protesters that do all that trolly shit. The goal is for you to view green technologies negatively by association, and to feel like the science and decision-making behind them is suspect.

What were these other soldiers supposed to do that are trained to fight and protect their country? Just stand there and take some more? What is the proper response according to you when a group of terrorists bombs a military convoy?

You edited your post so I’ll reply again: The test, which America and China both repeatedly fail, is having professional law enforcement and soldiers kill their own citizens. This is one of the most utter, final failures of government. There are plenty of options besides killing people, and when you take up arms and swear oaths to protect your country, and then kill citizens of your own country, you break your oath.

Your argument fails because there’s no need to actually intercede and halt protests. In the case of the pro-democracy movement crushed by the PLA in June 1989, martial law and attacks on protesters had begun en masse 2 weeks before the massacre. There was a steady escalation of violence leading up to the riots in early june. So the idea that the protestors “struck first” (even if that is a justification, which it isn’t, is false. The facts, which aren’t in dispute, were that the anti-corruption policies implemented to answer the complaints of the protestors were well-received, and further reforms were desired by everyone, not just the student protestors. Everyone except the local officials who were at risk of losing their positions by a government overhaul from authoritarianism to democracy.

The protest could have continued to be disrupted the way they already were before the massacre:

• Through wiretaps and arrests
• Through planted dissenters sowing chaos in the student’s ranks
• Through rubber bullets + tear gas, and other nonlethal methods

Instead, even though 300,000 people were protesting that period, the actions of an interim commander who acted on poor discipline and leadership, directly lead to at least hundreds, and possibly thousands, of his own people, in a small section of the city. That is a spectacular failure, and the end of a certain degree of human autonomy in China.

This is coming from someone who actually thinks China is leading the world in many ways. I do genuinely believe that China is actually less corrupt than many other nations, and the high degree of social cohesion in-country is something that gives them strength. Like I said in my first post: lots to admire, but this ain’t it.

I bet this logic trap goes hard if you’re a fucking moron. To spring it: No, I don’t support Jan 6 insurgents.

I am against any lethal action by governments towards their own citizens. And I don’t support murder or overthrowing governments by force either. So I don’t support insurgents trying to depose governments violently, and also I don’t support police killing people. The ideal situation would be to identify and arrest rioters. Which is, as it turned out, exactly what the US did until the new administration took over.

The idea that rioters attacking and beating people to death should be reasonably countered with expanding bullets, that poles and firebombs are reasonably opposed by rifles, frankly puts you in some sorry moral company. You should take a hard look at yourself if that’s the kind of behavior you condone from a government, under any circumstance. Professional soldiers and law enforcement don’t kill civilians.

This is just the other bullet points again! I’m sure if more armed rebels entered the capital it would have been incredibly messy and people would have died. And killing a ton of people, regardless of why, is a failure of government. Conflating one violent protest with another and then saying “America Bad so China Fine” is inane.

Removed by mod