# How will drones and robots change warfare? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320 "2009-05-22T18:58:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AdmiralCrunch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6f9a4e/32.png) [@AdmiralCrunch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdmiralCrunch)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/21 "2009-05-23T16:33:08Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > The psychological element is also important. Vietnam showed that even a third-world country could defeat a superpower by inflicting enough casualties to destroy political support at home. That’s the conventional lesson, but it’s dead wrong. We could have racked up 100000 dead if we actually made any progress. First it was a small operation, then we continued to dial it up, search and destroy, sweep and clean, helping the vietnamese take back “their” country. Vietnam showed that even a superpower can’t win a war without justification, planning, desire, or a populace that actually wants to be liberated. [Quote=Lantern] I think political pressure to reduce casualties would overwhelm any service inertia at least in the long run. [/quote] Except the political pressure to reduce casualties isn’t the reason people are against wars like Iraq and Vietnam, it’s just an argument against unnecessary war in general. The body count in World War II was justified, and would have been justified at much higher numbers because the reason for war was defensible. There was little political pressure to reduce casualties because we were fighting a war with defined goals and objectives. One guy refusing to sacrifice himself to save a planet seems selfish, but one guy having to die so a congressman can avoid paying for cable seems unnecessary. Same body count, way different scenario. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I would guess that casualties suffered by Americans in future conflicts get fretted about even more than they are now. I can imagine some African flareup in, I dunno, 2026, in which three marines die, and the press will pay more attention to them than to 4000 dead Americans in the Iraq War, 58000 dead in Vietnam or 407000 dead in WW2 because three dead marines in drone-laden 2026 will seem to epitomize the word “unnecessary.” Three marines died in Sudan this week, heroically trying to reboot our battle server, which had failed to respond to remote login. ---
**Author:** ![Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cornelius_Tuggerson)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/22 "2009-05-24T15:02:39Z")
> [@RogueAOV](#): > > Bee hives being used against tanks for example. That is genius in its straight forwardness and simplicity, but is there a cite? All I can find are articles on the [beehive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_(ammunition)) artillery round. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/23 "2009-05-24T15:56:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Until we embarrass ourselves at some time in the future by our manned air force getting slaughtered by an otherwise less powerful enemy that stuck with drones. Warfare is Darwinian like that. Our big fancy air force is already trending toward obsolete. China’s recent foray into fighter jet technology has given the big swinging dicks of the high-tech set at the Air Force another breath of air, but things like the F-22 Raptor are essentially pure pork. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/24 "2009-05-24T15:57:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I would guess that casualties suffered by Americans in future conflicts get fretted about even more than they are now. I can imagine some African flareup in, I dunno, 2026, in which three marines die, and the press will pay more attention to them than to 4000 dead Americans in the Iraq War, 58000 dead in Vietnam or 407000 dead in WW2 because three dead marines in drone-laden 2026 will seem to epitomize the word “unnecessary.” Yes, and the reaction to it will be to give robots a freer rein to kill and to remove the Marines even farther from harms way. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/25 "2009-05-24T20:29:13Z")
“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.” -Commencement speech by the Commandant of Rommelwood Military Academy (The Simpsons) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/26 "2009-05-25T00:37:36Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > How fast is the technology improving and how far will it go? How soon will we see remote-controlled land-based weapons? What is the likelihood that in, say, 30 years you could stage an invasion largely through remote control. No way. As Iraq has clearly demonstrated you need boots on the ground if you are to control the territory. Military supremacy is irrelevant after the initial military victory. You then need human beings on the ground. Rumsfeld and Cheney made the mistake of thinking technology could replace soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/27 "2009-05-25T00:41:47Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > No way. As Iraq has clearly demonstrated you need boots on the ground if you are to control the territory. Military supremacy is irrelevant after the initial military victory. You then need human beings on the ground. Rumsfeld and Cheney made the mistake of thinking technology could replace soldiers. Yes, if your goal is to occupy that is entirely true. Occupation needs to be seen as obsolete though. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/28 "2009-05-25T01:55:34Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Guerrilla armies live in the hope that even if they are losing the battles they may be inflicting sufficient pain that the other side will eventually give up. But what if the other side is just throwing robots at you and barely suffering any casualties. Fighting that kind of enemy would be extremely disheartening and it may be the guerrillas who give up. [Guerilla hat ON] Therefore, if smashing robots is not going to induce a change of heart on the invader I’d rather take the fight to the real people in their own country; I wouldn’t bother waging war in the battlefield against a robotic army but rather unleash a terrorism wave in the civilian population and see if they have the stomach to take it. [/Guerrilla hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/29 "2009-05-25T06:36:32Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > [Guerilla hat ON] > > Therefore, if smashing robots is not going to induce a change of heart on the invader I’d rather take the fight to the real people in their own country; I wouldn’t bother waging war in the battlefield against a robotic army but rather unleash a terrorism wave in the civilian population and see if they have the stomach to take it. > > [/Guerrilla hat OFF] That is easier said than done though. Some of the more hard-core Iraqi insurgents would probably like to carry out attacks in the US but that is very hard to pull off. > [@](#): > > As Iraq has clearly demonstrated you need boots on the ground if you are to control the territory. ``` To clarify again I don't envisage a situation where a country can be invaded completely with robots. You will still need humans to do nation-building, logistics and maintain the robot army. However most of the actual fighting would be done by the robots. They would be the "tip of the spear". ``` I expect the guerrillas would try to conduct attacks on the support staff but they will be well-protected like they are in Iraq today and casualties will still be much lower. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/30 "2009-05-25T13:54:03Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > To clarify again I don’t envisage a situation where a country can be invaded completely with robots. You will still need humans to do nation-building, logistics and maintain the robot army. However most of the actual fighting would be done by the robots. They would be the “tip of the spear”. This makes no sense. How do you get the Iraqis to not fight the occupiers and only fight the drones? It makes no sense. If you put humans on the ground then the natives will fight them as is clear in Iraq. And if you do not put humans on the ground then you are not in control. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/31 "2009-05-25T16:00:23Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > No way. As Iraq has clearly demonstrated you need boots on the ground if you are to control the territory. Military supremacy is irrelevant after the initial military victory. You then need human beings on the ground. Rumsfeld and Cheney made the mistake of thinking technology could replace soldiers. I would think Afghanistan is a better demonstration, but I agree. Ground troops are needed to interface with the local population. Gathering intelligence, building relationships. You know, hearts & mind shit. What technology allows these soldiers to do is project their effectiveness over a larger area. It allows them to do their job more efficiently and without being burdened by vulnurable supply chains. For example, how would Black Hawk Down have played out if instead of manned helicopters providing close-air support to the Rangers and Delta Force teams, you had some sort of armed, unmanned drones. What if every soldier with a Blackberry-like device could view a 3-D Google Map type view of the entire battlefield updated real-time by a swarm of relatively cheap drones? What would probably have happened would be that the Rangers would not have to run all over Mogidishu trying to rescue downed helicopter crews. They could have stayed put under the air-cover of the drones and then planned out an exit route knowing which roads were being blocked. > [@sailor](#): > > This makes no sense. How do you get the Iraqis to not fight the occupiers and only fight the drones? It makes no sense. If you put humans on the ground then the natives will fight them as is clear in Iraq. And if you do not put humans on the ground then you are not in control. It’s foolish to believe no humans would be involved in the fighting. But how do you mount an attack on a convey if there are drones constantly and tirelessly patrolling the highway where you would leave your IED? Or how effective will your attack be if the vehciles are mounted with an automatic gun that will detect an incoming sniper round and automatically respond with a burst of .50 cal fire at you before the soldiers even know they are under attack? I think the trend will continue where enemies will try to avoid going head to head against technologically superior opponents. They will continue to blend into the civilian population and try to strike at their enemies weaknesses. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/32 "2009-05-25T16:07:30Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Our big fancy air force is already trending toward obsolete. China’s recent foray into fighter jet technology has given the big swinging dicks of the high-tech set at the Air Force another breath of air, but things like the F-22 Raptor are essentially pure pork. No way. The F-22 is an amazing fighter plane. And remember it isn’t always about the fastest, most well-armed or most manueverable plane, rather, its the pilot training and the support these types of aircraft receive from other craft, like AWACS, refueling planes, fleets of ships, etc. And we have ALL of that, and a lot of it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/33 "2009-05-25T18:11:49Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > No way. The F-22 is an amazing fighter plane. And remember it isn’t always about the fastest, most well-armed or most manueverable plane, rather, its the pilot training and the support these types of aircraft receive from other craft, like AWACS, refueling planes, fleets of ships, etc. And we have ALL of that, and a lot of it. Right it’s an amazing fighter plane in an era where there is no more use for fighter planes. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/34 "2009-05-25T18:49:29Z")
> [@](#): > > How do you get the Iraqis to not fight the occupiers and only fight the drones? ``` The idea is there will be far fewer human fighters since most of the fighting could be carried out by robots and drones. The humans would mostly be in support functions in strongly protected areas. For example while there are some attacks on political staff in Iraq, in general they are far safer than soldiers. And note that I was referring to this as a possible scenario maybe 30 years in the future when robotics and sensor technology will be far more advanced than today. I agree that if this happens guerrillas will adapt their tactics and try to find ways of killing the occupiers perhaps by trying to infiltrate the occupying governments by posing as translators and the like. However this will be far tougher than guerrilla warfare is today and will likely result in far fewer casualties. ``` ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/35 "2009-05-25T20:09:41Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Right it’s an amazing fighter plane in an era where there is no more use for fighter planes. Which is why the F22 is also capable of _bombing_, which there _is_ a use for. Or being fitted with air to surface missles. Also useful. And what if we suddenly find ourselves at war with Russia or China, both of whom have massive airforces? I know it doesn’t seem likely, but we fortunately have the luxury of being prepared for such an eventuality by having the most advanced fighter/bomber aircraft the world has ever seen. I don’t think you’d say the F-22 was useless then, as it racked up amazing kill ratios. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/36 "2009-05-25T21:10:43Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Right it’s an amazing fighter plane in an era where there is no more use for fighter planes. The problem with that is that its nineteen fifties and sixties thinking. The guns were taken off interceptors and replaced primarily with medium range beyond visual range missiles. That the gun had been relegated to a tertiary weapon , not withstanding, political rules of engagement relegated the best aspect of the fighter weaponry to gun fighter ranges. The F-22 is probably the last air breather of its kind, that I would agree with. The amount of money being sunk into the program does not justify the price tag at the squadron level. The airforce and Navy are going to have to start thinking about freezing programs for fifty year time frames and amortizing large buys in the four or five thousand amount. Declan ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/37 "2009-05-25T21:31:57Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > **The problem with that is that its nineteen fifties and sixties thinking.** The guns were taken off interceptors and replaced primarily with medium range beyond visual range missiles. That the gun had been relegated to a tertiary weapon , not withstanding, political rules of engagement relegated the best aspect of the fighter weaponry to gun fighter ranges. > > The F-22 is probably the last air breather of its kind, that I would agree with. The amount of money being sunk into the program does not justify the price tag at the squadron level. **The airforce and Navy are going to have to start thinking about freezing programs for fifty year time frames** and amortizing large buys in the four or five thousand amount. > > Declan Maybe. But the raptor can drop a 1,000lb JDAM bomb from 50,000 feet and hit a moving target, all while traveling at Mach 1.8…that’s a pretty modern technological feat/advantage. And we can’t expect a modern weapons platform to be viable for 50 years, especially aircraft, what with all the stresses on airframes (especially in the case of a supersonic plane). The B-52 is probably the only plane we have that has such a track record of longevity, and that’s probably going to come to an end before long. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/38 "2009-05-25T22:03:34Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Maybe. But the raptor can drop a 1,000lb JDAM bomb from 50,000 feet and hit a moving target, all while traveling at Mach 1.8…that’s a pretty modern technological feat/advantage. Its no different from what an eagle can do now, what changed is when you mount the jdam on the raptor, it can only carry a few in the internal bays and loses the low observable option if you mount the bombs on the external racks , or the sidewinder/ skorpions on the hardpoints for self defense > [@](#): > > And we can’t expect a modern weapons platform to be viable for 50 years, especially aircraft, what with all the stresses on airframes (especially in the case of a supersonic plane). The B-52 is probably the only plane we have that has such a track record of longevity, and that’s probably going to come to an end before long. The Eagle and Falcon are approaching 30 years old, some airforces are still operating the phantom and older aircraft depending on whose client they were. The whole point was not to limit the design to say twenty years, not the individual airframe. Engines might get an incremental increase in power and fuel conservation, chances are the sidewinder is going to be around for centuries concidering how simple it is. All you really need to think about is changing out the avionics and sensors as they require upgrading. Your airforce getting long in the tooth , fine , uncrate frames that are waiting in warehouses. You hopefully end up with thirty year old designs with zero hours on the frames , plug and play the sensor config you want, even configure it for a UCAV role if you wanted. Declan ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/39 "2009-05-26T02:09:02Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Its no different from what an eagle can do now, what changed is when you mount the jdam on the raptor, it can only carry a few in the internal bays and loses the low observable option if you mount the bombs on the external racks , or the sidewinder/ skorpions on the hardpoints for self defense > > The Eagle and Falcon are approaching 30 years old, some airforces are still operating the phantom and older aircraft depending on whose client they were. The whole point was not to limit the design to say twenty years, not the individual airframe. Engines might get an incremental increase in power and fuel conservation, chances are the sidewinder is going to be around for centuries concidering how simple it is. All you really need to think about is changing out the avionics and sensors as they require upgrading. > > Your airforce getting long in the tooth , fine , uncrate frames that are waiting in warehouses. You hopefully end up with thirty year old designs with zero hours on the frames , plug and play the sensor config you want, even configure it for a UCAV role if you wanted. > > Declan We could (and probably would, in an emergency) do just that…just like we would “unmothball” ships rusting away in our immense Naval shipyards. But the bottom line is technology, and while a platform is certainly upgradeable over semi-long periods of time for a weapons platform, sometimes it’s nice to start with something that’s based on 21st Century technology to begin with at launch, and the F-22 is all that and a bag of chips. Just wait until it’s used in earnest in a military venture (not that anyone wishes for that). It will decidedly kick ass, especially in conjunction with the other assets I already outlined supporting it. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320/40 "2009-05-26T02:31:12Z")
Interestingly they said the same thing about the M1 Abrams tank. First that man-portable anti tank missles would render it obsolete. Then it was not suitable for urban combat. Or that it was too heavy. As a general rule, the strategy for using tanks in an urban environment has been “don’t”. [But in Iraq and even in Somalia, commanders are finding that with some upgrades, tanks in urban environemnts are highly effective.](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-29-tank-inside_x.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-drones-and-robots-change-warfare/497320.md?page=3)