Post: #51

(12-01-2017 12:10 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 11:08 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  One EMP and those are toast. EMPs can be made with scrapyard detritus. I'm not too worried.

(12-01-2017 11:38 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  I don't think an EMP is necessary, they ain't wire controlled, so just carry a wide spectrum radio jammer with you.

You guys got more details on these counter-measures?

An effective jammer is not easy - also there are always counter-measures including a satellite uplink.

And in addition - the system will likely be designed to have some autonomous capacity if the uplink gets severed. So each drone will have enough immediate hard-data saved to act on it's own.

Fighting against the modern drone system will be part of a real insurgency. If you set up a large jammer or try EMP tech, then the system will respond by blasting your area immediately. What makes you think that an enemy who sends out drones against you will not be ruthless against anyone who fights against it?

Post: #52

(12-03-2017 04:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Fighting against the modern drone system will be part of a real insurgency.

Do like the Viet Cong. Go underground. Literally.

Hard to transmit anything on radio from a sewer.

Post: #53

(12-03-2017 05:05 AM)Icarus Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 04:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Fighting against the modern drone system will be part of a real insurgency.

Do like the Viet Cong. Go underground. Literally.

Hard to transmit anything on radio from a sewer.

Not really. Autonomous swarms can act as their own relay stations. They can be programmed to leave one hanging back when the signal drops to a certain point.

(12-03-2017 04:33 AM)Icarus Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 07:06 PM)Dulceácido Wrote:  it would work, if the robots didn't have thermal imaging.

Then use smoke that is opaque in the infrared. A retractable butterfly net may be useful, too.

(12-02-2017 07:06 PM)Dulceácido Wrote:  You know, there's a laser microphone. How do you think it records sounds? It does it by measuring the micro-vibrations of objects in the room that react to the sound being produced.

Sure, by reflecting off vibrating glass windows. The standard counter-measure is to have (perennial) trees near all the windows, so that there is no line of sight to any window.

So now we're living in the sewer or at least in a house with no line of sight (from any 3d angle?), carrying around smoke grenades (opaque) and butterfly nets. Do we have jobs? Food? Water? Are we passing through checkpoints or are we surviving on squirrels in Appalachia?

I'm just trying to get a picture of how smoke grenades and butterfly nets slot into modern a 4GW resistance movement.

Post: #54

(12-03-2017 05:42 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Autonomous swarms can act as their own relay stations. They can be programmed to leave one hanging back when the signal drops to a certain point.

And how long would the battery last while powering 4 electric motors and relaying radio messages?

(12-03-2017 05:42 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  So now we're living in the sewer or at least in a house with no line of sight (from any 3d angle?), carrying around smoke grenades (opaque) and butterfly nets. Do we have jobs? Food? Water? Are we passing through checkpoints or are we surviving on squirrels in Appalachia?

Some claim that infrared blinds video cameras. Wear a crown of infrared LEDs and the killer quadcopters may "see" a bright lamp where your head is. Hard to do facial recognition in such a scenario.

Post: #55

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly.

While wearing your infra-red LEDs and your smoke grenades and your butterfly net, what are you actually doing with your life?

Are we talking Terminator hellscape? Are we talking political dissident in an authoritarian regime?

Quote:...how long would the battery last while powering 4 electric motors and relaying radio messages?

That's all drones actually do... Power motors and relay radio messages... So to answer your question, hours.

Post: #56

(12-03-2017 06:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  While wearing your infra-red LEDs and your smoke grenades and your butterfly net, what are you actually doing with your life?

Probably what I am doing now.

(12-03-2017 06:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Are we talking Terminator hellscape? Are we talking political dissident in an authoritarian regime?

I am talking pure tactics. Why I happened to be targeted does not concern me much, as the why may be unknowable.

(12-03-2017 06:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote:...how long would the battery last while powering 4 electric motors and relaying radio messages?

That's all drones actually do... Power motors and relay radio messages... So to answer your question, hours.

Not all quadcopters carry an explosive charge. Camera + battery + explosive charge. That adds up. In any case, at some point, the quadcopters would have to fly back to a battery-charging station. Blow that one up, and the drones are dead. Sure, the powers-that-be can order that their soldiers walk around picking up quadcopters. When that happens, these soldiers can be sniped.

Post: #57

I'm sorry, Icarus. You're roleplaying in a rather fantastical setting and dodging simple questions.

The reality of this type of warfare is that the drone(s) will see you long before you ever see them. They can carry a wide array of light and deadly weapons capable of killing you from a distance or up close, which they can deploy before your human reflexes are capable of reacting.

If you are wearing some sort of bizarre LED headgear then you will register as a walking person of interest, not just to drones but to all cameras in line of sight. At that point if you're not killed "just because" you will be marked for a special interview and rounded up for same.

People who think that plucky humans are capable adversaries against advanced autonomous weapons have watched too much television, wherein the protagonists magically seem to run-and-gun their way to victory while the robots seem to be programmed to shoot everything around the target.

Anyone who thinks that they would stand a snowball's chance in hell against a hostile government armed with this kind of technology is delusional.

Post: #58

(12-03-2017 09:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  If you are wearing some sort of bizarre LED headgear then you will register as a walking person of interest

Not if everyone wears one.

(12-03-2017 09:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  People who think that plucky humans are capable adversaries against advanced autonomous weapons have watched too much television, wherein the protagonists magically seem to run-and-gun their way to victory while the robots seem to be programmed to shoot everything around the target.

Anyone who thinks that they would stand a snowball's chance in hell against a hostile government armed with this kind of technology is delusional.

I did research on robotics as an undergrad. Went to grad school and worked with a professor who did research on robotics. Watched countless research talks from professors doing research on robotics for DARPA, USAF, etc. That was almost a decade ago, and facial recognition technology evolved tremendously since then, but I was once very interested in robotic swarms and let's just say that once you remove the TED-like glitter, things are not as easy as they seem. Not even close.

Moreover, the guy delivering the talk has "sleazy salesman" written all over him. There are plenty of people making a good living off either scaring the public with extremely choreographed robotic performances that would never be replicated in an improvised setting, or sucking the Pentagon's teat with phoney technology that only works when there is no smoke, no fog, no wind, no glare, etc. Just because a technology works in an indoor laboratory where one can control everything, it does not mean it will work outdoors.

Post: #59

(12-02-2017 08:22 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  On a side note, it would be cool to see them in action in urban combat scenarios like in Afghanistan assisting our buys in the eradication of ISIS scum.

Exactly. The latter half of the 20th century has been largely about the rise of guerilla warfare and terrorism as tactics to counter an overwhelming military force. From Cuba to Vietnam to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Battle bots (starting with the drones used under Obama) are the only way to defeat asymmetrical warfare without risking a bloodbath. They'd be able to go house-to-house and fight to the last man. No amount of boobytraps would be able to stop them. The only leverage the other side would have would be human-shields and collateral damage.

If there were any gentlemanly rules of warfare left in this world then none of this would be necessary, but faced with an enemy that does not honor the Geneva convention and pulls every dirty trick in the book, this is the only option left outside of nuking from orbit.

Will it likely up the ante and lead to unintended negative consequences? Yeah, but this has been the tit for tat game of military R&D since man first clubbed another with a femur.

Post: #60

(12-04-2017 01:28 AM)questor70 Wrote:  faced with an enemy that does not honor the Geneva convention and pulls every dirty trick in the book, this is the only option left outside of nuking from orbit.

There is always the option of not invading said "enemy". Would have worked in Vietnam.