Killer drones and how difficult is to prohibit them
1) Are killer-drones and drone swarms the next-generation weapons of mass destruction?
It's nice that the United Nations is trying to limit the development of the automatic and semi-automatic weapon systems. But the thing is that those killer-robots are effective, and that means the development of those systems is continuing. And the major problem is that this kind of system is easy to install for every kind of military device, and that means that the attempts to prohibit those weapons are not very effective.
The first fear is that the attempt to prohibit the killer-drones and other killer-robots would follow the same formula with the attempts to prohibit nuclear weapons or rather saying an attempt to prohibit WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and weapons, what are against humanity. The weapons like poisoned bullets and flamethrowers have been prohibited before WWII, but both of them were used against the enemy especially in the Eastern Front of Germany and at the Pacific islands, where those weapons had the key role to clean enemy fortresses. Sometimes lasers are mentioned as electromagnetic flamethrowers or non-humanitarian weapons, which should be prohibited because they can blind.
2) Does the attempts to prohibit drones have the same effect with attempts to prohibit other WMDs (weapons of mass destruction)?
The thing is that the power of the lasers, what are used in modern military technology is increased, the same systems, what can be used in the ranging equipment can have adjustable power, which means that the same lasers can cut tanks in two pieces. And the radiation, what will come out of those devices is infrared radiation, which means that the eye cannot see them. So the thing, what the developers of those weapons like China, USA, UK, and Russia are argument the development of those weapons is that they are like some electromagnetic machine guns. And pointing weapons against civilians is always prohibited. So this is the reason, why some nations are keeping very large stockpiles of the chemical weapons in their warehouses.
3) WMDs are cheap and easy to use as well as drones, and the drones of the next generation can use even nuclear weapons.
Chemical weapons are prohibited, but the production of chlorine and phosgene is so easy, that many nations believed to have the systems, which can easily be armed with those chemicals. The argument what those nations use for their weapons is that they have the right to defend themselves. So are drones, what are armed with lasers the new type of WMDs? Drones are excellent equipment for delivering highly toxic chemicals, and that makes them very feared. Also, drone swarms can use microwave systems, which they can use to sterilize the large areas of the ground.
Every aircraft in the world can turn to killer-drone, and if the normal jet-fighter or multi-role aircraft starts to operate as killer-drone, that system can have very much benefits, if we will compare it with manned aircraft, and there are rumors, that in those aircraft have been installed fixed nuclear weapons, what makes them new type of cruise missiles.
Those missiles can shoot sub-missiles against other aircraft, they can return to base if the conflict is avoided, and if "the time has come" those aircraft can fly in the enemy airspace and explode the nukes inside them. And that thing makes them very effective.
3.1) There are three types of killer-robots
3.1.1) Remote-control systems
Remote-control robots, which are controlled by using a joystick, and what can shoot by using the wireless camera, what is connected to its machine guns. The problem with those systems is that the communication between the control station and the robot is easy to cut by using ECM-systems.
3.1.2) Semi-automatic systems
Those systems are like IAI Harpy and other drones like "Aquila", which are sent to patrol over the battlefield. When they are detecting enemy radar or another radio source, that thing can make the kamikaze-attack against that target and destroy it. Many nations have that kind of system, or they can transform every drone to that kind of weapon.
Also, manned aircraft's semi-automatic systems like "auto-fire" ability, which means that the aircraft would open fire against every target, which acts as "hostile". That kind of system can open fire against every aircraft of missile battery, what they are seeing.
3.1.3) Full automatic systems
Those independently operating systems like drone-swarms are thee most modern and dangerous weapon systems. There are many things, which are not finished with them. And one thing, what is afraid is that kind of systems are also increasing the speed of developing electromagnetic weapons.
The microwave transmitters and EMP bursts are effective against those drones. Those systems are blocking the internal communication between drones in drone swarms. So the problem is that those drones can turn to dangerous only to civilians. Also, the pressure impact, that comes from high-speed aircraft can harm the drones.
But they are also able to defend targets by targeting the microwave busts to attacking aircraft. Or they can simply rise to the rouse of attacking planes, and if they are sucked in the turbine, that can destroy the aircraft and they are also planned to use against helicopters. The drone swarm can just fly to the main rotor of the helicopter and then it will be destroyed or damaged.
4) The conclusion is what if some nations are taking the prohibiting attempts of the automatic weapon systems as advice, what they should develop.
This is the major risk in this kind of attempt to prohibit some non-humanitarian systems from the battlefield. Some nations and military forces are following the discussion about those weapon systems, and then they are making conclusions, what the opponent afraid.
And the argument, what the supporters of those systems are using, is that other nations have killer robots too. So they want to make their systems for acting against enemies. The problem is that the killer drones are handled like the cruise missile, which can attack against multiple targets. So if the UN attempts to prohibit them, there is no mean for that kind of thing. That means that there would be a new contract, which nobody follows.
Comments
Post a Comment