Respectfully, what is the novel part of your thesis? It seems the fact that drones can now (or soon) act as WMDs is well understood. The same can be said of conventional weapons; indiscriminate targeting with conventional weapons can act as a WMD that just kills whole countries or civilizations. However, by international laws and norms, conventional weapons are forbidden from being used as WMDs, and we would expect drones to also fall under those conventions. (Whether such conventions can be expected to be upheld is another question.)
Maybe you’re just writing about something that’s already understood, and that’s fine. Just seems like it’s trying to say something novel here but I’m not getting what it is. Maybe your argument is that many observers do not realize this is what’s happening?
For the record, I didn’t downvote this comment. I have no gripes with skepticism.
I think this piece was valuable for a few reasons.
First, the national security establishment is generally very conservative about forecasting future technology. Using the example of drone WMDs helps illustrate that existing offensive technology could be ready for WMD use very quickly, and that it’s worth giving the same treatment to other, more speculative technology (i.e., AI enabled weapons).
Second, drones have unique advantages as WMDs. They can be assembled from components that are difficult to sanction, have deniable application for civilian or conventional use, and allow for the kind of precise force projection that’s otherwise prevented chemical and biological weapons from acting as effective non-nuclear deterrents.
Third, people can intellectually realize something is important without following through on the implications of what that would mean. There are many people in natsec that think cheap drones are possible and useful, but many fewer that have sat down to figure out what exactly that will imply over the next couple of years. Pointing out that there are easy ways to siege cities and giving a picture of what it would look like is important to push past compartmentalization.
Respectfully, what is the novel part of your thesis? It seems the fact that drones can now (or soon) act as WMDs is well understood. The same can be said of conventional weapons; indiscriminate targeting with conventional weapons can act as a WMD that just kills whole countries or civilizations. However, by international laws and norms, conventional weapons are forbidden from being used as WMDs, and we would expect drones to also fall under those conventions. (Whether such conventions can be expected to be upheld is another question.)
Maybe you’re just writing about something that’s already understood, and that’s fine. Just seems like it’s trying to say something novel here but I’m not getting what it is. Maybe your argument is that many observers do not realize this is what’s happening?
For the record, I didn’t downvote this comment. I have no gripes with skepticism.
I think this piece was valuable for a few reasons.
First, the national security establishment is generally very conservative about forecasting future technology. Using the example of drone WMDs helps illustrate that existing offensive technology could be ready for WMD use very quickly, and that it’s worth giving the same treatment to other, more speculative technology (i.e., AI enabled weapons).
Second, drones have unique advantages as WMDs. They can be assembled from components that are difficult to sanction, have deniable application for civilian or conventional use, and allow for the kind of precise force projection that’s otherwise prevented chemical and biological weapons from acting as effective non-nuclear deterrents.
Third, people can intellectually realize something is important without following through on the implications of what that would mean. There are many people in natsec that think cheap drones are possible and useful, but many fewer that have sat down to figure out what exactly that will imply over the next couple of years. Pointing out that there are easy ways to siege cities and giving a picture of what it would look like is important to push past compartmentalization.