HighDrag/LowBrow

Venmo: PPDuDieu

I'm currently living with and taking care of very abusive and unwell family. Most of the home is a hoarder's hovel, which is an extremely psychologically damaging nightmare on its own, but I've had lab tests done and found at least two major growths of different species of neurotoxic mold, and there's more I was unable to test. In addition to this, I'm subject to constant, unpredictable emotional abuse, including gaslighting about the abuse I've experienced. I'm also periodically threatened physically, which I'm not concerned about but plays hell on my already-disabling PTSD. I've been abused by these family members my whole life, so simply being around them is not good for me.

I have extreme PTSD, both acute and complex, and a dissociative disorder. Even outside of my family, I've been through some very terrible things. This has left me thoroughly disabled as I try to play catch-up in full-time therapy and treatment for neurological dysfunction, and given me a number of pretty bad physical health problems as well. It's to a point where I've been in a constant state of dissociative emotional flashback for years. I don't remember ever not feeling this way, I don't remember much at all, and it keeps me from so much as safely driving a car at the moment. I have no friends or family nearby who are able or willing to prop me up, hence I've been stuck here and my symptoms are only getting worse. I've also been ghosted by social services multiple times trying to get access to resources to get me out of here, which is just the story of my life.

In June, I'm coordinating efforts to move in with a friend in Washington for a while to get the fuck out of this situation and clear my head. It's going to be really tricky to get my stuff together and get across the country. I have a little bit of money, but it ain't much to speak of, in part because I was trying to help out friends for a while. I'd really appreciate if anyone could give me anything to help cover the cost of the move, help replace what I can't bring with, or just help me get by.

Let's be clear. You are not going to have a chance to fucking turn it over and pull the battery out, and you are not going to enjoy the response to throwing a water balloon filled with soap or paint on it. The only time they're going to deploy the normal unarmed robot dogs is alongside regular human police officers or troops, who will respond to you attacking the robot dog about how you would expect if you attacked their real K9 or police cruiser or armored vehicle, which is to say grab you, beat the shit out of you, and arrest you if you're lucky, or just kill you if you aren't. As for the ones with big long range guns on the back, those are going to be deployed as long range support weapons platforms in war zones, which if you happen to be unlucky enough to live in a war zone, or the US turns where you live into a war zone, it means trying to approach the robot dog sniper position with a can of paint will also just get you killed.

They are not going to be sending quadrupedal robots out to do solo patrols in your neighborhood. They won't even be sending them out in front of the riot shield line. They're gonna be surrounded by trained killers. What's more, destroying materiel, particularly expensive shit, is going to be something that probably only happens during outright conflict, or will be considered an outright hostile act otherwise, and will be met with lethal response if they can manage it.

If that's hypothetically the case, why fuck around with all this ewok trap bullshit? The only way one should even think about disabling a robotic quadruped is with a gun. Even a handgun round would likely disable a robot with a solid hit anywhere on its limbs, and probably destroy it with a hit to the center of mass. This goes double for rifle rounds, in which case the assailant would be up to 300 yards away from the robot and its handlers, and that's not even getting into long range hunting calibers.

I see people using the same stupid logic of "paint cans and water balloons" talking about armored vehicle optical systems too. The above applies but even more so, because they have guns on them and people in them who are just itching for a chance to kill somebody. Are you stupid. There's a reason armies send out troops with anti tank rockets and not fire extinguishers filled with nickelodeon gack.

The reason why we’re giving advice on how to disable autonomous weapons is because... they are autonomous. If you already have a dude with a gun, putting a robot with a gun next to him is a waste of resources.

“But isn’t the robot’s aim more accurate?” In theory, yes, but you aren’t going to be shooting at ranges where that matters.

A commercially available DMR rifle with a scope and a moderate amount of training will get you a much better accuracy rating per dollar’s investment, and you won’t have the nightmare of having to make a robot obey firearms safety rules.

A police robot dog even more so, if it isn’t armed with a lethal weapon. What are you imagining it can do that the police officers around it can’t?

Also you’re like, painfully close to making a actually correct observations on military strategy. Eh, we can’t all have warfare-related special interests, so let me infodump on your ignorant ass for a moment.

Let’s talk about drones.

Drones as we see them used today are remote controlled airplanes. This means a pilot is controlling them remotely

Let’s look up the definition of autonomous:

denoting or performed by a device capable of operating without direct human control

And let’s just look at what I actually wrote to you:

It is an old pipe dream to be able to wage war from the air, or otherwise projecting force without infantry.

So, I was clearly talking about drones when I talked about autonomous weapons. Seeing as I derided aerial warfare and drones are not autonomous. A+ reading comprehension.

Now, you don’t understand warfare (I blame video games) so I’ll just give you a few reminders about how war works:

War and battle is not the same thing. Just because you’re shooting, doesn’t mean you’re waging war. Just because you’re killing the enemy does not mean you’re winning.

Nearly all objectives in military strategy come down to occupying territory and securing infrastructure assets. Bombing people from the air is neither.

Battle is not about killing the enemy. Modern warfare has a ridiculously low kills-to-bullets ratio. Everything from covering fire to artillery bombardment is first and foremost a psychological deterrent, and battle is almost universally won by forcing surrender or retreat.

I’ll give you a few examples of counter-intuitive war stuff, too:

Tet offensive, Vietnam War. A battle purposefully lost for the sake of media coverage, turning public opinion of the occupying nation against the war, leading to victory.

Battle of Britain, WW2. Nazi Germany’s attempt at breaking the British public spirit by causing mass civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure, had the opposite effect.

I believe it is the US Marine Corps that has an explicit doctrinal categorization of damage done to the enemy. They list only 10%, 20%, and 30% enemy casualties (and I’m not even certain about 30%, actually,) because anything else is just unrealistic, and calls the last one ‘total destruction’ or similar.

If there is one thing you should take away from this (which I know you won’t, you’re going to read this, take it as an attack, then disregard everything I say even though I am clearly right) then it is this:

It takes men to hold the field.

Not robots. Not airplanes. Not robot airplanes.

Why?

Because occupying territory is how wars are won, and it is a social interaction in which a dude with a gun threatens you into compliance.

It is a given that only well-trained individuals should ever seek to attempt to disable one. That’s just basic praxis.

I am disputing your friend’s take on how an autonomous weapon is impossible to disable with dedicated tactics due to the fact that the people with autonomous weapons fail to use the unique capabilities of autonomous weapons, thereby rendering the autonomous weapon less of a threat. I hope you can see how that is a slightly strange argument.

I pointed this out, your friend willfully misread me in spectacular fashion; I chose to take offense because I am just some girl on the internet who likes arguing with people.

And no, I am no subject matter expert (I’m assuming that’s what your SME acronym means, you fucking American,) but I have consumed an order of magnitude more teaching material on matters of war than either of you.

Bonus answer: trick question my mouth is shut, I’m typing.

Your original qualm with Pupy’s post is:

> “ The reason why we’re giving advice on how to disable autonomous weapons is because… they are autonomous. If you already have a dude with a gun, putting a robot with a gun next to him is a waste of resources. “

and

> “ It is an old pipe dream to be able to wage war from the air, or otherwise projecting force without infantry. In the case of autonomous weapons, all that is needed to defeat them is child soldiers with cans of spray paint.

This is strange because Pupy at no point argued that these autonomous weapons will be utilized without any sort of infantry/police support. Some excerpts from his  post:

> “ The only time they’re going to deploy the normal unarmed robot dogs is alongside regular human police officers or troops “

> “ They are not going to be sending quadrupedal robots out to do solo patrols in your neighborhood. They won’t even be sending them out in front of the riot shield line. They’re gonna be surrounded by trained killers. “

I completely agree with your statements on the use of autonomous weapons on the battlefield will NOT in away replace the use of infantry/police. But this statement is something I am hung up on. Your statement:

>  “ The reason why we’re giving advice on how to disable autonomous weapons is because… they are autonomous. If you already have a dude with a gun, putting a robot with a gun next to him is a waste of resources. “

What? This is a wild take on integration of force multiplies into combat. Since were talking military history the use of the longbow at the battle of Agincourt (1415) drastically diminished the advantage the French had in infantry numbers and heavy cavalry. The longbow didn’t replace infantry or take away from their numbers, it acted as a force multiplier that gave them victory in a situation they otherwise would have stomped all over. You don’t lose infantry in the utilization of tanks or airplanes, those assets are used to make infantry more effective in their assaults. The integration of radio communication between infantry assets and CAS (close air support) during WW2 gave the Americans a distinct advantage in Combined Arms Warfare against German defenders who had limited means of coordinating force multipliers on the fly. 

More of your claims:

> ““But isn’t the robot’s aim more accurate?” In theory, yes, but you aren’t going to be shooting at ranges where that matters. A commercially available DMR rifle with a scope and a moderate amount of training will get you a much better accuracy rating per dollar’s investment, and you won’t have the nightmare of having to make a robot obey firearms safety rules.”

First of all robots don’t have to follow safety rules, their operators do. Contemporary autonomous weapons platforms still require their operators to choose targets and actually pull the trigger. In fact, no degree of technological innovation will replace the need of a human operator to properly ID and choose targets in order to limit non-combatant or friendly casualties (Which honestly the use of these platforms has proved most government actually don't fucking care if civilians die. See the drone war in Pakistan.) While autonomous by definition means, “without outside control and capable of making its own high level decisions” the contemporary understanding of autonomous when discussing weapons platforms (at least by NATO) is:

> “It is misleading to focus on the ‘unmanned’ nature of a platform, especially in the context of autonomy. Many platforms are unmanned but completely controlled by a crew, while other are unmanned but only partially controlled by a crew. Some platforms are manned, but delegate certain functions to a crew in another location (e.g., spacecraft).” [https://www.act.nato.int/images/stories/media/capdev/capdev_02.pdf]

Now discussing the use of unmanned systems as weapons platforms/payload delivery systems. While air-assets are important in conventional and unconventional warfare, drones provide a wide set of advantages that conventional fixed wing and rotary craft do, without risking a highly trained pilot. ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) capabilities are essential to maintaining control of a battlespace. Helicopters and airplanes can provide this, while risking the lives of the pilots. We’ve seen commercial drones widely used in Ukraine to provide accurate up to date information on troop positions without putting anyone but the drone at risk. In fact, one of the biggest advantages of drone tech for ISR is their MALE (Medium Altitude, Long Endurance) capabilities which allow them to remain on station providing accurate intelligence for upwards of 48 hours. Similarly to air assets, on the ground autonomous assets (remember the NATO definition of ‘autonomous’) are not a replacement for infantry, but a force multiplier. UGV (unmanned ground vehicles) are being tested and used to help bolster infantry tactics, not replace them. The use of accurate weapon systems in establishing bases of fire, maintain surveillance on possible approaches and ATEAs (Assumed Target Engagement Areas), and providing pinpoint suppression during the maneuver stages of an assault assist standard conventional tactics instead of replacing them. There’s some use cases for larger platforms with weapons. 

Another one of your points:

> “ A police robot dog even more so, if it isn’t armed with a lethal weapon. What are you imagining it can do that the police officers around it can’t? “

If you are familiar with military tactics, as you claim you are, then you would know that in MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) operations accept an 80% casualty rate as a possible reality. This can be diminished by using smaller autonomous platforms (see robot dog) to conduct reconnaissance in buildings, check around corners using thermal optics to clear danger areas, or be used as pack mules to carry heavier equipment and extra HE munitions. “But a truck could do that!” Yeah, it could, but a truck or armor is limited to road infrastructure and is vulnerable to attacks. Having a asset that can cross tough terrain and fit through fucking doorways is absolutely indispensable in MOUT operations. 

So to bring this back to the original post, these autonomous platforms are scary. They are revolutionizing modern warfare and policing tactics, and are not vulnerable to silly tactics. If you spray paint a robot dog, you’re going to get shot. If you shine lasers at a UAV, The troops/cops theyre supporting are going to find you. If you see a unmanned combat vehicle shooting around you, that means troops are moving on you. This shit is revolutionizing the way war is conducted in the modern world of full-spectrum hybrid warfare, and their utility and threat level should not be discounted. 

And since you brought up your credentials I’ll bring mine.  I’m graduating from a top university with a college specifically designed around educating on developments in contemporary international threats. I was part of a major study on emerging technological threats and their impact on modern critical infrastructure. I also was in the military as an infantry man and actually used drones.