There’s a common misconception that robots are not yet capable enough. This obscures the present, unexecuted, reality.
It is well within the budget of many nations to build grenade carrying swarms of drones capable of autonomously patrolling and attacking human targets. The fact that we have not seen this on a wide scale has no bearing on present capabilities, or that which is within reach. If you search YouTube you can already find examples of ISIS using remote piloted inexpensive drones to attack armored targets with devastating effectiveness.
This is here, now.
As a former light infantry grunt I have a visceral feel for the breathtaking transformation of the battle space we may soon witness. Within an AO it is very challenging to deny access to light infantry, even in the most foreboding terrain. Autonomous drones can and will effectively deny infantry access to large areas. This fundamentally changes ground warfare, even guerrilla.
Use logic. Can a drone recognize someone holding a weapon? Can a system be devised to demark areas of friendlies? Are all nations as cautious as the US when it comes to each weapons release?
Hell, why do you need the drone to be autonomous? There are $100 drones that can be piloted remotely from kilometers away.
Not by itself. An area weapon is fine, which is why I said grenade. They are effective even with enemy in defilade. Rifles are cumbersome, give their position away and have recoil.
> why do you need the drone to be autonomous
Electronic Countermeasures
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=turkish+soldiers+drone+jammer&t=ff...
1) Know their capabilities 2) Stay out of range of the drone/missile swarm, until you have rendered them harmless (by destroying or blinding them).
The reason it's unjammable is that you need to be in line-of-sight of the laser between 2 devices to jam it.
Blinding swarms of drones with communications and coordination between them is impossible. If necessary, they'll just get their sight from a satellite above.
Missiles like this with ranges of 100s of kilometers will be very expensive, and can be intercepted by cheaper missiles/drones (or soon, lasers).
I think it's less concern about the domestic effects of war and more about the general inefficiency of murdering-the-shit-out-of-countries when it comes to foreign policy.
Specifically I think Cheney was willing to spill as much blood as needed. Some of his supporters in the media probably we're just in denial about the full costs of over throwing a country as large and fractious as Iraq.
What this implies for future wars I'm not sure.
That and American flags -- which, at the time, I wondered where they managed to get a bunch of flags?
Yeah, yeah, I know people don't like to hear that the Iraqi people were actually glad we were there in the early days of the war and greeted us as "liberators"...
If so maybe that answers the first part, where they got the flags, and also makes the second part worth little to nothing.
Didn't see the media other than occasionally seeing them driving around in their landcrusers.