You can't have a MAD scenario with drones. Drones are less like nuclear weapons, and more like AK-47s. If they're available, they'll be used, by states, guerillas, warlords and organized crime alike.

I think there is a big difference though between a nuclear weapon, which is very hard to procure unless you're a nation-state, and a programmable drone, which can be procured at Best Buy by anyone. Mutually Assured Destruction has kept nation-states in check in terms of nuclear weapons, yes. There is no such barrier to individuals purchasing drones, which have many purposes, unlike a nuclear weapon. There are many more crazy individuals in the world that can afford cheap drones than there are crazy nation-states willing to use their nuclear weapons against a foreign population. You can retaliate against a nation-state because it will be obvious who it was. Missiles are easily trackable and immediately detectable upon launch, unlike small hobby-sized drones.

Important thing is, you can't really do a MAD scenario with drones. MAD requires the destruction to be assured - e.g. once missiles are in the air, everyone's done. The destruction is immediate and can't be stopped by last-minute negotiations; there's no option of attacking "only a little" with nukes.

> The destruction is immediate and can't be stopped by last-minute negotiations; there's no option of attacking "only a little" with nukes.

Of course there is: you could attack only battlefield targets, or only strategic military targets, or only one of the enemy's cities. MAD requires two things: first, the technology for mass destruction, second, the geopolitical conditions where either side can credibly threaten complete annihilation if provoked. Nuclear weapons provide the first by themselves, but the second only incidentally: the nuclear powers have come to a credible mutual understanding that they won't use nukes in their various border skirmishes, and that any use of nukes represents an escalation which risks MAD.

World leaders could hypothetically come to the same understanding regarding drones: use them anywhere in the world and you will start a nuclear war.

> World leaders could hypothetically come to the same understanding regarding drones: use them anywhere in the world and you will start a nuclear war.

Yes, except for one big difference that I see: individuals can't go purchasing a nuke like they can a drone. So while the MAD concept works with nukes, because only nation states have them, the same isn't true for drones, where individuals can have an unlimited number, in addition to governments. World leaders can agree re: drones and attacking each other, but that won't stop an intent individual. I think people might be quite surprised what you can do with a consumer grade drone purchased for a few hundred bucks hooked up to lidar, multiple gps sources, swarm technology so they communicate with each other and object recognition. Now just rig up an explosive device, chemical weapons or a gun. You can even drop items (bombs), or pick items up using retractable claws. You can do an awful lot with a consumer/hobby-grade drone hooked up to some cheap sensors using something even as basic as an arduino with open-source software like ArduPilot, which is so advanced (and cool) even Nasa uses it.

> Morality has kept nuclear weapons in check (so far anyways)

Morality and logistics. The major nuclear powers have implemented a relatively successful program to make it very difficult for a non-nuclear power to develop nuclear weapons.

> I’m sure it will keep AI drones in check too.

There is simply no way to use logistics to curtail AI drones in the same manner as nuclear weapons; all that is needed to make a drone is a 3d printer, common industrial components and software.

Fortunately for an AI drone swarm to be as destructive as a decent sized nuke, you would need millions of them. Unfortunately an AI drone swarm can be less destructive than a nuke. It could kill all the people in a city but leave infrastructure completely intact for the attackers to use. This future is not here yet but is coming and it is good people are starting to talk about it.

Do you need that size of destruction to keep people from leaving their homes? Or just the fear that rogue autonomous drones are flying around with a .22 mag attached? Wouldn't there be some economic impact from such a scenario?

Maybe for some small period of time, but not for long. Americans, and I think people in general, can be quite adaptive. In Texas enough people would just start carrying around shotguns for the chance to be the one to shoot it out of the sky. In San Francisco, who knows, maybe some counter drone tech would be quickly developed. A large society can absorb hundreds of deaths a day without too many problems if it knows the problem is not going to escalate exponentially.

Perhaps you are right. Texas certainly would adapt rather quick.

That said, some cities are already so messed up, that cops won't respond to 911 calls in some areas. I would expect that to get worse should there ever be "thugs with drones".

> all that is needed to make a drone is a 3d printer, common industrial components and software.

This could only happen in a very distant future. As it stands, firing a gun from a 3D printed drone would make it fall out of the sky. Even if it didn’t, it would be laughably inaccurate. Even still, they could be easily defeated with a birdshot.

The bar to entry for nukes is a bit higher than drones. There are already a myriad of drone hobbyists that do very impressive things at very impressive long ranges. RasPi's are getting cheaper and more powerful. I can imagine street gangs renting drones from geeks for all manor of news worthy events.

[Edit] Did I just create a DarkWeb business model?

> stop progress

More people thinking about what they're doing wouldn't be "stopping progress", it would be progress.