Global Guerrillas

Jumping Urban Drone

Not much of difference between flying drones and earth bound bots.  Same trend, different locomotion.  

Here's a cool video of the Sand Flea.  

You can get more details on it from this great IEEE article. I'm with Evan Ackerman (the author at IEEE). This drone needs a tail to give it more stability. Longer term? Think small. Numerous. Faster jumps.

Drones and Operational Maneuverability

Autonomous drone swarms will increasingly replace traditional, human-based military units in the near future.  That's a fact.  It's already starting.  

Some early morning thoughts on how these swarms will maneuver in operational space.

Drones are currently in the process of being outfitted with insect mobility -- bees to ants to fleas.  However, that mobility is of diminished use given the limitations on decision making complexity (beyond what's required mobility).  

That decision making limitation will be fixed in the next decade, as inexpensive computing horsepower and bio-mimicry allows us to outfit drones with more complex mammalian behaviors (think rat).   

In fact, given that this decision making capacity will become merely a function of inexpensive hardware/software, it will become a throw away feature.  You can turn it up or down depending on need without any thought the expense involved.  

This implies a pretty efficient combo of dumbed down drones operating as part of a swarm, reacting to stigmergic signalling, and more rodent like behavior when operating as individuals.  

Logistics.

In the field, drone swarms will likely be constrained (as has any military unit across history) by logistics.  In this case, it would be the acquisition of energy (less so ammunition).  

Autonomous drone swarms will operate independently for months to years.  That means:

• Energy efficient maneuver/design.  Long loiter for flying drones, etc..  
• Ability to hibernate/reactivate.  
• Use of natural processes for long distance travel (wind, tides, currents, etc.).  Particularly, for very small drones and sea based drones.

Another interesting option is the ability of drone swarms to re-energize themselves through the following:

• Naturally available energy sources.  Solar energy.  Wind energy (think wind tunnels in urban canyons).  The energy acquisition tech will be built into the drones.  
• Parasitic acquisition.  Human energy sources by attaching themselves to powerlines or sucking gas tanks dry (gasoline is a good energy source for MEM turbines).  
• Forward operating bases.  Another option is a division of drone labor where a subset of drones acquire and store energy in locations for "soldier" drones to use.  These logistical drones could acquire much more complex forms of energy:  bio-mass conversion is a good, plentiful option.  

I've constructed some pretty fascinating operational scenarios using drones.  Probably better as fiction than reality based.  

NOTE: You should understand that the evolution of warfare drives social organization (which makes it pretty hilarious that our academic institutions don't study it as a discipline unto itself).  The advent of drone swarms will change how our social system is organized.  Hint:  it's VERY anti-democratic and very similar to feudal models of violence.  

 

 

Journal: Computer Vision + Water Gun vs. Squirrels

Controlling Drones with Hand Gestures

Here's a team at MIT developing a way for human beings to control drones by using hand gestures (derived from the hand signals used by flight crews on carriers).  

So, the idea is that if a drone (or one of the drones in a swarm) has line of sight on you, you could control the swarm using simple hand gestures.  

ID target.  Attack/Kill.  Retreat.  Encircle.  Immobilize.  Drive back. Land.  Refuel.  Station Keep.  

There was a good movie recently that used this idea called "Real Steel." Fun, worth watching.

Drones that Operate for Years on their Own

Drones, low cost robots that are independently maneuverable, come in all shapes and sizes.  

Here's an aquatic drone called a wave rider from Liquid Robotics.  It has two parts.  A surface craft that has a communications tower and a solar panel.  It has a submerged portion that uses adjustable fins to capture wave power.

A couple of days ago, Liquid Robotics reported that their drone had reached Hawaii -- 3,200 nautical miles out of a 9,000 mile unmanned, un-refueled, and zero emissions trip to Japan. 

On another note, here's an announcement of a project called the Low Orbit Server Stations (LOSS) by the team at Pirate Bay (the torrent search site that is constantly being raided by the global IP Cartel).  The costs of drone technology and long range wireless tech (100 Mbps up to 50km) is so inexpensive now, that its possible to revive the idea of using blimps as Internet proxies.  Essentially, these blimps can reach extremely high altitude 60k or so (above weather) and use solar power (flexible panels) to power itself (maneuver and for on board equipment).  This allows these blimps to stay aloft for years.  

The important insight here?  Drones can travel great distances and operate for years without human intervention/support already.  This capability will expand as they get smarter and more maneuverable.  

Homework:  Think about ways that land based drones (air/ground) can maintain operation in a built up area for a year or more while remaining mobile and independent.

 

When Elites Depart

One of the benefits of having a son that is a scholar of ancient warfare, from Alexander the Great to the Byzantine Empire to the Mongols, is that we can have wide ranging discussions on very deep topics.  Of perennial interest to us:  why do complex societies/civilizations collapse?  

One of interesting working theories we have is that while complex societies can be in decay for a long period of time, they only collapse when its favored elites abandon it/betray it.   

Here's an example from Roman history written by Joseph Tainter:

The Collapse of The [Western] Roman Empire

One outcome of diminishing returns to complexity is illustrated by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. As a solar-energy based society which taxed heavily, the empire had little fiscal reserve. When confronted with military crises, Roman Emperors often had to respond by debasing the silver currency (Figure 4.2) and trying to raise new funds. In the third century A.D. constant crises forced the emperors to double the size of the army and increase both the size and complexity of the government. To pay for this, masses of worthless coins were produced, supplies were commandeered from peasants, and the level of taxation was made even more oppressive (up to two-thirds of the net yield after payment of rent). Inflation devastated the economy. Lands and population were surveyed across the empire and assessed for taxes. Communities were held corporately liable for any unpaid amounts. While peasants went hungry or sold their children into slavery, massive fortifications were built, the size of the bureaucracy doubled, provincial administration was made more complex, large subsidies in gold were paid to Germanic tribes, and new imperial cities and courts were established. With rising taxes, marginal lands were abandoned and population declined. Peasants could no longer support large families. To avoid oppressive civic obligations, the wealthy fled from cities to establish self-sufficient rural estates. Ultimately, to escape taxation, peasants voluntarily entered into feudal relationships with these land holders. A few wealthy families came to own much of the land in the western empire, and were able to defy the imperial government. The empire came to sustain itself by consuming its capital resources; producing lands and peasant population (Jones 1964, 1974; Wickham 1984; Tainter 1988, 1994b). The Roman Empire provides history's best-documented example of how increasing complexity to resolve problems leads to higher costs, diminishing returns, alienation of a support population, economic weakness, and collapse. In the end it could no longer afford to solve the problems of its own existence.

A more recent example of this is how the bureaucratic elites of the former Soviet Union, turned on the system and quickly gutted it through privatization, when their privileges were reduced.   An accelerant of the process was the availability of an external financial system to deposit the newly looted wealth.

The big question for those of us in the US/EU is whether we are seeing this process at work in our system.  Are the government/business elites turning against the system?  

JOURNAL: Iron Dome and Magic Wand vs. the Parthian Shot

You wound, like Parthians, while you fly,
And kill with a retreating eye.

Samuel Butler

Data Point:  Palestinians in Gaza sent 120 unguided, short range missiles into Israel in a little over two days last week.  Israel's new short range air defense system, Iron Dome, analyzed the trajectory of the missiles and concluded thta only 37 posed a danger to populated areas.  It was able to intercept 32 of them.  More air defense is coming.  Magic Wand, a medium range missile defense system is about to be deployed, and the US just made a special $$ grant to Israel to pay for the expansion of its missile defense system.  

Data Point:  Offensive air power isn't that effective against these parthian shots.  Here's a map of the Israeli air offensive in 2006.  They pummeled Lebanon but couldn't stop the missile attacks.  

Here's some thinking on this:

• Air defense is expensive.  In fixed cost, upkeep cost, and compartive marginal cost (cost of interceptor vs. rocket).   Every innovation in attack yields a disproportionate increase in defense costs. 
• Air defense against low cost missile attack is mostly psychological.  The underlying, evergreen impact of missile barrage is that people are forced to flee to bomb shelters and stay there throughout the attack.  This occurs whether there is air defense or not.  
• Air defense can provide a false sense of invulnerability.  For example: This has always been the problem with nuclear missile defense.  If you start building a ICBM defense system, you might be deluded into thinking that Russian/Chinese ICBMs can't hit you (and vice versa).  Same is true here to a lesser extent.  
• If the attackers added even a little bit of inexepensive control technology to their rockets, these missiles would all be landing on populated territory (if they were really smart, ala global guerrillas, they would be targeting infrastructure and not populations).  A miss rate of ~20% would yield significant damage given the accuracy of the trajectories.
• Drones.  Here's where it become interesting.  Low cost drones flying at very low levels combine extremely high accuracy and extremely difficult targets.  They are, in effect, a poor man's cruise missile.   In the 80's, the USSR found that the costs of an air defense system required to defend against US cruise missiles was completely beyond their means.  While this is on a much smaller scale, it still radically expands the costs.  

Automating Terrorism (the decline of the suicide bomber)

Global guerrillas is one of the few places in the world where you will find deep thinking on the theoretical foundations of warfare.

It's my belief that warfare, aka organized violence, is undergoing punctuated change due to robotics/drones and other technologies of superempowerment.  That's not a good thing since I believe that warfare defines the path of development for everything else (economics, politics, culture).   It makes certain paths forward possible, and closes others.  A rapid change in warfare means a rapid change in everything else.  

Here's a tiny example of that change in action.

Suicide Terrorism

Robotic control systems are going to show up everywhere with increasing frequency.  Particularly as a replacement for suicide bombers.   Here's why.  Suicide bombers are functionally a poor man's weapon system.  Using a cold calculus:

• the suicide bomber's brain is an inexpensive substitute for
• the complex/expensive terminal guidance system of a missile.

The suicide bomber's function boils down to bringing the bomb to the target, the closer the better.  In most cases, the bomber can also decide when to detonate it, which makes their brain/eye/finger system a replacement for a target radar/proximity fuse system.

However, this isn't a simple substitution. Suicide bombers are difficult to recruit and train.  People simply aren't naturally inclined to kill themselves.  They need to be carefully selected, motivated, and trained to do it.  So, that's the bottleneck (even paying the relatives of disabled/elderly "insurance" payments hasn't sped up the process much) to expansion of suicide terrorism.

Automating Terrorism

So, what happens when the costs of a terminal guidance systems become inexpensive and easy to acquire?  They will replace suicide bombers in all but the most unusual of environments (airplane cabins -- although drone bombs + airplanes in takeoff phase is a pretty scary alternative).  

This is going on right now. Robotic control systems are now inexpensive, accurate, and autonomous as we have seen with drones.  This means that the costs of a robotic control system are already well within the budget of a small group.  Further, their functionality makes them perfect for terrorist activities (the targeting of populations and symbols). 

Example?  Here's a video that turns a car into a remote control drone that can be used to deliver big bombs to checkpoints.  It even features an interview with the guerrilla entrepreneur that put it together.  It has the feel of an anti silicon valley (don't confuse it with silicone valley, which is in southern CA, near LA) Scoble interview, with an entrepreneur that just landed $5 m in funding.

You Don't Need a Cyber Attack to Take Down The North American Power Grid

The Obama administration simulated a cyber attack on New York City's power supply in a Senate demonstration aimed at winning support for legislation to boost the nation's computer defenses. Senators from both parties gathered behind closed doors in the Capitol Wednesday for the classified briefing attended by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other administration officials. The mock attack on the city during a summer heat wave was "very compelling," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring a cybersecurity bill supported by President Barack Obama. "It illustrated the problem and why legislation is desperately needed," she said as she left the briefing. Bloomberg.

The US defense industry is in a full court press to get tens of billions in funding for cyberwarfare.  

To get that funding, they need to dramatize the potential threat of cyberwarfare.  Here's how.  The central method of attack in cyberwarfare is systems disruption.  Systems disruption is a way to break networks to achieve extremely high levels of damage (or, in financial terms, high ROIs).  One of the best ways to demonstrate that type of attack is through a disruption of the power supply (usually with NYC as a target).  

The problem with this type of presentation is that you don't need cyberwarfare to do take down the electricity to New York City and get away with it.  All you need is some household tools, imagination, and some knowledge of what the network looks like (gained by an effort at mapping the connections).  Since 99.9999% of the recruits available to most violent groups don't have cyber skills and the impact of a cyber attack and a physical attack are the same, which method do you think will be used?  The facts back this up.  99.99% of the intentional system disruption events that have occurred over the last decade have been caused through physical attack and not by cyber attack.

So, in other words, the tens billions we are going to spend on cybersecurity is mostly a waste of time/money.  It's not only a waste of money, it's yet another example of how the US national security system is not producing real, tangible security for the people it expects to pay for it.    The real solution to network vulnerability?  Decentralized production.  The tech is available.  If the billions spent on cyber were spent on growing local production by building resilient communities, it wouldn't only make us safer it would likely ignite an economic Renaissance.  

Unfortunately, to the people running the US/EU, the long term economic success of the citizens they are supposed to represent is not even on their priority list.  

If you are interested, here's some analysis on how vulnerable the electricity grid we rely upon is.   An evergreen (in that it always yields results) target of global guerrillas, will be the large infrastructure networks that national economies rely upon (as do all modern developed economies). The most critical and complex network is our power grid which contains over 1 m kilometers of high-voltage power lines between 115 -765 kVs. The network can be further subdivided into the following:

• 1,633 generator nodes.
• 2,179 disribution substation nodes. 
• 10,287 transmission substation nodes. 

Read more...

 

 

Thinking About Drones

Hey folks, if you watch enough of these drone videos, you may start to get an inuitive feel for the underlying technology.  An intuitive feel is essential for understanding how this technology is going to play out and how it will be used warfare/conflict in the future.   Standard analysis almost always leads you astray -- way too many variables.   

Here's Raffaello D'Andrea.  

He's a scientist, engineer, mathemetician, and designer that produces dynamic artwork using robots/drones.  He's pushing the boundaries of what this tech can do.  It's well worth it to watch a highlight reel of his projects (a variant of ping pong, juggling, etc.):

 

Dynamic Works - Highlights from Raffaello D'Andrea.

One of his more recent projects was to use a drone swarm to assemble a faux brick wall. Here's the reel (notice how the drones work in the backround as the cocktail party goes on):  

If you've made it this far, let me point out what's interesting. Here's the soft spot. The controller/foreman that's telling the swarm how to build the structure and measuring progress:

If you are still a little bewildered by all of this.  Keep checking back.  I'll do the heavy lifting.

Your guide on the future of conflict,

John Robb

PS: Here's the question:  are you robust or resilient?   If you don't know, click.  

Why Drone Swarms are Creepy #TED

Here's a simple fact.  

Drone swarms like those seen in this video creep most people out.  It feels unnatural.  Evil.

Why does this happen?

A good explanation may be found in an idea called "the uncanny valley" developed by the robotics designer Masahiro Mori in the in 1970.

He found, through his work on prosthetics, that people felt comfortable with robotic prosthetics as long as they didn't look too much like real arms, hands, legs, or feet.

IF the prosthetic attempted to look to human-like, it shocked people.  It caused revulsion.  He found the same was true in the design of robots. 

Here's a simplification of the chart he drew depicting the uncanny valley, with zero human likeness of the left and complete human likeness on the right.   As you can see, movement amplifies the emotion felt at every stage.  

 

 

NOTE: This curve explains what makes zombies and the contorted crawls of Japanese horror films so creepy.

What's interesting here is that it may also be an explanation for why drones and drone swarming causes revulsion.  However, instead of a revulsion to human likeness, it is a likeness to nature.  

Behavior we expect to see in insects, birds and animals but not in machines.  The movement of the drones in a swarm serves to amplify the emotional impact (in a negative way). 

I suspect if you polled the people in the TED audience about the drone presentation, a majority of them would indicate that they were creeped out by it (at least a little).  

Impact of this?  

• I wonder how this effect will be used in the future, particularly since the major use of drones today is for warfare.  
• IT will certainly turn up in lots of scary movies in the near future.  
• It may become barrier to their use in the civilian sector.  Fear/revulsion factor.

 I'm definitely creeped out by drones, but energized by them too, analyst,

John Robb

A couple of thoughts as they roll in on e-mail/comments:

a) People were already creeped out by bombers during WW2.  True, the buzz/hum of bombers, the shriek of a dive bomber, and the wail of an iron bomb are scary.  This has all of that and visuals to boot.  This is like the old debate between scary movie enthusiasts over whether it is better to see the evil beast or let your mind fill in the blanks through sounds/glimpses.  The best movies do both.

b) Will add more soon.

NOTE: US Attn General Eric Holder on The US Killer Drone Policy

From the videos, drones look harmless.  They aren't.  The primary use of drones today is to find, identify, and kill targets.  You could even make the case that this is the raison d'etre of drones.

Because drones kill so well -- at what the government deems an acceptable level of precision (currently 60% hit the target w/o much collateral damage) and at a low cost (both economically and politically) -- they are driving US security policy into new, dangerous territory. 

In a larger sense, drones are also changing the entire landscape of warfare and modern conflict, which is of interest to this writer/theorist.  So, even though I'm not a lawyer, I'm going to give coverage of this policy shift a go.

What is this new killer drone policy?  The Administration's Attorney General, Eric Holder, made a speech at the Northwestern School of Law on March 5, 2011 that lays out the US case for targeted killings (aka:  The US Killer Drone Policy).

He entered the auditorium to a standing ovation and left to perfunctory applause.  The planned Q and A session was cancelled.

Here are some of the interesting parts.  Do your own analysis.  

We are a nation at war.  And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated... [We are in a war without end? If the Oklahoma City bombing occured today, would we view all domestic threats through the logic of perpetual warfare? ]

Our legal authority [to use lethal force against enemies of the state] is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan.   Indeed, neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan.   We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country... [unlimited geographical coverage]

Some have called such operations “assassinations.”   They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced.   Assassinations are unlawful killings.   Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against..  [someone]  ...who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes...

The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States... 

The conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the Executive Branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history.   Military and civilian officials must often make real-time decisions that balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, and other judgments – all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the Executive Branch may possess in real time.   The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential – but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force [to kill an individual]... even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.  [essentially, there isn't a judicial process involved.  If you or your group is on the kill list and the window of opportunity opens up, you are dead]

[A killing is lawful if...] First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.  [This isn't a judicial process, it's an administrative process and it can be automated.]

That is not to say that the Executive Branch has – or should ever have – the ability to target any such individuals without robust oversight.   Which is why, in keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities [essentially, there isn't any oversight, just after the fact notification]

The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that – at times – originate with our own citizens.   When such individuals take up arms against this country.. there may be only one realistic and appropriate response.   We must take steps to stop them [use drones to kill them when possible] – in full accordance with the Constitution [a hollow mention since they've already claimed, it doesn't place any restraint on their powers]   In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not.

Why Autonomous Drone Tech is Advancing so Quickly

If you believe, as I do, that the world is headed for a couple of bad decades, you will be interested in my newsletter.  

It's focused on building resilient communities that will help you prosper over the next couple of decades, regardless of how bad it gets.  Sign up for the newsletter to get the free reports being written.   

This is more scary insight into how drones will transform our future.  

___________

Drone tech is mostly about controls engineering, much more than any of the physical technologies involved such as energy storage, airframe design, propulsion, etc. (although concurrent advances in those fields help improve performance).  Controls engineering is at the heart of what makes it possible for a tiny, very unstable, quadrotor drone to maneuver like a hummingbird.

Until recently, that wasn't possible.  Now, given Moore's law (particularly the exponential curve that shows improvements in calculations per unit energy), it is possible to make a drone fly and swarm like an insect at an affordable cost.  

Here's a reference point:  In my early days studying Astronautical Engineering, I focused on the design of control systems.  We built controls that could turn unstable, high performance jet aircraft and spacecraft designs into stable, usable platforms.   To do that, we used expensive computing platforms to make the calculations needed to correct the flight of an unstable jet/spacecraft prototype up to 32 times a second (if we didn't, the system would instantly tumble/fail/become a smoking hole).  In contrast, these tiny drones make corrections at a blazing 600 times a second on inexpensive chips.  

On top of all of that, the drones currently in the lab aren't merely keeping themselves stable for human control/piloting like most of the drones now in use.  They can now control themselves individually and as a swarm.  

So, basically, the only barrier to advances in autonomous drone tech are improvements in controls design, made real in software.  That means the pace and breadth of the advances in autonomous drone tech will be fast and furious for some time to come.  

Today's video is by the head of the UPenn drone lab (I think he should brand all of the videos coming out of the lab as "controls engineers gone wild").  New items to watch for in this video.  Drones that can:

• Lift heavy objects as a swarm (payload scales).  
• Build complex structures as a swarm.
• Sweep buildings.
• Operate without GPS to navigate and map structures.  

Texas: Police Drone vs. Armored SWAT Vehicle

Can't make this stuff up.  A humerous vignette on the militarization of US police forces (up 5x from the start of this century).   

______________

The police force of Montgomery County Texas (north of Houston) was one of the first in the nation to own a drone.  It cost $300k, funded largely using grant money from the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).  

While using it take pictures of its SWAT team using its armored personnel carrier (BearCat), it ran into problems.  The drone lost contact with the control module.  During it's emergency landing it crashed into the SWAT armored vehicle. 

NOTE:  More from the Examiner.  The General Accounting Office estimates that 65% of all drone crashes are mechanical failures vs. 17% for operator error.  The rest unknown.  That ratio will reverse as the airframe matures.  

HR 347: One more step towards Neo-Feudalism

Sorry for the typos/errors on GG.  I write fast and without an editor.  

______

In feudal times, you could be put to death if you didn't kneel when the carriages of the nobility passed by.  This is a step in that direction (although very few people care).  

I'm not that excited to write about this type of thing.  Seems like more of a chore than something I want to do.  Why do I write about it?  It's another milestone on the decline of the US that is worth highlighting for future historians.  

I can see these future historians now:  poring over the output of software systems that cull trends from massive social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) repositories.  Some will be shaking their heads, asking themselves: what were those numbskulls in the early 21st Century thinking about when their governments began to hollow out?  Why were they so passive as things began to fall apart?

___________

This new bill, about to be signed by the President, is called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.  It is not as innocent as its name.  

Essentially, it makes it a federal offense to be anywhere near, from being in the area or in the same building, somebody protected by the secret service.  That's from the President to candidates for political office (Romney or Santorum) to senior government officials to foreign dignitaries (G20).  In other words, lots and lots of people.  

While being sold as a way to close a loophole in the current law regarding White House security, it is actually much more than that.  It changed one word that made a world of difference.  What's the difference?  

To be arrested and imprisoned, all you need to do is be the same building or area around a person that has secret service protection.  You don't even need to know you are breaking the law to be arrested and imprisoned.  If you are merely walking in an area "secured" for a person being protected, you can be legally jailed for up to one year.  If you are carrying something that can be seen as a weapon (legally or not), that imprisonment can be extended to ten years.  

In short, if you are within the same building or neighborhood being secured to protect a political or foreign personage without their expressed permission, you can be imprisoned.  

"Trust us" or "they are good people" isn't a valid answer to this critique. If a new power can be abused legally, it will eventually be abused.  Very simple tautology.  

 

My name is Drone, James Drone

Presented without comment.