Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Just Tony wrote:
My concern with the overdependance on drones is that ANY system that relies on wireless communication control can be jammed. Forget about hacking into the encrypted system, just jamming the frequencies that commands are sent from would render this thing a paperweight.

Yeah that was my thought. My understanding was that it wasn't hard to jam GPS and radar so the thing doesn't know where it is and jam communications to home base so commands can't be sent. I remember a mate who worked with military aircraft telling me it wasn't hard (though illegal) to make a GPS jammer at home, or interfere with it to the point of thinking it's somewhere else.

I wonder if it's possible to irradiate a drone to the point even the on board electronics and memory start to fail (I guess not otherwise that would be a huge liability even for manned modern aircraft).

If it is then we might be going back to the good old days of pilots being directly connected to an aircraft's control surfaces.

There’s also China’s “scorched sky” strategy; they have a well developed anti-satellite capability and much lower reliance on satellite systems than the West. If we ended up in a true hot war with them, there’s a very real chance that they’ll start popping key Western satellites, with a high risk of a follow on cascade damage to the entire satellite network.

 Just Tony wrote:
My concern with the overdependance on drones is that ANY system that relies on wireless communication control can be jammed. Forget about hacking into the encrypted system, just jamming the frequencies that commands are sent from would render this thing a paperweight.

Actually it causes them to circle for a time and then return to base, but the point is well taken.

 Peregrine wrote:
Followed immediately by adopting higher bit counts. Seriously, this is not a problem that anyone is worrying about. It is common knowledge that as CPU power increases we will need to keep increasing the bit count to maintain "heat death of the universe" brute force times, and that is why we keep increasing those bit counts. The consumer-level " you, thieves" encryption on my hard drive is 512 bits, and would require 39000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more CPU cycles to break compared to 128 bit encryption. You are displaying a complete lack of understanding of how encryption and security work.

But, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, it HAS BEEN BROKEN. Pardon me if I turn one of your arguments around on you, but I'll take the fact that it has been broken over your insistence that it can't happen.

 Peregrine wrote:

Great. You hit the base. The US now knows that the drone has been compromised (since you just killed a bunch of drone operators and security guards and such), and now you have to get it off the ground (using a copy of the entire control system) before the US response shoots your assault force and turns off the drone. You're talking about a plan on the level of "break into the US air force base, climb into the cockpit of an F-22, and fly away with it". Best-case scenario you get a drone that you can't operate very effectively because you don't have the rest of the infrastructure, more likely you shoot some people and blow up the drone.

No, more likely we load the drones and all the gear we can into trucks and either try to find something exploitable in it, if we have the technical expertise, or sell it to someone else with the understanding that if they find anything we get a copy. Some of these places any US response is going to take at least hours, maybe days. And before you get into HA he forgot the volatile memory!: we just freeze the hardware.

 Peregrine wrote:

So what? Getting the device gives you nothing because the keys contained with the device will be obsolete by the time you can extract them. The reason encryption is so effective is that even if you have the hardware that uses the encryption it is worthless without the actual keys, and keys are easily replaced. In fact, with a highly secure military program like armed drones, the keys are being replaced on a regular schedule and you might only have a few minutes to use a key before the next one takes over.

Actually in this case it gets everything most of the keys can be gotten by simply unplugging them from the computer they're attached to. Usually secured hardware has it's keys stored on some type of dongle that plugs into the system which is then synched to the system with a password keyed to the dongle is entered. Assuming that like 90% of IT offices I've worked for, a list of said passwords can be found in the desk of whomever is in charge of updating keys, because people struggle to remember long strings of numbers and letters. This is done because the keys can be physically secured as well, and prevents, in theory, the government from ripping off the contractor. This is, however, strictly theory, based off the fact that when the US acquired one of the Iranian knockoffs of the US drones, however, there are no keys. Or encryption on the drone, since the Iranian version was running pirated US software.

 Peregrine wrote:

The exact same encryption scheme has survived government attack in major criminal cases, where the prosecution has been forced to admit defeat because even with the FBI/NSA/whatever attacking the files they can't get in.

You must not keep up with current events: Israel has thoughtfully provided decryption in cases that are big enough. The same guys managed to crack 4096-bit RSA in significant;y less than the end of time, and did it several years ago, but you can, quite obviously, point out the public nature of RSA and that any FOOL could crack a mere 4096 bit encryption.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
But, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, it HAS BEEN BROKEN. Pardon me if I turn one of your arguments around on you, but I'll take the fact that it has been broken over your insistence that it can't happen.

An obsolete system that has already been replaced has been broken. Modern encryption systems have not been broken, despite vast amounts of effort being invested into trying. And we already know that the solution to a successful brute force attack is available: increasing the size of the keys so that brute forcing is no longer possible. Your example does not mean what you think it does.

No, more likely we load the drones and all the gear we can into trucks and either try to find something exploitable in it, if we have the technical expertise, or sell it to someone else with the understanding that if they find anything we get a copy. Some of these places any US response is going to take at least hours, maybe days. And before you get into HA he forgot the volatile memory!: we just freeze the hardware.

So no you've gone from "hijack the controls for a drone and fly it off to do bad things" to "drive a truck up to the drone base and physically grab a drone out of the hangar". I think we both know that this is your concession that your argument about hijacking is absurd.

And yes, I know what a cold boot attack is. But, unlike you, I know why it is not useful here at all. Pulling the keys out of the drone's memory doesn't help you because they are unique to that particular drone (which you have possession of in your truck already) and time-limited. Knowing what keys the drone in the back of your truck was going to use at 6pm this evening doesn't tell you anything about what keys a different drone is using at 4am tomorrow. That second key is nowhere in the stolen drone's memory, no matter how much data you pull from it you will never get anything that helps you break into the second drone.

Actually in this case it gets everything most of the keys can be gotten by simply unplugging them from the computer they're attached to. Usually secured hardware has it's keys stored on some type of dongle that plugs into the system which is then synched to the system with a password keyed to the dongle is entered. Assuming that like 90% of IT offices I've worked for, a list of said passwords can be found in the desk of whomever is in charge of updating keys, because people struggle to remember long strings of numbers and letters. This is done because the keys can be physically secured as well, and prevents, in theory, the government from ripping off the contractor. This is, however, strictly theory, based off the fact that when the US acquired one of the Iranian knockoffs of the US drones, however, there are no keys. Or encryption on the drone, since the Iranian version was running pirated US software.

...

You understand that the "key" in question is a digital file, right? Not a physical key? Let me explain it in simple terms: the drone's encryption system uses a 256-bit string of 0s and 1s to encrypt and decrypt the data. This string of 0s and 1s is randomly generated immediately before the flight and loaded into the drone's onboard memory and into the ground-based computer controlling the drone. No copy of it exists anywhere else, and the key is accompanied by a few thousand similar keys. Every X seconds the drone and transmitter switch to the next key on the list. At no point does a human remember, or even know, the key. It does not function like an account password that you enter to log into the drone. It is purely a digital value being exchanged between two computers.

You must not keep up with current events: Israel has thoughtfully provided decryption in cases that are big enough. The same guys managed to crack 4096-bit RSA in significant;y less than the end of time, and did it several years ago, but you can, quite obviously, point out the public nature of RSA and that any FOOL could crack a mere 4096 bit encryption.

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand basic concepts like the difference between a brute force attack and a side-channel attack. The Israeli crack involved using a microphone along with physical access to the computer to listen to very subtle noise differences in the operation of the CPU and turn that information into the calculations it was performing. That's attacking a particular vulnerability in the hardware running the software you want to break, NOT brute-forcing the encryption itself. I think it should be obvious why such an attack would be useless against a drone in the air miles away from you.

1, You don't need to hack drones, just jam them.

2. Drones need robust communications which in turn compromise stealth.

3. Drones therefore need air supremacy.

Its one thing to use a droens as a low (relative) cost means of killing guys in robes, its another thing altogether to use them on the modern battlefield against an opponent with the ability to actively contend.

Drones are coming and are becoming more widespread, but they wont replace strike aircraft yet. There are too many variables.

Unmanned aircraft have been postulated since the 50's, we can now reliably manufacture them, but they arent ideal at least yet.

One of the theories for a NATO Warsaw Pact conflict was that so many radar and jammers would be turned on that the whole of central Europe would descend into pea soup fog level electronic interference, and that is without any nuclear deployment. Its a numbers game, lots of lots of high powers communications and detection emitters make a total mess of everything.

On the other hand, the fact that civilization as we know it ends ~30 minutes after a war against a state with the ability to actively content also reduces the value of drones in that kind of war.

 Orlanth wrote:


3. Drones therefore need air supremacy.

It won't be long until drones are a component of air supremacy. Smaller radar and heat signature, able to pull maneuvers that would render a human pilot unconscious.

jouso wrote:
It won't be long until drones are a component of air supremacy. Smaller radar and heat signature, able to pull maneuvers that would render a human pilot unconscious.

Plus fully expendable. Good luck winning control of the skies when your enemy is happy to trade several drones for one of your manned aircraft (or, more likely, for the bases that your aircraft operate out of, turning your fighters into useless paperweights).

 Peregrine wrote:
On the other hand, the fact that civilization as we know it ends ~30 minutes after a war against a state with the ability to actively content also reduces the value of drones in that kind of war.

Not necessarily so, which is why the conventional buildup is valid.

jouso wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

3. Drones therefore need air supremacy.

It won't be long until drones are a component of air supremacy. Smaller radar and heat signature, able to pull maneuvers that would render a human pilot unconscious.

A component at most, we have yet to see large scale battlefield EW. Also the point remains if the battlefield is contested drones are less valuable.

 Peregrine wrote:

jouso wrote:
It won't be long until drones are a component of air supremacy. Smaller radar and heat signature, able to pull maneuvers that would render a human pilot unconscious.

Plus fully expendable. Good luck winning control of the skies when your enemy is happy to trade several drones for one of your manned aircraft (or, more likely, for the bases that your aircraft operate out of, turning your fighters into useless paperweights).

In the thinking of the state fighter pilots are ultimately expendable too. In an active war people be on the line one way or another.

As for logistics threats, that works on anything in modern war.

 Peregrine wrote:

You understand that the "key" in question is a digital file, right? Not a physical key? Let me explain it in simple terms:

This conversation is clearly over. I'm not really sure why I got into it yesterday, but frankly, it did remind me why I had you on my ignore list.

I concede that a Brute Force attack would most likely not work, and that a side channel attack would be better (which I pointed out in my very first post on how I'd decrypt it). I do however, feel the urge to point out to you that your assertion was the drone was unahackable, not just that a brute force approach would not work. I hold that this is not the case, and that a round about way such as hacking the computer systems that control the drone, or attacking and seizing a drone base, or taking the personnel hostage and making them work it for you, would work, though the latter is arguably not hacking.

Peregrine wrote:
Plus fully expendable. Good luck winning control of the skies when your enemy is happy to trade several drones for one of your manned aircraft (or, more likely, for the bases that your aircraft operate out of, turning your fighters into useless paperweights).

Depends on how numerous and expendable your pilots are. Also if jamming them turns them into paperweights themselves.

Peregrine wrote:On the other hand, the fact that civilization as we know it ends ~30 minutes after a war against a state with the ability to actively content also reduces the value of drones in that kind of war.

Such a pessimist. But I don't want to write a forty page post on how you're wrong on this one.

 Orlanth wrote:


In the thinking of the state fighter pilots are ultimately expendable too. In an active war people be on the line one way or another.

A skilled pilot takes years to replace, one can always build another batch of drones.

In a war of attrition drones win.

jouso wrote:
A skilled pilot takes years to replace, one can always build another batch of drones.

In a war of attrition drones win.

Exactly. Even if you're willing to sacrifice your pilots on suicide missions, and they are willing to die in suicidal battles of attrition, you still have to recruit and train those pilots at obscene cost. Drones come off the assembly line ready to go, the only cost is the hardware.

How much do you approximate the value is of a military grade drone and all the tech needed to fly it? Money doesn't exactly grow on trees, you know.

Seems kind of silly to think of a drone as essentially a smart bomb with a gun attached.

According to wikipedia (admittedly a suspect source)

The Tomahawk cruise missile costs 1 million and change.

The Predator drone costs 4 million.

An F22 costs 150 million.

The question then becomes- can 37 drones take out 1 fighter?

I don't think the F22 can carry enough ordnance to knock out 37 drones.

 Just Tony wrote:
How much do you approximate the value is of a military grade drone and all the tech needed to fly it? Money doesn't exactly grow on trees, you know.

Apples to apples a drone will always cost less than a manned figher.

A lot of the systems in a fighter are designed to keep the pilot alive and aware of their surroundings: screens, ejector seats, oxygen systems, etc. That means cost and weight. By comparison the required control structures and technology are tiny, especially if you also add in the training costs of human pilots.

There are no drones nowadays in the weight class of a figher or bomber, but eventually they will come. They will never completely replace human pilots, but they will eat into their mission portfolio.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

The question then becomes- can 37 drones take out 1 fighter?

Except that was based on the cost of a Predator. 37 Predators couldn't take out an F22. 100 couldn't. Eleventybajillion couldn't. A Predator simply isn't capable.

A hypothetical drone that can air-to-air? Sure. But since they don't exist (yet?) we don't know how much one will cost.

At this point, the camera system bolted to the front of a Predator costs more than the rest of it combined, it's such a simple aircraft.


As for drones becoming autonomous - it's actually not that far fetched. Phalanx and other missile intercept systems are already semi autonomous. It's not inconceivable that drones may be given similar freedoms, within strict parameters.

But we're a long way from remotely piloted aircraft overtaking manned, and even further from the possibility of full autonomy.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
According to wikipedia (admittedly a suspect source)

The Tomahawk cruise missile costs 1 million and change.

The Predator drone costs 4 million.

An F22 costs 150 million.

The question then becomes- can 37 drones take out 1 fighter?

I don't think the F22 can carry enough ordnance to knock out 37 drones.

Military thinking doesnt work that way, or more accurately the military-industrial combine doesnt. Either the drone or the fighter might carry a missile costing $2 million, that is used against a tin shack that may or may not still contain insurgents.

jouso wrote:
A skilled pilot takes years to replace, one can always build another batch of drones.

In a war of attrition drones win.

Outside of non-state actors hiding among civilian populations there's no such thing as wars of attrition any more. This isn't WW2 where you can lose whole flights of planes but have a new bunch built before the enemy has organised his infantry to advance. Between the length of construction times on the ultra-high platforms we use now and the incredible mobility and destructive power of those platforms, you will not have time to build more stuff by the time the war is over. Even missiles can't be replaced in the time it takes to finish a war.

Any plan that involves building new stuff will find that by the time you've just about signed off on the contract with the supplier the enemy has troops in your capital.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
The question then becomes- can 37 drones take out 1 fighter?

I don't think the F22 can carry enough ordnance to knock out 37 drones.

The F22 doesn't. The F22 clears the sky of enemy fighters. If the enemy doesn't have any because it built a load of drones, then the F-22 just flies around the sky having fun. Stealth bombers, F-35 and other aircraft begin attacking your drone airfields, knocking out command and control. The drones do nothing because they have no AA ability at all.

Now, at some point its likely (inevitable I guess) that we'll be talking about drones built to take on aircraft. But those drones won't cost $4 million. We don't know what they'll cost because we have no idea what direct those designs will go in. Will they be cheap builds with limited mobility, just missile carriers with high end radar that float about, waiting to fire on a target picked up on radar by some point in the network? Or will they be ultra-high performance fighters that ditched the pilot because no human can survive the high-G maneuvers the plane goes through? Dunno, but they won't be costing $4m a piece.

I vaguely remember reading that a drone requires about 25% less material and systems than a manned aircraft (life support, ejection seats, control systems and displays, etc.)

Now, assuming that cost is pro-rata, a drone with capabilities equivalent to an F-22 is still going to cost $100m+; hardly a disposable platform and not something you can build in huge quantities. I admit that is a pretty big assumption, but I think it is justifiable; the systems that you are removing are fairly low tech, the expensive bits are stealth, sensors, etc., which you will still need, so probably saving you less than 25%. However any savings multiply because you’re likely to have a bigger production run (just not vast), so it probably balances out.

People forget that the Predator family of drones is pretty much a light aircraft with military sensors and communications bolted on; outside of the electronics, they are very low tech and have basically zero combat manoeuvring capability.

If memory serves the F22's engines alone cost $10M each.

The Predator just has a piddly little 4 stroke engine that doesn't even come close to matching the engines that were shoved in to WW2 fighters let alone jet engined fighters.

Granted if you were building air superiority drones, you'd probably go cheaper than an F22 because a large part of the reason you spend so much money on an F22 is to protect the pilot, but it certainly wouldn't be Predator levels of cheapness.

 Jadenim wrote:
I vaguely remember reading that a drone requires about 25% less material and systems than a manned aircraft (life support, ejection seats, control systems and displays, etc.)

But that escalates. Like for like, a drone will either be lighter and smaller (which given equal sensors means you shoot first, and also translates into better performing engines, range, etc) or be able to carry more payload.

Also switching drone operators is a matter of seconds, while a manned aircraft has to go back to base.

Ok, time to weigh in on as a man who has extensive real world experience with military drones.

Drones are not a feasible replacement for manned aircraft, at any point in the near future, for one simple reason.

The weather.

I won't get into details about it, such as sensitivities and the like, but those things are so fair weather dependent that they're unreliable in the best of days.

From my experience as a weather forecaster in a combat environment for these things, we're decades out at least, before we over come those limitations.

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, time to weigh in on as a man who has extensive real world experience with military drones.

Drones are not a feasible replacement for manned aircraft, at any point in the near future, for one simple reason.

The weather.

I won't get into details about it, such as sensitivities and the like, but those things are so fair weather dependent that they're unreliable in the best of days.

From my experience as a weather forecaster in a combat environment for these things, we're decades out at least, before we over come those limitations.

Yeah, I think so too. I don't have much experience with drones, but when I look at and hear about what they can do, they still seem decades away from equaling the performance of WW2 aircraft, let alone that of modern jetfighters. Drones might be useful as bombers in scenarios where you have already established air superiority, but the day when drones can be used to actually obtain air superiority against manned warplanes still seems very far away.
Eventually, I do think drone technology will progress to such a level, but until then manned aircraft are still the future.

 djones520 wrote:
Drones are not a feasible replacement for manned aircraft, at any point in the near future, for one simple reason.

The weather.

Or for another simple reason: ICBMs. When "war" comes in two types, instant annihilation of human civilization as we know it or one-sided "bomb them until they accept our democracy" efforts, there's not much point in talking about things like air superiority drones as anything more than theoretical. Either they're irrelevant because they aren't strategic nuclear weapons, or they're irrelevant because it doesn't matter what kind of fighters you have when the enemy air force is a couple of rusted-out MiG-21s that were blown up by cruise missiles a few minutes after war was declared. The overwhelming majority of combat missions will continue to be ones where human judgement is required, and the value of removing the human on the scene is often questionable at best.

Weather is a current engineering problem, not an unsolvable one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jadenim wrote:
People forget that the Predator family of drones is pretty much a light aircraft with military sensors and communications bolted on; outside of the electronics, they are very low tech and have basically zero combat manoeuvring capability.

But how much do you really need maneuvering capability when you have long-range missile spam and short-range missiles that can be fired off at a sharp angle from where the plane is actually pointing? It's a great thing to have when you're talking about a handful of manned fighters that really want to out-maneuver the enemy and deny shots, it seems less important when you're talking about expendable drones where you're perfectly happy to sacrifice one drone as bait while the rest of the swarm launches a bunch of missiles at its killers. Making your aircraft completely expendable and stripping out all defensive systems and performance specs is a huge cost reduction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
Outside of non-state actors hiding among civilian populations there's no such thing as wars of attrition any more. This isn't WW2 where you can lose whole flights of planes but have a new bunch built before the enemy has organised his infantry to advance. Between the length of construction times on the ultra-high platforms we use now and the incredible mobility and destructive power of those platforms, you will not have time to build more stuff by the time the war is over. Even missiles can't be replaced in the time it takes to finish a war.

Any plan that involves building new stuff will find that by the time you've just about signed off on the contract with the supplier the enemy has troops in your capital.

But that's not the only thing that counts as a war of attrition. Producing more stuff over the duration of a war isn't an inherent part of the concept, it's still a war of attrition of you stockpile a ton of drones (or soldiers, cruise missiles, whatever) before the war starts and then ruthlessly trade them for your enemy's stuff knowing that your advantage in sheer numbers will eventually allow you to win.

 Peregrine wrote:

Or for another simple reason: ICBMs. When "war" comes in two types, instant annihilation of human civilization as we know it or one-sided "bomb them until they accept our democracy" efforts, there's not much point in talking about things like air superiority drones as anything more than theoretical.

No war does not come into two types. Ask the Israelis, or the British, or the Ukrainians, or Pakistan, or India, or .....

Some Americans might feel there is only two types of war, because those are the only ones the USA seems to get involved in post Vietnam. However its a big big world out there.

 Orlanth wrote:
No war does not come into two types. Ask the Israelis, or the British, or the Ukrainians, or Pakistan, or India, or ....

Shrug. Minor border skirmishes between minor powers that retain their independence at the whim of the US, Russia and China? I mean, I guess India is at least up there population-wise, if not in total military strength, but I don't think we can really pretend that Israel is anything more than a nice cash bonus to US arms manufacturers (with some free live-fire testing thrown in). And Israel isn't exactly doing much to break the trend of one-sided wars against much weaker enemies that can't fight back. It's not like the suicide bombers are putting up SAM networks and launching air strikes on Israel. But who knows, maybe some of them will invest in drones, if the US/Russian/Chinese drone manufacturers have some excess production capacity and need to make the next quarter's profit numbers look better.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
No war does not come into two types. Ask the Israelis, or the British, or the Ukrainians, or Pakistan, or India, or ....

Shrug. Minor border skirmishes between minor powers that retain their independence at the whim of the US, Russia and China? I mean, I guess India is at least up there population-wise, if not in total military strength, but I don't think we can really pretend that Israel is anything more than a nice cash bonus to US arms manufacturers (with some free live-fire testing thrown in). Maybe they'll invest in drones, if the US/Russian/Chinese drone manufacturers have some excess production capacity and need to make the next quarter's profit numbers look better.

Ok, so you are a bigot.
Moving on.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
No war does not come into two types. Ask the Israelis, or the British, or the Ukrainians, or Pakistan, or India, or ....

Shrug. Minor border skirmishes between minor powers that retain their independence at the whim of the US, Russia and China? I mean, I guess India is at least up there population-wise, if not in total military strength, but I don't think we can really pretend that Israel is anything more than a nice cash bonus to US arms manufacturers (with some free live-fire testing thrown in). Maybe they'll invest in drones, if the US/Russian/Chinese drone manufacturers have some excess production capacity and need to make the next quarter's profit numbers look better.

Ok, so you are a bigot.
Moving on.

While Peregrine's statements are highly questionable, I fail to see how it makes him a bigot?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
No war does not come into two types. Ask the Israelis, or the British, or the Ukrainians, or Pakistan, or India, or ....

Shrug. Minor border skirmishes between minor powers that retain their independence at the whim of the US, Russia and China? I mean, I guess India is at least up there population-wise, if not in total military strength, but I don't think we can really pretend that Israel is anything more than a nice cash bonus to US arms manufacturers (with some free live-fire testing thrown in). Maybe they'll invest in drones, if the US/Russian/Chinese drone manufacturers have some excess production capacity and need to make the next quarter's profit numbers look better.

Ok, so you are a bigot.
Moving on.

While Peregrine's statements are highly questionable, I fail to see how it makes him a bigot?

There were two categories of war as it two categories related directly to the US. Which was ignorant as Vietnam was in a differnet category and so could a future conflict. But in Peregrines eyes you either have a nuclear war or a war in which the US can use drones to fight a one sided engagement.

Other categories of fighting exist. But they don't involve Americans so they don't count as criteria. I know that you are concerned over the problems with the Ukraine, which is neither one sided nor a nuclear stalemate. However the fighting there doesn't even enter classification, because the combat doesn't matter because no Americans are involved. All the blood shed there doesnt even register as a statistic.
So I called Peregrine out as a bigot.

 Orlanth wrote:
There were two categories of war as it two categories related directly to the US. Which was ignorant as Vietnam was in a differnet category and so could a future conflict. But in Peregrines eyes you either have a nuclear war or a war in which the US can use drones to fight a one sided engagement.

Or Russia. Or China. The reality of the nuclear age is that nuclear powers don't fight wars between each other. They each pick on their respective smaller targets that they can bully into submission, targets that they will overpower regardless of what weapons they invest in. And maybe they occasionally fight proxy wars, where both sides are careful to avoid any excessive investment that might lead to direct conflict.

Other categories of fighting exist. But they don't involve Americans so they don't count as criteria. I know that you are concerned over the problems with the Ukraine, which is neither one sided nor a nuclear stalemate. However the fighting there doesn't even enter classification, because the combat doesn't matter because no Americans are involved. All the blood shed there doesnt even register as a statistic.

Uh, what? Where are you getting this utterly ridiculous idea from? The fighting in the Ukraine doesn't matter in this context because cutting-edge hardware is not being used there. Whether the US builds air superiority drones or F-22s is irrelevant. Whether Russia builds their F-22 equivalent or air superiority drones is irrelevant. The high-end forces from the major powers are not directly exchanging shots there.

And of course there is the absurd and insulting assumption that dismissing the importance of a conflict from a technological point of view means believing that the lives lost there don't matter from a moral point of view. That's nonsense, and insulting nonsense. Perhaps you might have picked up on the fact that "BOMB THEM UNTIL THEY ACCEPT DEMOCRACY" is a statement that is critical of US foreign policy and the deaths it inflicts on other countries?