poesel

Not to dispute the general direction of this post, but I have to set some things right:
- no one is using solar panels instead of fences in Germany. But some people have installed solar panel as(!) fences. That did occur, but is very rare
- Germany has willingly killed her own solar industry herself about 10 years ago. Mostly by ****ing up subventions which went to China instead of European manufacturers. Germany basically paid for the creation of the solar industry in China, and we lost 5-figure jobs here. Thanks to the ignorance on the side of the Merkel government which believed that solar (and wind) had no future
Now China owns the market and the US is paying immense subventions for solar factories so that companies relocate there. Currently, it is pointless for Germany (and Europe in general) to push money in that direction because that would only end in an economic fight with the US & China.
OTOH if China would embargo solar panels that would be annoying but would mostly hurt China itself. The biggest market is the West.

Not to dispute the general direction of this post, but I have to set some things right:
- no one is using solar panels instead of fences in Germany. But some people have installed solar panel as(!) fences. That did occur, but is very rare
- Germany has willingly killed her own solar industry herself about 10 years ago. Mostly by ****ing up subventions which went to China instead of European manufacturers. Germany basically paid for the creation of the solar industry in China, and we lost 5-figure jobs here. Thanks to the ignorance on the side of the Merkel government which believed that solar (and wind) had no future
Now China owns the market and the US is paying immense subventions for solar factories so that companies relocate there. Currently, it is pointless for Germany (and Europe in general) to push money in that direction because that would only end in an economic fight with the US & China.
OTOH if China would embargo solar panels that would be annoying but would mostly hurt China itself. The biggest market is the West.

Not to dispute the general direction of this post, but I have to set some things right:
- no one is using solar panels instead of fences in Germany. But some people have installed solar panel as(!) fences. That did occur, but is very rare
- Germany has willingly killed her own solar industry herself about 10 years ago. Mostly by ****ing up subventions which went to China instead of European manufacturers. Germany basically paid for the creation of the solar industry in China, and we lost 5-figure jobs here. Thanks to the ignorance on the side of the Merkel government which believed that solar (and wind) had no future
Now China owns the market and the US is paying immense subventions for solar factories so that companies relocate there. Currently, it is pointless for Germany (and Europe in general) to push money in that direction because that would only end in an economic fight with the US & China.
OTOH if China would embargo solar panels that would be annoying but would mostly hurt China itself. The biggest market is the West.

Not to dispute the general direction of this post, but I have to set some things right:
- no one is using solar panels instead of fences in Germany. But some people have installed solar panel as(!) fences. That did occur, but is very rare
- Germany has willingly killed her own solar industry herself about 10 years ago. Mostly by ****ing up subventions which went to China instead of European manufacturers. Germany basically paid for the creation of the solar industry in China, and we lost 5-figure jobs here. Thanks to the ignorance on the side of the Merkel government which believed that solar (and wind) had no future
Now China owns the market and the US is paying immense subventions for solar factories so that companies relocate there. Currently, it is pointless for Germany (and Europe in general) to push money in that direction because that would only end in an economic fight with the US & China.
OTOH if China would embargo solar panels that would be annoying but would mostly hurt China itself. The biggest market is the West.

Not to dispute the general direction of this post, but I have to set some things right:
- no one is using solar panels instead of fences in Germany. But some people have installed solar panel as(!) fences. That did occur, but is very rare
- Germany has willingly killed her own solar industry herself about 10 years ago. Mostly by ****ing up subventions which went to China instead of European manufacturers. Germany basically paid for the creation of the solar industry in China, and we lost 5-figure jobs here. Thanks to the ignorance on the side of the Merkel government which believed that solar (and wind) had no future
Now China owns the market and the US is paying immense subventions for solar factories so that companies relocate there. Currently, it is pointless for Germany (and Europe in general) to push money in that direction because that would only end in an economic fight with the US & China.
OTOH if China would embargo solar panels that would be annoying but would mostly hurt China itself. The biggest market is the West.

Not to dispute the general direction of this post, but I have to set some things right:
- no one is using solar panels instead of fences in Germany. But some people have installed solar panel as(!) fences. That did occur, but is very rare
- Germany has willingly killed her own solar industry herself about 10 years ago. Mostly by ****ing up subventions which went to China instead of European manufacturers. Germany basically paid for the creation of the solar industry in China, and we lost 5-figure jobs here. Thanks to the ignorance on the side of the Merkel government which believed that solar (and wind) had no future
Now China owns the market and the US is paying immense subventions for solar factories so that companies relocate there. Currently, it is pointless for Germany (and Europe in general) to push money in that direction because that would only end in an economic fight with the US & China.
OTOH if China would embargo solar panels that would be annoying but would mostly hurt China itself. The biggest market is the West.

1) Basically every industrial country has far more energy generation capacity than it needs to ensure continuous production - even if several plants need to be taken off the grid for maintenance or simply damage repairs. 
2) Outside of the planned over-capacity, older power plants are not immediately demolished when a newer one is finished. They remain for years as a "strategic reserve". And due to improved technology energy companies are almost always building something newer and more efficient somewhere, so there is a continuous rotation from older to newer.
3) Special government programs like in Germany, where renewables are being pushed, means that a lot of conventional power plants have been taken off the grid, but are not destroyed. Germany gets between 30% and 40% of its daily energy from renewables (and growing), and has roughly the same capacity, mostly in coal plants, dormant and ready to be fired up. 
Ukraine's economy before the war used 125 TWh per year, which has dropped significantly due to the war to something below 100 TWh.
Germany alone has likely 200 TWh of unused capacity next to the 500 to 600 TWh it currently needs per year.

Just to set the record straight: 'not long ago' is about 60 years (depending on which law you mean).

Just to set the record straight: 'not long ago' is about 60 years (depending on which law you mean).

Here's the thing though - generally - at its best - the West as part of its advantages over more totalitarian  places -  has come to represent toleration  of a whole lot of things which are not necessarily the end of Human Civilization as many  who oppose such toleration seem to think . The West is not going to fall because of trans gender rights or any other sub group of people wanting to express themselves how they feel . Its going to be because of war ,   resource scarcity and global changes to our economic systems due to our continued mis use of the planet .

As a lawyer you should know better that it's much more than just an 'attitude'. It's an entire legal framework underpinning the political ideology of liberal democracy.

Yes the west can sponsor whomever they like, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but there is much more going on here with the particular case of Ukraine because Ukraine has made it no secret that it aspires to joining the EU. As a matter of straightforward facts:-
Ukraine will never join the EU if it does not uphold EU law - indeed it has to adopt EU law in order to be a member. Membership means compliance with the ECHR and its rulings. The ECHR enforces the core principles laid out and agreed upon by the union of liberal democratic states. Some of those principles cover the protection of minority groups and protection of individual freedoms etc.. This is just the way it is. You cannot cherry-pick the core ideas of liberal democracy anymore than you can cherry-pick the legal framework and membership of the EU.          

Well not sure what you are upset about. Haiduk’s attitude seems to be pretty much mainstream in Ukraine. The Ukrainian LGBT community has few of the rights enjoyed in North America, but that has been known for a long time so hardly news. For example, as I understand it, Trans sexuality is still classified as a psychiatric disorder in Ukraine.
The West supports Ukraine because of Russian aggression which means we have a mutual enemy. The West does not choose allies based on shared values, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

Real life is very different from what you read in social media. Those things you mentioned do exist, but they are few and far between. It is blown out of proportion by the media. Take it with a grain of salt and don't fall for the propaganda. Live in general changes very little and very slow.

Real life is very different from what you read in social media. Those things you mentioned do exist, but they are few and far between. It is blown out of proportion by the media. Take it with a grain of salt and don't fall for the propaganda. Live in general changes very little and very slow.

Real life is very different from what you read in social media. Those things you mentioned do exist, but they are few and far between. It is blown out of proportion by the media. Take it with a grain of salt and don't fall for the propaganda. Live in general changes very little and very slow.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-thanks-germany-new-patriot-system-critical-time-2024-04-13/
 
Germany will transfer a Patriot battery and additional missiles to Ukraine "immediately" (so, soonish).

IEA Warns Attacks on Russia Plants May Disrupt Diesel Market
The flurry of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia’s oil refineries risks disrupting global markets for petroleum products, the International Energy Agency said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-12/iea-warns-attacks-on-russia-refineries-may-disrupt-diesel-market
Really? We are deeply concerned. 
Alas, today's night UKR drones couldn't reach Novoshakhtinsk refinery in Rostov oblast - local authorities claimed four drones were shot down/supressed. One fell down on territory of refinery, but didn't cause any significant damage

One thing that is sort of a fuzzy point of contention in robot-world is automated vs. autonomous.  
Something that operates on its own deterministically based on on predetermined responses to inputs and outputs is usually automated/automatic, rather than autonomous.  Even if they have a ton of conditionals (if this changes, do that thing) and closed loop control around setpoints they're usually considered "automated" but not "autonomous".  Factory machines do this.  Aircraft autopilots do this.  Once they get outside their programmed range they stop and wait or throw an error and ask for help.  
Autonomous is generally where you let the system loose in an environment where it doesn't necessarily have prior information about and let it sort out how to act.  Usually for autonomous systems you're giving fuzzier instructions and they wing it when they get outside their training.  Graduate students are like this, at least after their second year or so. Javelins might be on the borderline for this.  They're certainly automatic once you pull the trigger.  They may have some agency in how they get from trigger to bang.

I guess the economics for supplying and carrying an extra sensor package just for the last 20m are not there. Especially since radar works in that range, too.
Ultrasonic is only good if you need to detect stuff that radar doesn't bounce off - like a fly. So unless drones become THAT stealthy, sound is off the table.
 
Wrt to swarm communications: the swarm could communicate in ways that are designed to be low range. Like weak IR for example. No physical chance to pick that up from distance.
With mesh networks, the swarm can also be quite large if its density is high enough to relay the communication.
All doable - only question is when we will see it.

I guess the economics for supplying and carrying an extra sensor package just for the last 20m are not there. Especially since radar works in that range, too.
Ultrasonic is only good if you need to detect stuff that radar doesn't bounce off - like a fly. So unless drones become THAT stealthy, sound is off the table.
 
Wrt to swarm communications: the swarm could communicate in ways that are designed to be low range. Like weak IR for example. No physical chance to pick that up from distance.
With mesh networks, the swarm can also be quite large if its density is high enough to relay the communication.
All doable - only question is when we will see it.

Not enough precision at range. Also, comparatively slow (speed of sound vs speed of light) against anything electromagnetic.
I put my money on radar for counter drone. IIRC the Serbs managed to detect F-117s by analyzing bounced mobile signals in the 90s. Now, drone are slightly smaller than F-117s, but then this is 30 years ago and signal processing has made huge leaps.
I wouldn't be surprised if we would see automatic counter drones this year. The pressure to have them is high as never, and the technology is there (in principle).

The French have a version of it ('Bonus') that uses wings instead of a parachute. But the motion is the same: the ammunition is doing a spiral motion to scan for targets. The area covered is a circle with around 150m radius (that's about 70.000 m^2 or 760.000 ft^2 so slightly more than 'a few tens of meters').
The spiraling motion points it towards many points in that area, and that covers scanning and aiming in one go. Trying to replace that with something that can fly, fit inside a 155mm tube and survive the delivery was hard in '89 and still is today. Even if it were feasible I doubt it would be economical.

So what do you need to counter drones? A weapon, radar and some computer?
We've seen Gepards but also dudes with machine guns being reasonably effective against Shaheeds and stuff, and while FPVs are much smaller targets, I wonder why has nobody built some anti-drone system which could be just machine gun connected to some servos and a computer and a radar. Like C-RAM but scaled from enormous gun to ... maybe even a rifle.
Then you could plop it somewhere and have it work. For bonus points, put it on UGV and drive it around. We've already seen UGV with a machine gun, so it's just missing a radar.
I guess that would still cost more than a drone and you could swarm it with many drones, but it's far better in cost effectiveness to using a traditional air defense system or nothing.
As for hunter / counter drones, that is tricky - I don't know if the drone cameras are good enough to see other drones at a good distance. If not, then the counter drone would also need a radar and enough intelligence to recognize other drones from radar signature, and that's probably more expensive than normal drone.

As I see it, UAVs reign as a potential Uber weapon will most likely be short lived. On a macro historical level, I suspect we are in 1915 when the Germans deployed a new Uber weapon and the Allies were panicking:
Fokker Scourge - Wikipedia
UAVs are just a new type of aerial weapon and as we have seen over the past 100 years, there has been a constant back and forth between offensive and defensive weapon systems.
Most likely the same general types of defensive systems are being developed:
1. ground based AA defenses: radar/guns/missile/EW to detect and shoot down UAVs before they can reach their targets;
2. air based defenses: fighters/ hunter-killer drones to hunt UAVs in the air and shoot them down.
Most likely within the next 5-10 years, we will have reached the same equilibrium we currently see in traditional aerial warfare.

Not exactly - the steel alloy used (high carbon and brittle) is chosen so as to create fragments which themselves contribute to the effectiveness of the weapon.
Artillery worked quite well before drones were a thing
 
Look, drones are great. The have capabilities that emulate or exceed other similar kinds of effects delivery systems. But drones also have limitations, and capabilites that are inferior to other similar kinds of effects delivery systems. And they most definitely aren't some magical uber weapon which has suddenly made all other military capabilities obsolete.