[quote=livinincali]The current state of battery technology makes the reality of such a scenario much less likely than being illustrated here. The energy density required to fly a small device other a fairly large range just isn’t there. A tiny throw away drone with a small explosive, targeting and maneuvering hardware probably has a range of a mile or 2 unless it’s designed as a glider that’s being dropped from attitude. In order to execute an attack of this type you have to be in close proximity of the target. I.e. you’d have to fly a plane and drop a bomb of these over the target. Or find some other way of getting them close to the target before activating them. A Nuke would still be far more effective at just pure large scale damage unless of course you’re looking to kill the people while preserving the infrastructure.[/quote]
A nuke is not selective. If you noticed what was covered in the created scenario – the drones were selecting their targets, taking out some and leaving others. The drones were doing selective ‘culling’ based upon some unmentioned criteria.
They did cover the distance issue. Note on the video, smaller drone being carried by larger. The larger drones were also shown as being ‘breaching’ drones after they released the smaller drones. Range is an issue with both fueled planes as well as battery powered. Just compare the range of the following; RC gas powered plane, small personal plane, luxury twin engine, Boeing 737, Boeing 747. Scaling fuel capacity is by 3rd order – double the size give 8 times the fuel. Batteries will always have less energy capacity than fuel, that is due to the nature of how the energy is stored. Batteries are simple electron exchanges, fuel is complete chemical rearrangement.
NOTE: The scenario shown was not a nation state vs nation state. It was factions within a nation state or the nation state against various other groups within the nation state.
It could also be seen as a terrorist deployment within a nation state.
