Fighting the Locusts: Implementing Military Countermeasures Against Drones and Drone Swarms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or “drones” in military contexts has skyrocketed in the last two decades, with missions ranging from surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence to combat support. Technological advances have led to an increase in drone capabilities and reliability, on the one hand, and to a decrease of production costs, on the other hand. Furthermore, drone availability has also drastically increased, and equipment that was once the exclusive privilege of a few countries can now be obtained by all national armed forces – and, as evidenced by recent attacks, by non-official forces. In this context, drones can become part of any conflict, and military strategists have to include response to drones and to potential drone swarms in their operational scenarios. Therefore, defense against drones has to become a component of any full-fledged military strategy. This analysis explores the conceptual and operational changes for military forces triggered by the massive emergence of drones, including the theoretical and practical challenges related to training and implementing specific anti-drone units. First, the evolution of the threats related to drones and drone swarms is identified. We then summarize the different possible countermeasures. Finally, we propose practical solutions to deploy these countermeasures, notably by exploring the possibilities of development and deployment of specialized anti-drone units and examining some of the challenges associated with fighting high-tech unmanned enemies rather than fighting soldiers in conventional battlefields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it