it's fucking insane.
Also, the battlefield may be comprised of "huts" but the fighters are living in cities and using technology far beyond "hut level" throughout the world.
These "pesky insurgents" have also managed to export their agenda around the world (beyond the borders of their huts), and using technology have slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?)
Where? How do I vet and quantify them?
and reports from news agencies around the world not under the influence of the US or it's allies/adversaries
Links please!
Yes, yes it does. What's the count again? Them: 5000, US: 100,000? Why take an eye for an eye when you can take 20 eyes for an eye? Maybe with this technology we can get that up to 40 or 50! Hoo-rah! /s
5K is a ridiculously low number considering the documented casualties on all sides in the last (roughly) two decades of warfare (although it shouldn't be limited to this timeframe).
My claim: We (the US) are unmatched in our ability to "export our agenda" by "using technology to slaughter civilians." Terrorists do the same thing just on a much smaller scale. A direct comparison is appropriate, as is dismissing their relative contribution to the civilian death toll by calling them "pesky hut-dwellers."
This doesn't look at all decisive to me ... there's absolutely no way those little drones can pack the fire-power shown in that simulation.
The bigger question is why don't we try some bridge building first?
The key benefit here is for them to be sent out to autonomously seek and 'destroy' without having to waste man-hours trooping through the bush looking for a target that may or may not be there.