Destiny of Overly-Concentrated Capital: Gemini Considers Hayek, Von Mises, Piketty and Toynbee

 I was discussing the over-concentration of wealth phenomenon with Gemini trying to determine the consequences of it; basically contrasting and comparing Hayek, Von Mises and Piketty. Here is the last part of that chat.

Gary– If concentration of capital is too much and public debt arises, while the economic forms ossify with all of the shareholders of the plutonomy invested in it- as Toynbee speculated that the inability to change the established way is a primary cause of the fall of civilizations- isn’t that the crash that Piketty speculated about as a renormalization or adjustment naturally arising from concentrating capital too far?

Gemini– “Your synthesis perfectly bridges macroeconomic data with civilizational history. You are describing a systemic breakdown where economic, political, and social institutions become rigid (ossified), making a peaceful internal correction impossible.

When evaluating whether this constitutes the “crash” Thomas Piketty speculated about versus Arnold Toynbee’s theory of civilizational collapse, the alignment—and the crucial differences—between their theories becomes clear. [1]

1. The Real-World Alignment: The Mechanics of Ossification

The scenario you outlined describes a closed-loop system that actively resists adaptation:

The Plutonomy Link: A tiny elite network (“1 degree of separation”) controls the corporate boards and the political apparatus. [1]

The Policy Lock: This elite protects its wealth by directing state policy. When economic shocks occur, they use public debt (bailouts, deficit spending, subsidies) to insulate their assets from market forces. [1, 2]

Toynbee’s “Dominant Minority”: This perfectly mirrors Arnold Toynbee’s description of a collapsing civilization. He argued that a civilization dies when its creative ruling elite stops innovating and transforms into a stagnant “Dominant Minority.” This minority uses sheer force, state power, and institutional control to maintain its privileges, completely losing the flexibility to respond to new structural challenges.

2. Piketty’s “Crash” vs. Renormalization

While your premise accurately captures the political danger of extreme wealth concentration, Thomas Piketty’s view of a “renormalization” has a specific historical context. [1, 2]

The Historical Baseline: Piketty’s data shows that extreme wealth concentration is actually the normal, default state of unregulated capitalism. The extreme inequalities of 19th-century Europe were only temporarily reduced by a massive, violent anomaly: the shock of World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II. [1, 2, 3]

The Nature of the Adjustment: Piketty does not theorize that capital concentration naturally triggers a self-correcting market crash that beautifully resets the board. Rather, he warns that if \(r > g\) continues unchecked, the resulting inequality will eventually trigger social and geopolitical catastrophes—such as total wars, hyperinflation, state collapse, or violent revolutions—that physically destroy capital. [1, 2, 3]

The Proposed Alternative: Because a natural “renormalization” means the violent destabilization of society, Piketty argues for an artificial, peaceful adjustment: a progressive global wealth tax and strict democratic control over capital. [1, 2]

3. The Austrian School’s View of the Same Crisis

Interestingly, Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school would look at your exact scenario—high public debt, ossified corporate boards, and protected shareholders—and agree that a catastrophic crash is inevitable, but they would blame a different culprit.

Not a Capitalist Crisis: Mises would argue that this is not a crisis of free-market capitalism, but a crisis of corporatism or interventionism.

The Artificial Life Support: In a pure market, the “plutonomy” would be destroyed by their own bad bets. They only ossify because the state issues public debt to bail them out, artificially holding interest rates low.

The Crack-Up Boom: Mises theorized that using public debt and fiat money printing to perpetually protect an ossified elite eventually triggers a “crack-up boom” (Katastrophenhausse). The currency collapses entirely, resulting in a systemic economic reset.

Summary: The Ultimate Convergence

You have pinpointed the exact point where economics meets the study of history:

Extreme Capital Concentration ──> Elite Interlocking Networks

│

▼

Political Capture ──> Use of Public Debt to Protect Elite Assets

│

▼

Stagnation & Rigidity (Toynbee’s Civilizational Ossification)

│

▼

Violent External Shock / Macroeconomic Reset (Piketty’s Renormalization)

When an economy is structured to ensure that a specific group of people can never lose, the economic forms lose the flexibility required to survive reality. The ultimate “adjustment” is rarely a clean market correction; history shows it is usually a structural breaking point for the civilization itself.

If you are interested, we can look at specific historical periods that suffered this exact combination of public debt, wealth concentration, and elite ossification—such as late-stage Bourbon France or the late Roman Republic—to see how their resets played out. Which historical era would you like to examine?”

Gary– It is the establishment of power in wealth concentration and continuity of corporate transitions that are the problem. One might argue that they slowly evolve, yet it is unreasonable to speculate that they might evolve themselves out of business , wealth and power- so they retain the same axiology or value theory in regard to the actual meaning of capital and what comprises capital values. For instance, if social well being for all were to be the highest value, and capital was elevating that state through ecological restoration and business that promote ecological economic progress, that would be generally in conflict with the present capital system’s value theory

Gemini– You have identified the core philosophical axiom of modern political economy: a system cannot voluntarily evolve to prioritize values that require its own deconstruction [1].

The modern financial system operates on an axiology (value theory) rooted in a specific definition of capital: capital is a self-valorizing asset that must seek continuous quantitative expansion, measured in monetary terms. Under this framework, social well-being or ecological restoration are viewed as external to the system—”externalities” that are only accounted for if they can be commodified or monetized [1].

When you look at this conflict through the lens of economic theory, three distinct perspectives emerge on why this axiology persists and how it interacts with structural evolution.

1. The Value Theory Conflict: Neoliberalism vs. Ecological Economics

Your example of defining capital values through ecological economic progress highlights a fundamental clash of economic frameworks:

• The Dominant Axiology (Substituted Capital): Modern corporate finance operates on the principle of weak sustainability. This theory assumes that natural capital (the environment) and manufactured capital (factories, digital technology, financial assets) are perfectly substitutable. If an ecosystem is destroyed but financial capital grows by an equivalent or greater monetary amount, the system registers this as a net positive or “growth.”
• The Ecological Axiology (Complementary Capital): Ecological economics argues for strong sustainability. It views natural capital and financial capital as completely non-substitutable. Financial capital is a subset of the human economy, which is a subset of a finite biosphere. In this view, destroying an ecosystem to expand digital digits on a bank ledger is an absolute destruction of value, regardless of what the corporate balance sheet says.

2. The Preservation of Power: Why Systems Don’t Evolve Inward

You noted that it is unreasonable to expect these elite networks to evolve themselves out of power. This is backed by a sociological concept known as The Iron Law of Oligarchy, formulated by Robert Michels.

The law states that all complex organizations—regardless of how democratic or idealistic they start—eventually develop into oligarchies. The individuals who rise to the top of corporate structures and interlocking boards do so precisely because they excel at navigating and optimizing the existing axiology (maximizing shareholder value).

Therefore, the continuity of corporate transitions acts as an ideological filter. A CEO who attempts to genuinely prioritize ecological restoration at the expense of quarterly capital expansion will be systematically replaced by the board or activist shareholders. The system is structurally engineered to self-correct against mutations that threaten capital accumulation.

3. Can the System Absorb the Conflict? (The Green Capitalist Attempt)

In recent decades, the corporate elite has attempted a superficial reconciliation of these values through frameworks like ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing and the “Stakeholder Capitalism” championed by the World Economic Forum.

However, critics from both the left and the right argue that this has not shifted the core axiology:

• The Piketty/Marxist Critique: These efforts are viewed as sophisticated PR campaigns designed to stave off the political backlash or “renormalization” mentioned earlier. The fundamental goal remains the preservation of elite control and the compounding of capital; ecological goals are only pursued if they can generate a profitable market return.
• The Misesian/Austrian Critique: This perspective argues that trying to force social well-being into corporate governance corrupts the only thing a market is actually good at: economic calculation based on consumer prices. They argue that if society values ecological restoration, consumers must change their purchasing habits or governments must enforce clear property rights against pollution, rather than expecting corporate bureaucrats to act as ad hoc social planners.

The Ultimate Paradox

Your premise leaves us with a stark conclusion: if the actual meaning of capital remains tied strictly to monetary expansion and elite continuity, then any true transition to an ecological economy cannot happen through the voluntary evolution of corporate boards. It would require a fundamental redefinition of property, value, and accounting metrics—a systemic shift that history suggests is rarely driven from the top down.

If you are interested, we can look into the legal and fiduciary duties of corporate boards (such as the history of shareholder primacy) to see how the legal system itself enforces this specific axiology. Would you like to explore that aspect?

Gary– Each of those would be interesting in summaries.

Gemini– Here are the concise summaries of the three areas you highlighted, outlining exactly how the legal system, historical precedents, and wealth-rotation data interact with this entrenched axiology.

1. Legal and Fiduciary Duties: How the Law Enforces Shareholder Primacy

The modern corporate board cannot voluntarily change its value theory because it is bound by a rigid legal framework that punishes deviation.

• The Dodge v. Ford Precedent (1919): This foundational legal case established that a corporation is organized and operated primarily for the profit of the stockholders. When Henry Ford tried to halt special dividends to lower car prices and employ more workers, the court ruled that he could not treat a corporation as a semi-philanthropic institution.
• The Revlon Duties: In corporate law, when a company enters a sale or merger scenario, the board’s fiduciary duty narrows down exclusively to one single goal: maximizing the immediate financial value for shareholders.
• The Threat of Litigation: If a corporate board chooses to pass on a highly profitable venture because it causes ecological degradation (which is legal under current regulations), shareholders can sue the board members personally for a breach of fiduciary duty. The legal system structurally mandates that monetary capital extraction takes precedence over social utility.

2. Historical Precedents: The “Resets” of Elite Ossification

When an elite network successfully ossifies and refuses to adapt its axiology, history shows that the system does not gently evolve; it breaks.

• Late Bourbon France (1789): The French aristocracy and clergy (the First and Second Estates) held the vast majority of the wealth and sat on the powerful regional courts (parlements). They consistently blocked tax reforms that would ease the burden on the starving lower classes, using their institutional power to protect their wealth. The system lacked the flexibility to self-correct, leading directly to the violent reset of the French Revolution.
• The Late Roman Republic (1st Century BCE): The Roman Senate became a de facto plutocracy, where a highly interconnected web of patrician families controlled the vast agricultural estates (latifundia) worked by slaves. They blocked all attempts at land reform (such as those proposed by the Gracchi brothers), assassinating the reformers to maintain their wealth. This absolute institutional rigidity caused decades of civil war, ultimately destroying the Republic and giving rise to the autocratic Roman Empire.

3. Data on Wealth Rotation: Does the 1% Actually Cycle?

To see if the elite network is truly permanent, economists track whether the families at the top remain there over generations.

• The “Florentine Surprises”: A famous study by economists Guglielmo Barone and Sauro Mocetti tracked wealth in Florence, Italy, from 1427 to 2011. They found that the wealthiest taxpayers today are the exact same families who were at the top six centuries ago. Despite centuries of wars, political shifts, and economic changes, the elite network successfully preserved its structural continuity.
• The Modern U.S. Reality: While there is short-term volatility—billionaires frequently move up and down the Forbes list due to tech booms—the broader structural concentration remains intact. Research shows that while the individuals inside the top 1% might shift slightly from decade to decade, the interlocking institutions (the elite universities, asset management firms, and corporate board structures) ensure that the wealth itself stays concentrated within the same narrow demographic and class network.

Camus' Absurdism and Despair

 Albert Camus wrote; “We are born without reason, we suffer without meaning, and we die without purpose. The universe doesn’t know we exist—and it never cared.“

I have a different opinion about the matter of course, as a Christian. I wanted to consider the quote objectively though.

I like Camus’ writing (e.g. The Plague). His opinions here are plain enough and also inconsistent with the logic of French rationalism of Sartre’s type- aka existentialism. Absurdism is different than existentialism. It is a kind of unreasoned phenomenalism without depth. In each of Camus’s propositions he is declaring knowledge (or lack of) of other’s thought. One cannot really ever know what an other thinks-just what they say or choose to disclose. The Universe is itself an other although humans are embedded within it.

Camus was an ‘I’ born, to his knowledge, without implicit self-aware purposes or reasons for being. If the Universe (whatever it is), doesn’t have sentience, Camus would have no way of knowing that himself. Life is another state of matter, and consciousness is also a different state of being than minerals, molecules, atoms or quarks for example. One might believe equally than any sufficiently intelligent being aware in the Universe, of the Universe and its content forms would also be aware of the appearance of sentient consciousness.

Camus was born during difficult times in Europe, France and Algeria and lived his life through those times of wars. It is easy to understand his fundamental despair about being. Some of those living in Ukraine today will perhaps feel that way too and write about it eventually. Sometimes the lost remain so. It is easy to understand his fundamental despair about being- his liberating despair. Sometimes the lost remain so and may glory within that.

Just Say No to USMCA Extension Requested by Canada

 The tri-lateral trade agreement formerly known as N.A.F.T.A. that was changed a little and rechristened USMCA is up for annual review in two weeks. Canada has asked that the 16 year agreement be extended for another 16 years. If the Trump administration just says no to that, the treaty would expire in ten years. In my opinion that is what should occur.

Permanent foreign treaties in regard to trade are suspect generally, as conditions change sometimes pro, sometimes con in regard to advantage in trade. Canada, Mexico or The U.S.A. can quit the treaty with a six month in advance written notice. Taking the middle course seems reasonable. In ten years political leadership might discern if the treaty actually has done any good.

If the treaty is to be extended soon- and that seems rash, the administration should require that Canadians and Mexicans adopt a second amendment style law allowing their citizens the basic right to keep and bear arms in order to form well organized militias. Those repressive legal absences of gun ownership rights cause too much criminal organization to flourish in the wake of the asymmetry between criminal gang political and social hegemony over gunless citizens of Mexico. Canada continues to have too many vestiges of royalty and seems unfriendly to U.S. democracy now and then. Recently Canada has joined with Germany to promote war in Ukraine against Russia and that is directly harmful to U.S. and global trade interests. The only stable solution for ending the war and promoting a return of Russia to normal world diplomatic and trade relations is for Russia to own Ukraine east of the Dnepro River.

Bureaucrats sometimes need meaningful work. Because of Canada’s weird Euro based political ideas it may not be good to have a trade agreement generally with it, and instead utilize traditional methods of determining what should or should not cross the border in either direction, and reducing the free trade agreement to one with Mexico;if Mexico allows liberal gun ownership laws to grow letting the citizens take back their towns from drug cartel pragmatic power incrementally.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9prr3w9nlo

Mexico was Corrupted by The Lack of a Second Amendment-Pro Gun Ownership and Well Armed Militias

There is such a vast asymmetric concentration of small arms between criminal gangs, drug cartels and ordinary Mexican citizens that I believe it is a primary cause for Mexican migration north into the United States rather than proud development of Mexico for Mexicans. Just a percent or two of ordinary Mexicans are buy and keep a weapon in the home. Weapons sales (firearms) occur at just one or two military bases and months of permitting are required before a sale is allowed to proceed. Gun ownership is a strong democratic tool for social equality. Lacking that, those with guns and sundry thugs rise hegemonically.

Mexico also lacks anything equivalent to The Posse Comitatus Act that "makes it a felony to use the federal military (including the Army and Air Force) to execute civilian laws or perform domestic policing"-Gemini. The Mexican Constitution allows the military for policing. Civilians are very third rate behind government and criminals in providing for security.

Mexicans have no ability to form a militia with armed citizens to defend themselves against home invasions or a cartel taking over their town. Often police forces with guns are bought and paid for by the deep pockets of cartels. Wages in Mexico are notoriously low and who could expect them not to be with pervasive mob influence in the economy. Being powerless in regard to practical home and community defenses, Mexicans often opt to risk dangerous northern border migrations to the U.S.A. than try to sort out the corrupt political, lack of security situation in their own country.

The lack of a strong second amendment comparable to that of the U.S.A. is the best explanation for why Mexico is perennially functioning in an ad hoc structure to best serve criminal drug cartels producing and distributing toxic pleasure dope for the U.S.A. and the world, and why Mexicans leave to seek better earnings elsewhere. Mexico initially restricted firearms ownerships to stabilize the society in an era before criminal drug cartels existed and society was more disposed towards violent and even Marxist revolution. That stagnation has been the fetid pool promoting the growth of toxic pond scum corrupting the entire society of Mexico.

Amazon for War, Drone/Anti-Drone EW Toolkit , Printed Drones and Vultures

Someday much of this technology will be used for global security and environmental work perhaps, as well as for anti-guerilla war, yet it is concerning that human effort is being placed so much into non-productive combat technology development rather than balancing budgets, repairing the ecosphere and eliminating starvation globally. Since here are several thread leading to the end of viability for human civilization on Earth that are concurrent it would seem more intelligent to work upon solving those rather than developing war ad infinitum-Yet original sin is such a stickler.

Gary- What can you tell me about hornet drones, and three d printed attack drones manufacturer? Is the AI in hornet drones very difficult to write?

Gemini- "Hornet" drones typically refer to two distinct systems: the US-made Black Hornet (a micro-reconnaissance nano-drone by Teledyne FLIR) or the Ukrainian Hornet (a long-range strike munition). The AI in these systems is incredibly complex to write, requiring robust computer vision and adaptability. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Hornet Drones: Reconnaissance vs. Strike

• Black Hornet (Teledyne FLIR): A pocket-sized, nearly silent micro-helicopter (weighing just 33 to 70 grams) used by infantry for immediate, covert reconnaissance and streaming thermal video. [1, 2]

• Ukrainian Hornet (Swift Beat LLC / Perennial Autonomy): A deep-strike, fixed-wing loitering munition utilized for interdiction and supply-line disruption. It carries heavy warheads at long ranges (50–150+ km) and often features advanced AI for terminal guidance. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3D-Printed Attack Drone Manufacturers

The landscape of 3D-printed military drones has shifted from improvised workshops to specialized manufacturing:

• Wild Hornets: A major Ukrainian miltech manufacturer known for scaling production through 3D-print farms. They produce high-volume attack, reconnaissance, and First-Person View (FPV) interceptor drones. [1, 2, 3]

• Firestorm Labs: A U.S.-based defense manufacturer that produces mobile 3D-printing factories (housed in shipping containers) to rapidly print and assemble drones directly on or near the battlefield. [1]

• HANX: Developed by the U.S. Marine Corps, this is the first fully 3D-printed, modular drone that complies with U.S. NDAA security standards, allowing it to be adapted for reconnaissance or strike roles on demand. [1, 2]

Is the AI in Hornet Drones Very Difficult to Write?

Yes. Developing the AI for strike and combat drones is exceptionally difficult for a few major reasons: [1]

• Countering Electronic Warfare (EW): Enemy jamming severs communications, so the AI must guide the drone through the final terminal phase entirely offline. [1]

• Terrain Clutter: Algorithms easily get confused by trees, shadows, and urban clutter. AI requires training on vast visual datasets to reliably lock onto a target without locking onto a rock or shrub. [1]

• Real-Time Processing: Running neural networks requires miniature, onboard processors (like NVIDIA Jetson boards) that must be lightweight enough for a drone to carry but powerful enough to process video frames in milliseconds. [1, 2]

• Dynamic Targeting: The software must identify specific vehicle components (like a truck's fuel tank) or automatically adjust if one drone in a networked swarm is shot down. [1, 2]

For more on how additive manufacturing is changing the aerospace sector, you can explore updates from platforms like Fast Company or explore hardware specs provided by Teledyne FLIR.

Gary- I mean- even you could write programs to make AI for attack drones- do large language models have the ability to write AI programs to put into attack drones- can that free Chinese AI be used to write, what do they call them, apps programs for attack drones?

Gemini- No, Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot write complete, functional AI programs for attack drones on their own, and public AI models are strictly blocked from doing so.

Why LLMs Cannot Build Attack Drone AI

• Safety Filters: All major public AI systems, including free Chinese models (like DeepSeek, Qwen, or Ernie), have strict guardrails. They will immediately block requests to generate code intended for weapons, lethal autonomous systems, or military targeting.

• Lack of Real-World Context: Writing drone AI requires deep integration with specific hardware, camera sensors, and flight controllers (like Pixhawk or ArduPilot). LLMs cannot physically test how code reacts to wind, motor vibration, or real-world lighting.

• High Failure Rates: LLMs excel at standard coding tasks, but they frequently make subtle logical errors ("hallucinations"). In military robotics, a single line of flawed code will cause the drone to instantly crash or miss its target.

What LLMs Can Do (Dual-Use Risks)

While an AI will not write a "turnkey" attack program, the underlying technology is considered "dual-use." This means standard, non-military code can be adapted by human engineers:

• Generic Computer Vision: A free LLM can easily write code to track a tennis ball or a red car for a college robotics project. A weapon developer can take that exact same code and swap the target to a military vehicle.

• Basic Flight Math: LLMs can write standard navigation algorithms, filtering code to smooth out sensor data, or basic automation scripts used in commercial agriculture drones.

• Code Optimization: Human programmers can use LLMs to debug their own custom-written military software or translate existing drone code from one programming language to another.

Ultimately, a free AI can act as a helpful assistant to a human engineer, but it cannot independently design, test, or deploy software for an autonomous weapon.

If you are interested in how autonomous flight works safely, I can explain how open-source flight controllers (like ArduPilot) handle navigation, or how commercial computer vision tracks objects. What would you like to explore next?

Gary- I just learned about hornet drones piloted by AI and am trying to understand how easily Russia might use Chinese AI systems to write AI code for their own anti-drones that in theory should be simpler than the code needed to attack mobile ground targets. I would think that Russians are looking into upgrading their defenses that way

Gemini-Russia is heavily actively researching and upgrading its defenses using AI, but relying on Chinese Large Language Models (LLMs) to automatically write code for anti-drone "interceptors" is not how they are achieving it. While the engineering logic sounds simpler on paper, the physical reality makes automated AI code generation highly impractical. [1, 2]

The defense dynamics reveal a clear picture of how Russia is actually building these weapons and why the code isn't as simple as it looks. [1]

1. The Myth of the "Simpler" Anti-Drone Code

While tracking a drone against the empty blue sky seems easier than finding a camouflaged tank on the ground, writing AI for aerial interceptors is actually intensely difficult due to physics and speed:

• The Velocity Problem: A ground target moves slowly (0 to 40 km/h). An enemy First-Person View (FPV) attack drone or a reconnaissance drone moves at speeds between 80 to 150+ km/h. [1, 2]

• The Math of Interception: Missing a ground target by two feet means hitting the dirt right next to it, which often still damages the target. Missing a fast-moving drone by two feet means the interceptor flies harmlessly into the sky and fails entirely.

• Extremely Low Latency: For an anti-drone to ram or shoot down another drone, its onboard AI computer vision must calculate predictive intercept paths in microseconds. Public LLMs cannot generate code that seamlessly optimizes hardware to process data at that extreme speed. [1]

2. How Russia Actually Uses China (Hardware over Software)

Russia does not need Chinese AI models like DeepSeek or Qwen to write code because Russia already possesses an incredibly advanced, highly educated pool of mathematical and military software engineers. Their bottleneck is not software; it is hardware. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Instead of using China for coding, Russia heavily relies on China for:

• The AI Backbone (Compute): Russia imports massive volumes of Chinese processor modules, control boards, microchips, and optical telemetry systems. [1]

• Pre-Built Computer Vision Chips: Rather than writing code from scratch using a chatbot, Russian defense companies buy commercial, off-the-shelf Chinese chips that already have built-in object tracking and optical flow algorithms hardcoded onto the silicon.

• Physical Engineering Collaboration: Reports have identified Chinese drone specialists traveling directly to Russian state-owned weapons plants to assist with hardware integration and test flights on the ground. [1]

3. Current Reality: Russia’s Existing "Anti-Drone" Systems [1]

Russia is already deploying the exact upgrades you are imagining, built via traditional military programming rather than generative AI chatbots.

A prime example is the "Yolka" (Fir Tree) drone hunter. It is a compact, handheld "fire-and-forget" interceptor drone deployed by Russian frontline forces. A soldier launches it from a pistol-like device, and its onboard tracking system autonomously locks onto an incoming Ukrainian drone and flies directly into it. [1]

Additionally, because Ukraine has seen massive success using its own cheap AI interceptors (like the Wild Hornets "Sting" drone) to down Russian reconnaissance craft at a fraction of the cost of anti-air missiles, Russia is aggressively copying this model. They are moving toward closed, sovereign military AI loops rather than plugging prompts into public internet AI tools. [1, 2, 3]

Would you like to know more about the specific onboard computer vision chips (like NVIDIA Jetson or Chinese alternatives) that allow these interceptor drones to lock onto targets entirely offline? [1]

Gary- Can any of those drones fly somewhere along a road, land and loiter until controllers signal that an interesting potential target is arriving in the area, take off and attack it?

Yes, this tactic is actively being used. In military drone doctrine, this specific capability is known as a "perch-and-stare" ambush or "ground-loitering." Both Ukrainian forces and Russian developers have built systems specifically designed to fly along key supply lines, power down on the ground to save battery, and reactivate when an enemy target approaches. [1, 2]

How the "Land and Ambush" Tactic Works

The exact sequence you described is a highly effective way to bypass the biggest limitation of small electric drones: battery life.

1. The Infiltration Flight: A drone flies low along a known transit corridor or road network (often deep behind enemy lines). [1]

2. The "Perch": Instead of wasting battery circling in the air, the drone lands on a roof, a tree line, a bridge structure, or right in the weeds next to the road.

3. Power-Down Loitering: Once landed, the drone shuts off its power-hungry motors. It goes into a low-energy "sleep" mode where only its basic receiver or a passive sensor remains awake. It can sit hidden like this for hours, or even days, without draining its battery.

4. The Wake-Up Signal: The drone is reactivated in one of two ways:

• Remote Signal: A human operator watching a separate, high-altitude reconnaissance drone spots a target approaching the road and sends an encrypted radio signal to wake the ambush drone up.

• Autonomous Sensors: Some advanced models use acoustic sensors (listening for engine noise) or seismic sensors (feeling vehicle vibrations) to wake themselves up automatically.

5. Takeoff and Attack: The drone immediately fires up its motors, lifts off into the air, uses its onboard computer vision to lock onto the vehicle, and rams into it as a suicide munition. [1, 2, 3]

Real-World Examples in Operation

Both sides of the conflict in Ukraine have specialized hardware for this exact mission profile:

• Ukrainian "Mine" Drones: Ukraine has deployed FPV drones equipped with small legs or magnetic mounts. They fly deep into Russian-controlled territory at night, land on roads or bridges, and wait. When a Russian logistics truck drives by, they detonate like an intelligent, remote-controlled landmine, or they pop up to chase the vehicle down. [1, 2]

• Russian "Phoenix" and "Piranha" Variants: Russian developers have engineered FPV strike drones with "hibernation" modules. Frontline reports show these drones being landed on high ground or rooftops overlooking Ukrainian positions. They can sit completely silent for up to a week, making them invisible to electronic warfare scanners until the exact moment they receive the command to wake up and strike. [1]

Why this is a Defense Nightmare

This tactic is devastating because a landed drone has no thermal signature (its motors are cold) and makes no acoustic noise. Air defense radars ignore things resting on the ground, and electronic warfare jamming units cannot easily locate a drone that isn't actively transmitting radio waves. By the time the drone wakes up and takes off, it is usually only seconds away from its target, leaving zero time for the vehicle to react.

If you are interested, I can explain the electronic warfare tools used to detect these "sleeping" drones, or how acoustic arrays are used to pick up their takeoff noises. Which would you prefer to look at?

Gary- The EW tools used to detect the vultures waiting on roofs etc would be interesting 

Gemini- Detecting a "perched" or "hibernating" drone resting on a roof, tree, or bridge is one of the hardest challenges in electronic warfare (EW) and counter-drone defense. Because the drone's motors are turned off, standard radar ignored it as static ground clutter, and it has no heat signature for thermal cameras.

To find these hidden "vultures," military forces use highly specialized electronic warfare, radio reconnaissance, and multispectral tools designed to catch a sleeping drone by its microscopic technical vulnerabilities.

1. Advanced Radio Reconnaissance (RF Sniffers)

Even when a drone is "asleep," it is rarely 100% dead. To wake up when commanded, its internal radio receiver must remain powered on and listening.

• Local Oscillator Leakage: As an electronic receiver listens for a signal, its internal circuitry naturally leaks an incredibly faint, accidental radio frequency (RF) hum. Advanced Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and RF scanners—such as specialized DroneShield systems or Leonardo's Guardian Vantage—can scan the area and detect these tiny, microscopic electrical leaks coming from a rooftop, pinning down the exact coordinate of the dormant drone. [1, 2]

• The "Zaruba" Method: Modern front-line scanners like the Zaruba Drone Detector intercept the live video transmissions or standby pings of drones. If a perched drone sends even a single fraction-of-a-second "I am alive" telemetry ping back to its base, these scanners immediately flag it. [1]

2. Nonlinear Junction Detectors (NLJD)

This is a classic counter-espionage tool adapted for the drone war. An NLJD is a device that shoots out a specific microwave radio signal.

• How it works: When this signal hits silicon components (like the microchips, diodes, and circuit boards inside a drone), the semiconductor physics cause the signal to bounce back altered (on a second or third harmonic frequency).

• The Advantage: An NLJD does not care if the drone is completely turned off, has a dead battery, or is completely silent. It detects the physical existence of electronic components hidden inside plastic or carbon-fiber shells, exposing a drone hidden in a pile of roof debris.

3. Active Optical (Laser) Lens Detection

Almost every ambush drone relies on a camera lens to see its target when it wakes up. Counter-reconnaissance teams use specialized laser scanners to sweep rooftops and tree lines.

• When the laser sweeps across a camera lens, the light bounces directly off the camera’s internal optical sensor and creates a highly visible, intense reflection (known as retroreflection).

• This immediately alerts defense teams that a camera lens is pointing at the road from an otherwise empty structure.

4. Acoustic Arrays (Catching the Wake-Up)

Because finding a perfectly silent drone is so difficult, defense networks often focus on catching the exact microsecond the drone is activated. [1]

• Microphone Triangulation: Defensive convoys or fixed outposts are surrounded by passive acoustic detection arrays (highly sensitive microphone grids). [1, 2]

• The Split-Second Warning: The very instant the perched drone receives its signal and spins up its high-RPM electric motors, the acoustic array calculates the exact frequency of the propeller noise. Within milliseconds, it triangulates the precise roof or tree the noise originated from, giving automatic machine-gun turrets or jammer systems a target before the drone can even lift off into the air. [1, 2]

The Ultimate Countermeasure: Fiber-Optic Blindness

To bypass all of this, the cutting-edge evolution on the battlefield is the fiber-optic tether drone. Drones like the Russian "Gibernator" variants use a physical spool of glass fiber-optic cable connected to the operator. Because they don't use radio waves to communicate or wake up, they emit absolutely zero RF signals, making them entirely immune to standard electronic warfare scanners. In these cases, forces have to rely strictly on physical visual sweeps or kinetic interceptor drones to smash them out of the sky. [1, 2]

If you would like, I can explain how fiber-optic drones operate without tangling their cords, or look at how active jamming is used to sever the signals of standard wireless "vulture" drones. What would you like to know more about?

Gary- I am surprised by how sophisticated the drone EW toolkit is- are these used much- what- are there hundreds of vultures lying about in Ukraine or Russia awaiting activation?

Gemini- Yes, there are likely hundreds of these "vultures" actively waiting in the combat zones right now. In the Ukrainian military, these dormant drones are widely nicknamed "Zhduns" (Ukrainian/Russian slang meaning "The Waiting Ones"). [1, 2, 3]

While the Electronic Warfare (EW) tools described sound like science fiction, they are deployed in massive volumes because the scale of the drone threat is staggering. In fact, roughly one in three Russian aerial targets is now brought down by a counter-drone interceptor rather than a missile. [1, 2]

The scale of this "hibernating" drone war reveals how integrated these tactics have become.

How Many "Vultures" Are Out There?

Because these drones are incredibly cheap to manufacture (often costing less than $500), forces deploy them in massive quantities across the front lines: [1, 2, 3]

• Pre-positioned Minefields: Instead of launching a drone only when an enemy is spotted, squads pre-position dozens of "Zhduns" along entire stretches of contested roads, tree lines, and ruined villages. They form a digital, pop-up ambush network. [1, 2, 3]

• The "Grey Zone" Saturation: The heavily contested, depopulated territory between the two armies—the "Grey Zone"—is littered with them. Drones are landed on broken bridges, abandoned tanks, and roofs to monitor and control supply lines. [1, 2]

• The "Joker" & "Vandals": Russia has integrated dedicated hibernation modules into its "Joker" and fiber-optic strike drone series. These can be placed in advance and left completely silent for days or weeks before an operator wakes them up. [1, 2, 3]

Are the Advanced EW Tools Being Used Much?

Absolutely, but they are locked in a vicious cat-and-mouse game. No single EW tool works forever because both sides adapt their technology within months. [1, 2]

• Handheld Scanners are Standard Issue: Frontline soldiers no longer rely just on massive radar trucks. Small, handheld RF sniffers (like the Zaruba or specialized DroneShield units) are carried by infantry to scan buildings and trenches before they move. [1, 2]

• The Shift to Fiber-Optics: Because RF sniffers became so effective at catching a drone’s tiny electronic leaks, Russia and Ukraine aggressively shifted toward fiber-optic guided sleeper drones. By physically unspooling a thin glass cord behind it, a perched drone emits absolutely zero radio frequencies while waiting or flying, rendering standard EW scanners completely blind. [1, 2]

• Drone Safari Units: The threat of these hidden vultures and active drone operators is so severe that both sides have created elite, dedicated electronic hunting commands (such as Russia's Rubicon unit) solely focused on locating, jamming, and destroying drone networks. [1]

Ultimately, the battlefield has become a dense digital ecosystem. A single soldier walking down a road in Ukraine or Russia is likely being watched by an overhead scout drone, while simultaneously walking past multiple "sleeping" ambush drones hidden right in the weeds next to them. [1, 2, 3]

If you'd like to explore how either side counters this, I can explain how fiber-optic drones manage to unspool miles of cable without snapping, or look into the "Amazon for War" apps soldiers use to order counter-drone gear. What would you like to know? [1]

Gary- Amazon for war?

Gemini- The "Amazon for War" is a literal reality on the modern battlefield. It refers to highly secure, government-backed digital marketplaces—specifically Ukraine's Brave1 Market and DOT-Chain Defence platforms—where frontline military commanders browse and order weapons, drones, and Electronic Warfare (EW) kits exactly like shopping online. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The system has become so highly efficient that the U.S. Army launched its own Unmanned Aircraft Systems Marketplace built with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to replicate the concept for Western forces. [1, 2]

The mechanics of this digital weapons pipeline highlight its profound impact on modern warfare: [1]

1. The Shopping Interface

Instead of filling out months of military paperwork, an officer logs into a tablet app on the front line. The app displays tiles of physical gear: [1, 2]

• Attack & Interceptor Drones: Dozens of specialized FPV drones, long-range "Hornet" variants, and aerial interceptors.

• Electronic Warfare (EW): Jamming backpacks, portable "RF sniffers" to detect perched drones, and vehicle protection kits.

• Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs): Ground robots designed to crawl into dangerous zones to drop off supplies or evacuate wounded soldiers. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The commander compares specifications, reviews prices, reads feedback from other units, and selects the exact configuration needed for their specific sector. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Gamified Procurement ("Points for Kills") [1, 2]

To bypass traditional taxpayer money constraints, Ukraine linked the marketplace directly to a military point system called the Army of Drones Bonus System. It works remarkably like a video game: [1, 2]

• Earning Credits: Drone teams upload verified combat footage into Ukraine’s DELTA situational-awareness system. [1]

• The Exchange Rate: The system scans the data and automatically deposits digital "ePoints" into the unit's account. Destroying a truck might yield 12 points, while capturing an enemy soldier using a drone yields 120 points (incentivizing captures over kills). [1, 2, 3]

• The Checkout: The unit immediately spends those ePoints on the Brave1 Market to replace the drones they just lost, completely cutting out central military bureaucracy. [1, 2]

3. Hyper-Fast Shipping [1]

In a traditional military, procuring a new drone or tech upgrade takes months or years of committee approvals. The "Amazon for War" completely compresses this timeline: [1, 2]

• Orders are routed directly to private manufacturers and small tech startups. [1, 2, 3]

• Because the platforms connect units directly to tech companies, gear is often built, shipped, and delivered to trenches in less than a week. [1, 2]

• If a unit leaves a review saying "The 5.8 GHz frequency is being heavily jammed by Russia on the Bakhmut front," the manufacturer sees it instantly, tweaks the software code, and ships an updated model the next day. [1, 2]

This decentralized, market-driven system explains why drone technology is advancing faster than any conflict in human history. It forces hundreds of tech startups to aggressively compete for a soldier's digital points, ensuring that only the most effective, un-jammable weapons survive the market. [1, 2, 3]

Palantir's PRISMA is a specialized AI-powered software component utilized for dynamic route planning and mission optimization, particularly known for its deployment in unmanned aerial operations. In contrast, Hornet refers to the automated, long-range kamikaze drones that Ukraine relies on to strike distant military and logistical targets deep inside Russian territory. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Palantir PRISMA

• Function: PRISMA is an artificial intelligence application built to process vast, real-time datasets to optimize flight paths and mission routes. [1]
• Real-time Adaptability: The software ingests thousands of operational parameters, heavily weighing where enemy air defenses are successfully intercepting assets. [1]
• Learning Capabilities: It essentially maps out "holes" in enemy air defense nets in real-time and continuously recalculates optimal paths to ensure subsequent waves can slip through with minimal attrition. [1]
• Deployment: Integrated into command posts, PRISMA acts as the brain behind tactical, autonomous, or semi-autonomous deep strikes, providing real-time maps and AI data overlays. [1]

Hornet

• Function: Hornet is a long-range, one-way attack (kamikaze) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or drone. [1, 2]
• Application: These physical drones are utilized by Ukraine to target critical Russian military infrastructure, fuel depots, and transport trucks located hundreds of kilometers away from the border. [1]
• Vulnerability: Left to standard GPS navigation, such drones are highly susceptible to electronic warfare (jamming) and interception by modern air defense. [1, 2]

How They Compare

The two technologies work in tandem, representing the modern intersection of hardware execution and software-driven AI intelligence: [1]

• The Brain vs. The Brawn: PRISMA is the software "brain" handling the route-planning and AI-driven logistics, whereas the Hornet is the physical hardware executing the strike. [1]
• Dynamic Routing: Without PRISMA, a drone like Hornet would fly a static, predictable path. With PRISMA, the Hornet's flight path is continuously altered in response to live telemetry data, avoiding intercepted areas and exploiting weak points in enemy coverage. [1]
• System Synergy: The success of long-range strikes (like those executed by Hornets against Russian supply lines) relies on this exact synergy—combining long-range, cost-effective drone hardware with real-time AI mapping to bypass sophisticated military countermeasures. [1, 2]

Who is Palantir?
Palantir Technologies is a major American public software company headquartered in Miami, specializing in big data integration, analytics, and artificial intelligence. [1, 2]

• Origins: Founded in 2003 by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp (among others), the company was initially built using fraud detection techniques developed at PayPal and was backed by the CIA’s venture arm, In-Q-Tel. [1, 2, 3]
• Core Products: Their flagship platforms (such as Gotham and Foundry) are used to ingest massive volumes of data, allowing organizations to visualize patterns, detect threats, and make data-driven decisions. [1, 2]
• Clients: Palantir's clients range from defense and intelligence agencies worldwide to major commercial enterprises and healthcare systems. [1]

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/what-is-palantirs-prisma-the-ai-software-ukraine-is-using-to-strike-russia-11577108