Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal

Evidence

These devices thus affect both the diverse character of the dimensions of co-presence and also their structure so that, depending on the choices that govern their technical architecture, they produce new forms of experience: experiences of damaged presences, blind presences, non-reciprocal co-presences, etc. These transform the forms of co-presence by rendering certain configurations not only possible but necessary or else impossible—configurations that were not so in the immediate past. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 954 (#expands, via linked claim)

There is a wide range of more or less effective tactics designed to render non-reciprocal a structure of co-presence that seems initially reciprocal. Both the animal world and the history of warfare and weaponry abound in such tactics. For example, one can try to increase one’s range so as to strike one’s opponent without the latter being able to reciprocate, owing to his lack of equivalent equipment. It is also possible, even if one is included in the perceptual field and operation zone of one’s opponent, to try to make oneself unnoticeable by using camouflage or other ploys to make oneself invisible. But there is a difference between on the one hand simple schemes which, leaving the general structure of co-presence unaffected, merely try to upset its conditions and, on the other hand, attempts to modify the structure of co-presence radically, by making it unilateral. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Co-presence does not require awareness of the other’s presence; Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants; Co-presence is defined by range and causal access, not mere simultaneity (+5 more)

Related

• Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants (similarity 0.92)
• Warfare tactics aim to make co-presence structures nonreciprocal rather than merely asymmetrical. (similarity 0.89)
• Co-presence can be unilateral and nonreciprocal, needing only one term in range. (similarity 0.89)
• Co-presence is defined by range and causal access, not mere simultaneity (similarity 0.87)
• Co-presence requires being within causal range, not mere simultaneous existence. (similarity 0.84)
• Co-presence can exist without co-localization, a break enabled by tele-technologies. (similarity 0.82)
• A tele-operator’s two presences are layered, so neither fully effaces the other. (similarity 0.82)
• Tele-technologies make non-reciprocal forms of co-presence possible, necessary, or impossible (similarity 0.81)
• Co-presence does not require awareness of the other’s presence (similarity 0.80)
• Drone tele-technology is engineered to be nonreciprocal in co-presence (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Tele-technologies make non-reciprocal forms of co-presence possible, necessary, or impossible #expands (0.85) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 954
• Warfare tactics aim to make co-presence structures nonreciprocal rather than merely asymmetrical. #exemplifies (0.80) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949
• Co-presence is defined by range and causal access, not mere simultaneity #expands (0.70)
• Co-presence requires being within causal range, not mere simultaneous existence. #corroborates (0.65) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 948
• Shared context does not establish a causal or contractual connection between events #expands (0.55) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 859