Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants

Evidence

The span of the respective reaches of the individuals or entities involved may also vary. Typically, the field of vision of the one may be more extensive than that of the other. As a result, the paradoxical consequence may be that, if I have a better view, I may, so to speak, be in the presence of the other before he is in my presence. That is a paradoxical consequence because it amounts to saying that co-presence is not necessarily reciprocal. The prey and its predator lurking in the shadows are co-present even if the former is not yet aware of this (or even if the prey cannot yet see the predator). For there to be co-presence, all that is necessary is that one of the terms involved should be included in at least one field in range of the other. There are paradoxical forms of unilateral co-presence in which entity A can act upon or be affected by entity B, while entity B is not in a reciprocal position. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949 (#corroborates, 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 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Co-presence does not require awareness of the other’s presence; Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal; Warfare tactics aim to make co-presence structures nonreciprocal rather than merely asymmetrical. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949 (+10 more)

Related

• Co-presence can be unilateral and nonreciprocal, needing only one term in range. (similarity 0.93)
• Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal (similarity 0.92)
• Warfare tactics aim to make co-presence structures nonreciprocal rather than merely asymmetrical. (similarity 0.89)
• Co-presence is defined by range and causal access, not mere simultaneity (similarity 0.84)
• Co-presence requires being within causal range, not mere simultaneous existence. (similarity 0.81)
• War’s immunity from murder prosecutions rests on mutual reciprocity (similarity 0.80)
• Co-presence can exist without co-localization, a break enabled by tele-technologies. (similarity 0.80)
• A tele-operator’s two presences are layered, so neither fully effaces the other. (similarity 0.79)
• Co-presence does not require awareness of the other’s presence (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal #corroborates (0.90)
• Co-presence can be unilateral and nonreciprocal, needing only one term in range. #corroborates (0.85) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949
• Warfare tactics aim to make co-presence structures nonreciprocal rather than merely asymmetrical. #expands (0.70) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949
• Tele-technologies make non-reciprocal forms of co-presence possible, necessary, or impossible #expands (0.65) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 954
• War’s immunity from murder prosecutions rests on mutual reciprocity #complicates (0.60)
• Co-presence can exist without co-localization, a break enabled by tele-technologies. #complicates (0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 946