Warfare tactics aim to make co-presence structures nonreciprocal rather than merely asymmetrical.

Evidence

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

Categorization

• XREF: Grounds the reader’s ‘art of killing’ theme: the drone typifies the project of radically rendering co-presence unilateral. — connects to: Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants; Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal; Co-presence can be unilateral and nonreciprocal, needing only one term in range. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 949

Related

• Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants (similarity 0.89)
• Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal (similarity 0.89)
• Co-presence can be unilateral and nonreciprocal, needing only one term in range. (similarity 0.86)
• Co-presence is defined by range and causal access, not mere simultaneity (similarity 0.82)
• Eliminating reciprocal exposure to violence makes drones look like cowardly weapons. (similarity 0.80)
• Co-presence requires being within causal range, not mere simultaneous existence. (similarity 0.80)
• Unilateral drone warfare collapses war into a one-sided putting-to-death (similarity 0.80)
• Armed drones make killing a priori one-directional, converting combat into slaughter. (similarity 0.79)
• Drone warfare creates a new configuration that is neither war nor peace (similarity 0.79)
• Drones add the remote control’s range to the weapon’s range. (similarity 0.78)
• Drone technology severs visual discrimination from physical proximity to targets. (similarity 0.78)
• Drone warfare replaces combat’s duel with a hunter-prey hide-and-seek structure (similarity 0.78)
• Drone warfare leaves the mutual right to kill formally intact but substantively empty. (similarity 0.78)
• The drone made warfare absolutely unilateral, killing without risk of being killed (similarity 0.78)