Which is why it is very unlikely, that we can avoid fully autonomous killer drones.
(if they are not already deployed in experimental settings)
This is very different to artillery which is too expensive to lose to return fire and even more expensive if you try and make it operable remotely.
If these small drones provide capabilities that are, as your comment implies, not new but they do it with a cost effectiveness that blows away anything that came before, that's a pretty big deal.
As for the drone you linked - we don't know how much it cost Russian to produce Geran-2, but definitely less than you imagine.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2024/02/07/375000the...
the economist: https://www.economist.com/interactive/science-and-technology... https://archive.is/nJYJ0
Where in Civil War times you would need to clothe, feed, camp 100 people, now you have that firepower in a single soldier's weapon.
And when you remove the need for even a single human, you also remove their logistics footprint.
Which doesn't reduce the number of troops you need against a given foe with peer equipment, it just increases the durable equipment and consumables per soldier
Do you think it's 1, 2, or 3 drones to get 1 kill?
Jamming and dying batteries make the odds much worse than that.
Look up how many drones have been expended in Ukraine. Then look up how many casualties there have been. Finally, understand that not all casualties ate caused by drones, and do the math.
