even in the game with Van Riper, you could assume that your intelligence agencies did the right thing at preventing his unorthodox tactics and that's why some of his actions were never carried out. after all, if your army is (obviously) better equipped for fighting a conventional war, as opposed to the enemy, then is the job of your intelligence services to push the war towards a more traditional style war that you can win, so if the controllers assumed such a scenario their actions in such a game could be somewhat justifiable (again, assuming the red didn't have the resources of an intelligence agency backed by a wealthy nation).
now if you were to treat the AR drones competition as some sort of war game, you would have to assume such hacking capabilities on both sides, probably balancing out or interacting in interesting ways...
The enemy engages in sabotage and guerilla warfare because they know they have no chance at winning a conventional war --but the wargamers dismissed the weaknesses in some of their assumptions (such that technological superiority equates to prevalence on all fronts of the battlefield.
Van Riper showed them they had weaknesses but they preferred to sidestep them --this thought process probably explains our initial susceptibility to IEDs and other unorthodox tactics by our foes.
now if you were to treat the AR drones competition as some sort of war game, you would have to assume such hacking capabilities on both sides, probably balancing out or interacting in interesting ways...