4 ms·

If it's doing flybys over your naval ship - why not?

shadowgovt 4y ago
Multiple reasons. Number one, you avoid an international incident if you can help it. Number two, and far more importantly, the whole point of these drones is surveillance and intelligence gathering, ostensibly. Why would the Navy respond to their presence by showing the human observers aboard the cargo vessel precisely how we shoot down a drone?
- Victerius 4y ago
  1. In the State of Nevada, around Area 51, there are signs reading: "Use of deadly force authorized". I'm not aware of anyone who has ever been killed by trespassing into Area 51, but the government has given itself that option and made it public. I don't see why a similar policy couldn't be enacted regarding unauthorized drone flybys of military ships. 2. If the theory that these drones are the work of an adversarial nation state is correct, then shooting down the drones would not provoke an ostensible reaction from said government. China (or whoever is behind them) telling the world that the US "illegally" destroyed their drones would blow the cover on these mysterious drone incidents and legitimize the destruction of every other drone observed displaying the same behavior in the future. 3. Other countries, and you know which countries I'm talking about (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) have no qualms about provoking international incidents. Shooting down suspicious drones near US waters would be returning the favor. Iran destroyed a US Navy drone in the Persian Gulf a few years ago. "People sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
  - julius_deane 4y ago
    these ships were not in nevada
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    US government will tax you in Nevada. Haven't yet seen them tax you on the high seas. Actually, why doesn't the US Government just put up "No Entry" signs in Xinjiang? Could probably prevent oppression.
    - astrange 4y ago
      US income tax applies to your income worldwide as long as you're a citizen. There's tax equalization treaties with some other countries, but not on the sea.
      - renewiltord 4y ago
        They should just pass a law to tax everyone on the sea. Imagine how much money they could make. Just like foreigners in Nevada have to pay tax.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    What happens in Nevada is a domestic matter. Other countries don't care about it, and the US government can plausibly claim it has a legal basis for its actions. There are no such things as "unauthorized" flybys in international waters. There are no laws or international customs against approaching foreign warships, as long as that does not endanger the ship. How the warship chooses to respond is a matter of foreign policy and best left to civilians. Escalation often leads to further escalation. There is a similar situation in the South China Sea, where China claims sovereignty over some areas. The US disagrees and frequently patrols the area. If the US shoots down a Chinese drone in international waters, China may consider that shooting at an American plane or a warship there would be a proportional response. That could turn very bad very quickly. Unless the US deliberately wants to escalate, it may be a better policy to ignore Chinese provocations with drones.
    - gorgoiler 4y ago
      Killing someone, in exchange for shooting down a robot, would be an escalation not a proportionate response.
      - jltsiren 4y ago
        You are looking at this from the American perspective, when you should look at it from the Chinese perspective. Killing someone who is trying to invade territory you claim sovereignty over is a justified response. China does not do that at the moment, and not because they don't think it would be justified but because they don't think it would be a smart move. If the US starts shooting at your assets in situations they consider justified, a proportional response would be shooting at their assets in situations you consider justified. Due to different perspectives, a proportional response may turn into escalation. A similar situation is developing in Ukraine. Russia is seriously considering annexing the territory it has managed to conquer. If Ukraine later gains the upper hand and tries to take lost territory back, it would be invading Russia from the Russian perspective. That, according to their doctrine, would allow a nuclear response, which might be enough to deter Ukraine.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
- hericium 4y ago
  I don't know naval law but I'm trying to apply your first point to a drone flying over a restricted airspace like an embassy. It's not you starting an incident when you shoot the drone down. You can choose not to respond to the provocation of course, but I'd imagine you'd want the drone down for security reasons. It can potentially carry a warhead or biological weapon. You don't need to use your best know-how to shoot the drone down. Good occasion to practice less-preferred methods.
  - vanattab 4y ago
    I am pretty sure the Chinese embassy shooting down a usa drone in USA territory or elsewhere (or vis versa) would constitute an international incident.
    - extr 4y ago
      Shooting down a circling UAV with a missile, sure. But the equivalent here is sending a micro drone to go hover outside the windows. I think most people would agree that's pretty brazen provocation, a shotgun is a totally proportional response.
      - rightbyte 4y ago
        Call the local police and let them catch it or use some peaceful fishing net? Can't have people fireing at the sky in cities ...
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        There's precedent in some sections of the United States that down in a drone with a shotgun is legal. But it is not national president, and as far as I'm aware it hasn't been tried in a densely populated area. I completely agree that in general, discharging a firearm in an urban environment would probably constitute far more risk than the drone.
      - 13of40 4y ago
        Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like according to the FAA flying a drone over a Navy ship is only restricted if you're below 1000 feet: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-establishes-restrictions-drone-operations-near-us-navy-vessels https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-establishes-restrictions-dr...
markdown 4y ago
A ship at sea, naval or otherwise, is traveling in the commons and we are all legally allowed to look at it and record what we see.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Hovering above is not the same as just looking.
  - markdown 4y ago
    Why can't I hover above a ship while staring at it and recording what I see?
    - MonkeyClub 4y ago
      Hover over two times, drop a bomb the third. Though in this case, it's not hovering over, it's politely observing from a distance (8,000 yards?)
    - gorgoiler 4y ago
      What’s the difference between a drone and a guided missile? Is it because the drone can be shot down easily that we know it couldn’t possibly be threatening us? That’s fine until a drone drops 50g of suspicious powder across the deck.
      - markdown 4y ago
        Seriously? A missile is a weapon. Should I, paddling by in my kayak, be torpedoed by the Navy because I could be concealing a weapon?
        gorgoiler 4y ago
        The stakes are completely different for manned vehicles vs a DJI parrot loaded with anthrax. The cost to you — a hypothetical attacker — is now “your life” instead of “$5000”, and the cost to the defending vessel is now “we killed someone :(“ instead of “sorry about your drone no we aren’t replacing it now piss off”. I suspect if you looked like a Google image search for “fundamentalist suicide bomber”, you might find yourself being asked some anxious questions / shot at.
dfhfhdfhshsdf 4y ago
a flyby 8000 yards away

Multiple reasons. Number one, you avoid an international incident if you can help it. Number two, and far more importantly, the whole point of these drones is surveillance and intelligence gathering, ostensibly. Why would the Navy respond to their presence by showing the human observers aboard the cargo vessel precisely how we shoot down a drone?

Victerius 4y ago
1. In the State of Nevada, around Area 51, there are signs reading: "Use of deadly force authorized". I'm not aware of anyone who has ever been killed by trespassing into Area 51, but the government has given itself that option and made it public. I don't see why a similar policy couldn't be enacted regarding unauthorized drone flybys of military ships. 2. If the theory that these drones are the work of an adversarial nation state is correct, then shooting down the drones would not provoke an ostensible reaction from said government. China (or whoever is behind them) telling the world that the US "illegally" destroyed their drones would blow the cover on these mysterious drone incidents and legitimize the destruction of every other drone observed displaying the same behavior in the future. 3. Other countries, and you know which countries I'm talking about (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) have no qualms about provoking international incidents. Shooting down suspicious drones near US waters would be returning the favor. Iran destroyed a US Navy drone in the Persian Gulf a few years ago. "People sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
- julius_deane 4y ago
  these ships were not in nevada
- renewiltord 4y ago
  US government will tax you in Nevada. Haven't yet seen them tax you on the high seas. Actually, why doesn't the US Government just put up "No Entry" signs in Xinjiang? Could probably prevent oppression.
  - astrange 4y ago
    US income tax applies to your income worldwide as long as you're a citizen. There's tax equalization treaties with some other countries, but not on the sea.
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      They should just pass a law to tax everyone on the sea. Imagine how much money they could make. Just like foreigners in Nevada have to pay tax.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  What happens in Nevada is a domestic matter. Other countries don't care about it, and the US government can plausibly claim it has a legal basis for its actions. There are no such things as "unauthorized" flybys in international waters. There are no laws or international customs against approaching foreign warships, as long as that does not endanger the ship. How the warship chooses to respond is a matter of foreign policy and best left to civilians. Escalation often leads to further escalation. There is a similar situation in the South China Sea, where China claims sovereignty over some areas. The US disagrees and frequently patrols the area. If the US shoots down a Chinese drone in international waters, China may consider that shooting at an American plane or a warship there would be a proportional response. That could turn very bad very quickly. Unless the US deliberately wants to escalate, it may be a better policy to ignore Chinese provocations with drones.
  - gorgoiler 4y ago
    Killing someone, in exchange for shooting down a robot, would be an escalation not a proportionate response.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      You are looking at this from the American perspective, when you should look at it from the Chinese perspective. Killing someone who is trying to invade territory you claim sovereignty over is a justified response. China does not do that at the moment, and not because they don't think it would be justified but because they don't think it would be a smart move. If the US starts shooting at your assets in situations they consider justified, a proportional response would be shooting at their assets in situations you consider justified. Due to different perspectives, a proportional response may turn into escalation. A similar situation is developing in Ukraine. Russia is seriously considering annexing the territory it has managed to conquer. If Ukraine later gains the upper hand and tries to take lost territory back, it would be invading Russia from the Russian perspective. That, according to their doctrine, would allow a nuclear response, which might be enough to deter Ukraine.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
hericium 4y ago
I don't know naval law but I'm trying to apply your first point to a drone flying over a restricted airspace like an embassy. It's not you starting an incident when you shoot the drone down. You can choose not to respond to the provocation of course, but I'd imagine you'd want the drone down for security reasons. It can potentially carry a warhead or biological weapon. You don't need to use your best know-how to shoot the drone down. Good occasion to practice less-preferred methods.
- vanattab 4y ago
  I am pretty sure the Chinese embassy shooting down a usa drone in USA territory or elsewhere (or vis versa) would constitute an international incident.
  - extr 4y ago
    Shooting down a circling UAV with a missile, sure. But the equivalent here is sending a micro drone to go hover outside the windows. I think most people would agree that's pretty brazen provocation, a shotgun is a totally proportional response.
    - rightbyte 4y ago
      Call the local police and let them catch it or use some peaceful fishing net? Can't have people fireing at the sky in cities ...
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        There's precedent in some sections of the United States that down in a drone with a shotgun is legal. But it is not national president, and as far as I'm aware it hasn't been tried in a densely populated area. I completely agree that in general, discharging a firearm in an urban environment would probably constitute far more risk than the drone.
    - 13of40 4y ago
      Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like according to the FAA flying a drone over a Navy ship is only restricted if you're below 1000 feet: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-establishes-restrictions-drone-operations-near-us-navy-vessels https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-establishes-restrictions-dr...

markdown 4y ago

A ship at sea, naval or otherwise, is traveling in the commons and we are all legally allowed to look at it and record what we see.

ncmncm 4y ago
Hovering above is not the same as just looking.
- markdown 4y ago
  Why can't I hover above a ship while staring at it and recording what I see?
  - MonkeyClub 4y ago
    Hover over two times, drop a bomb the third. Though in this case, it's not hovering over, it's politely observing from a distance (8,000 yards?)
  - gorgoiler 4y ago
    What’s the difference between a drone and a guided missile? Is it because the drone can be shot down easily that we know it couldn’t possibly be threatening us? That’s fine until a drone drops 50g of suspicious powder across the deck.
    - markdown 4y ago
      Seriously? A missile is a weapon. Should I, paddling by in my kayak, be torpedoed by the Navy because I could be concealing a weapon?
      - gorgoiler 4y ago
        The stakes are completely different for manned vehicles vs a DJI parrot loaded with anthrax. The cost to you — a hypothetical attacker — is now “your life” instead of “$5000”, and the cost to the defending vessel is now “we killed someone :(“ instead of “sorry about your drone no we aren’t replacing it now piss off”. I suspect if you looked like a Google image search for “fundamentalist suicide bomber”, you might find yourself being asked some anxious questions / shot at.

dfhfhdfhshsdf 4y ago

a flyby 8000 yards away