4 ms·

>What’s worse, say experts, it’s too late for the United States to do anything about it. This is an extraordinary comment to make, when they have used drones m

>What’s worse, say experts, it’s too late for the United States to do anything about it. This is an extraordinary comment to make, when they have used drones more than anyone.

Synaesthesia 12y ago
Yes the US had the most advanced and largest air fleet and I expect that to continue.
- coldtea 12y ago
  Well, for a few decades maybe. The Roman empire had the most advanced army at some point. And the British Empire had the best fleet at another.
walshemj 12y ago
And how would the USA stop other sovereign country's from building UAV's. FFS drones are basicly RC planes not Nukes
- patrickk 12y ago
  > FFS drones are basicly RC planes.... Ahem. It's a bit of a stretch to call Reapers and Predators RC planes. Not to mentioned UAV spacecraft[1, 2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 [2] http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/unmanned-air-force-space-plane-lands-after-secret-mission/ http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/unmanned-air-force-space-plane-l...
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    It is a stretch, but not a huge one. UAV tech used in the military has a high degree of variation. They use everything from custom made [1] UAVs with a lawn mower engine on up to full jet powered aircraft to the spacecraft you've linked to. The lower end aircraft are the more portable ones (can be carried into a region) and really aren't much more complex than a hobbyists RC plane. Primary difference being the sensor package and hopefully a more secure communication and control system than the typical hobbyist RC aircraft would use. [1] EDIT: I suppose, really, all of them are custom and not COTS, yet. I meant one-off, low production UAVs with a specific application in mind. Their design standards are far lower (because of cost) and have no real maintenance plan (again, because of cost). They just need cameras in the sky in a specific area, and sending another aircraft (like Predator) out may not be feasible (cost, time, risk).
  - walshemj 12y ago
    the V1 had far less controllability than a model rc plane but was an effective UAV back in ww2
etiam 12y ago
I took that to imply roughly that 'The USA has been igniting and fuelling this arms race with ever greater use and weaponization of drones, but now the process is self-sustaining. Even if the USA should cease developments of its drone program and start decommissioning the crafts, that in itself would not stop drone armament, since several other actors would in all probability continue developments on programs that are now already in full action'
- arcadeparade 12y ago
  Interesting, I took it to mean that this journalist is like most others, in that he starts from the assumption that the U.S owns the world and has the right to rule it as such.
  - etiam 12y ago
    :) I certainly won't dispute that you may have been right, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt here. As an aside, if you were right: Unpalatable as the sentiment may be, there is still something to the notion that the USA does have a lot of influence over major parts of the world. I think we can all generally agree that as a nation they do have an unusual degree of possibilities to set examples and fashions, and I like it much better when the administration feels like championing human rights or restrictions on certain kinds of particularly nasty weapons than when it's bent on exporting new justifications for steps towards totalitarianism or more cost-effective ways to slaughter people. So if people in general indeed seem to think that the USA has both possibility and some kind of obligation to do things like try to curtail a rise in drone warfare, I actually feel kind of pleased at that. To the extent that it's real, I think it's welcome, and to the extent that it's conceit, maybe it's at least a constructive one.

>What’s worse, say experts, it’s too late for the United States to do anything about it. This is an extraordinary comment to make, when they have used drones more than anyone.

Synaesthesia 12y ago

Yes the US had the most advanced and largest air fleet and I expect that to continue.

coldtea 12y ago
Well, for a few decades maybe. The Roman empire had the most advanced army at some point. And the British Empire had the best fleet at another.

walshemj 12y ago

And how would the USA stop other sovereign country's from building UAV's. FFS drones are basicly RC planes not Nukes

patrickk 12y ago
> FFS drones are basicly RC planes.... Ahem. It's a bit of a stretch to call Reapers and Predators RC planes. Not to mentioned UAV spacecraft[1, 2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 [2] http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/unmanned-air-force-space-plane-lands-after-secret-mission/ http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/unmanned-air-force-space-plane-l...
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  It is a stretch, but not a huge one. UAV tech used in the military has a high degree of variation. They use everything from custom made [1] UAVs with a lawn mower engine on up to full jet powered aircraft to the spacecraft you've linked to. The lower end aircraft are the more portable ones (can be carried into a region) and really aren't much more complex than a hobbyists RC plane. Primary difference being the sensor package and hopefully a more secure communication and control system than the typical hobbyist RC aircraft would use. [1] EDIT: I suppose, really, all of them are custom and not COTS, yet. I meant one-off, low production UAVs with a specific application in mind. Their design standards are far lower (because of cost) and have no real maintenance plan (again, because of cost). They just need cameras in the sky in a specific area, and sending another aircraft (like Predator) out may not be feasible (cost, time, risk).
- walshemj 12y ago
  the V1 had far less controllability than a model rc plane but was an effective UAV back in ww2

etiam 12y ago

I took that to imply roughly that 'The USA has been igniting and fuelling this arms race with ever greater use and weaponization of drones, but now the process is self-sustaining. Even if the USA should cease developments of its drone program and start decommissioning the crafts, that in itself would not stop drone armament, since several other actors would in all probability continue developments on programs that are now already in full action'

arcadeparade 12y ago
Interesting, I took it to mean that this journalist is like most others, in that he starts from the assumption that the U.S owns the world and has the right to rule it as such.
- etiam 12y ago
  :) I certainly won't dispute that you may have been right, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt here. As an aside, if you were right: Unpalatable as the sentiment may be, there is still something to the notion that the USA does have a lot of influence over major parts of the world. I think we can all generally agree that as a nation they do have an unusual degree of possibilities to set examples and fashions, and I like it much better when the administration feels like championing human rights or restrictions on certain kinds of particularly nasty weapons than when it's bent on exporting new justifications for steps towards totalitarianism or more cost-effective ways to slaughter people. So if people in general indeed seem to think that the USA has both possibility and some kind of obligation to do things like try to curtail a rise in drone warfare, I actually feel kind of pleased at that. To the extent that it's real, I think it's welcome, and to the extent that it's conceit, maybe it's at least a constructive one.