Microdrone Spy Planes 494
glinden writes "BBC News is reporting that Israel is now deploying microdrone spy planes. These planes have a wingspan of 13 inches (33 cm), can be carried in a backpack, can be launched by a single soldier, and can even fly through windows. The next step in the drone wars?"
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very clever (Score:5, Insightful)
Preferably they'd eliminate the need for such things by reigning in their own hardline elements demands and work toward peace.
No justice, no peace.
Know justice, know peace.
Better killers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.
I'd like to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
we all know... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Very clever (Score:0, Insightful)
And if you say anything about how unfair that is to everyone lese in the region that has to ration water while we pillage the Golan Heights Aquifers, you're an anti-semite and a Nazi.
I think that's great how that works out. Because I'm a Jew, I can be as big an asshole as I want, and you can't say anything! You anti-semite nazis!
Re:Better killers (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you mean the struggle between Israel and Islamofascist terrorists?
Seriously though, there is no need to fly out (Score:3, Insightful)
The article doesn't say (Score:1, Insightful)
It seems that Vi is better than Emacs. [linuxsurveys.com]
Re:Better killers (Score:1, Insightful)
Drop the terrorist bit, it's old.
Re:Better killers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.
The two tend to be linked at the hip. There is considerable interest in the military to develop means of preventing civilian casualties or collateral damage. And it's not just as simple as them not wanting to 'waste' ammunition on noncombatants, they really do want to avoid civilian casualties. First, military people aren't the psychotic, evil madman you see in the movies. Believe it or not, they have children too so they want to try to prevent the deaths of innocents in far away lands. Second, even if they didn't personally care about civilian deaths, the American people would and our allies most certainly would. The type of WWII war where massive civilian casualties are accepted so long as you kill lots of enemy combatants are long gone. Third, increased intelligence will help you refine a priori assumptions you made about the enemy's tactics. If you are planning on destroying a building you believe to be an enemy command center but then receive intelligence that it's actually a homeless shelter, that's more valuable than just noting that it's a non-target. It tells you that you really don't know where the hell the command center really is! And it also makes you pause and question the quality of the pre-battle intelligence that labeled it as enemy headquarters.
Spy planes are here to stay and they will play a more important role in the conflicts to come. And I don't think you can separate their capabilities into "prevent violence" and "enable violence" bins. Those two qualities tend to be one and the same.
GMD
Re:Very clever (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good one. Ask yourself these questions:
What would happen if tomorrow the Palestinians said, "We are tired of this. We are no longer going to use violence to achieve our goals."
Most people I ask say that a peace treaty would be signed.
What would happen if tomorrow the Israelis said, "We are tired of this. We are no longer going to use violence to achieve our goals."
Most people I ask say that the Palestinians will kill all the Israelis.
Why are these answers different? Discuss, compare & contrast.
Re:Very clever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. Whatever your views on the practice of targeting terrorist leaders (if you want to debate this point, there are other people in this thread happy to do it -- please go flame them instead of me), certainly killing bystanders or the wrong people altogether is entirely counterproductive.
This device described here is non-lethal and intended just for surveillance, but people following the news will note that far fewer bystanders are being killed recently than in similar hits in past years. The reason supposedly is a change from Hellfire missiles (or those insane attacks with large bombs that seemed to kill everyone but the intended target) to some semi-secret device with live video feedback that can be aborted at the last second.
But I agree with the original poster's sentiment -- at best you're going from hideous to just awful. Hopefully someday all this effort and creativity will be entirely channeled into positive things.
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:2, Insightful)
72 Virgins (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to what? Strapping it to some poor 10 or 15 year old kid who thinks he's soon going to be having his way with 72 virgins?
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Insightful)
like Tibet?
Re:72 Virgins (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:72 Virgins (Score:2, Insightful)
As opposed to what? Strapping it to some poor 10 or 15 year old kid who thinks he's soon going to be having his way with 72 virgins?
Yes. That's exactly correct. And until the Palestinian masses get it through their thick, religiously-warped, uneducated minds that they are sacrificing their youth, freedom, and future for the political squabblings of rich, power-mad immoral thugs (on BOTH sides...), this kind of thing will continue until they are all DEAD! But of course, I don't want to be a political provocateur...
Re:72 Virgins (Score:1, Insightful)
I've got another one for you - how about the boy who was tricked into carrying a (luckily faulty) bomb across a checkpoint? He didn't even know it was a bomb!
Re:Dig that propeller! (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine what could be done in a remote disaster situation in any region--even a metropolitan area--just by being able to fly low and into and around hard-to-reach areas.
Sure, while in this instance it's being used by soldiers, your point about rescue units, etc. is an idea I hope takes hold.
Re:Very clever (Score:3, Insightful)
This weapon, as well as Israel's famous gun (Uzi), and their tanks are of their own design.
Palestinians got a lot more than "military aid" in the past -- they got entire armies fighting for -- so it was claimed -- their cause. Israel's very existence hung on a hair against _hundreds_ of Egyptian and Syrian tanks.
Finally, the world certainly gives to Palestinians too -- food, medicine, buildings. Soviet Union and Arab nations were/are providing weapons and ammunition. As far as their weapon design -- well, adding chipped nails and bearing balls to the bombs for maximum maiming was quite an idea, was not it?
Re:Better killers (Score:3, Insightful)
You are wrong on two counts. First, the precise killing is a better killing, because a precise weapon reduces collateral damage -- the children, with which Rantissi and the like surround themselves in public suddenly become exposed to less risk.
Likewise Baghdad is still standing -- unlike some major German cities shortly after WWII -- because the precision of the bombing improved so much.
Second, you imply, that the two sides are somehow "equal". They are not. While Hamas and other "brigades" target civilians, Israel only targets its sworn enemies, who actively work on killing Israelis -- and it usually tries to arrest them first. True, sometimes innocent civilians die as the result of the Israel's actions, but they are never the intended targets...
Now, let's see some troll-heavy "moderation"...
Re:Better killers (Score:2, Insightful)
Israel should either absorb them into their country or find a two state solution. Saying "these people are not a nation, so they can go live in an Arab country and leave us their land" is not a realistic solution.
Re:72 Virgins (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it is true, do you suppose that makes the human bomb any more justifiable?
Re:War is part of humanity (Score:2, Insightful)
My point was limited to this particular conflict. You have on one side what is probably the most technologically productive society per capita in the world (except maybe Taiwan) despite the enormous resources it pours into defense and on the other side, an overwhelmingly young population. It's an incredible waste (even before you get to this week's innovation of using a retarded child as a suicide bomber) that is going to be resolved sooner or later, but sooner would be far preferable.
Re:72 Virgins (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT - assuming it is true, then it would be because some supreme being finds it justifiable, presumably/hopefully because he/she/it/they can see a bigger picture than we can.
You and I may not like it, but any supreme being would be a better judge than you and I. And who knows - maybe the people who get blown up get 144 virgins/whatever for being another kind of martyr?
We don't know, and we CAN'T know. Maybe there are supreme beings, maybe there aren't. Personally I think the notion of doing the bidding of invisible beings is tantamount to insanity, not to mention stupidity if you haven't actually talked to these invisible beings yourself, but are just going on what other people tell you.
But that's just me.
Re:Very clever (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:72 Virgins (Score:5, Insightful)
It is usually going to be easier to breach defenses one-way than to go in, hit the enemy, and leave. Arriving with the intent of blowing up frees you to focus on the task rather than be distracted by 'misguided' attempts to survive the execution of it.
Where it gets less great is when you do one of two things:
1. Not clearly identify yourself as a hostile target, causing the other side to naturally suspect EVEYRONE on your side and probably qualifying you as an unlawful combatant (the Law of Armed Conflict [about.com] requires distinctive markings); or (much more seriously)
2. Target civilians, which is when you become not just a weapon, but a terrorist weapon.
There's no fundamental difference between a Palestinian wearing a uniform and a bomb blowing themselves up with a bunch of soldiers and, say, a US soldier storming a Japanese pillbox with a grenade knowing he's going to die. The issue is whether or not he's clearly marked and, more importantly, whether he's attacking soldiers on duty or civilians.
Fewer casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not unlike some of the security discussions we've had here. Force people to have 4 passwords, and they'll write them on sticky-notes besides their screen, reducing security. Passwords are _supposed_ to make systems safer, but abuse them and they are counter-productive.
Drone technologies will completely change the strategy of conflict. One month before 9/11, a colleague and I predicted rc planes would be used against the White House. Ok, so we were off. But think about it: if the Israelis can use this, why couldn't the "terrorist" Palestinians? Imagine for a second what an rc plane/helicopter could do with non-conventional means...
Assymetrical warfare is used because one side has no chance at symmetrical -conventional- warfare. As this reinforces "full-spectrum dominance", it only increases the risk of terrorist attack.
I hope such drones are only used for reconnaissance, and not to carry out direct assassinations, causing another escalation.
In the long-term, we will need to make our conflict resolution systems more robust, so they don't degenerate so fast and with such bloody consequences. Another interesting thing to note is as war becomes more capital intensive, we can expect the rise of Conscientious Objection to Military Taxation [members.shaw.ca]
Re:Better killers (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I agree. If Israel would stop using the wall idea to grab land and the Palestinians would stop blowing themselves up, maybe they could accomplish something.
Your ideology is about 30 years out of date (Score:2, Insightful)
If 800,000 Mexicans built a city just north of the Mexican border, and proclaimed it to be Mexican territory, how would America react? What if they had more tanks and missiles than we did, and responded to our attempts to move them out by blowing up San Antonio and killing our leaders?
The Palestinians are the Israeli equivalent to our Native Americans. Israel is taking whatever it wants from them, and they're just trying to stem the flow of loss.
Re:Very clever (Score:5, Insightful)
When Israel was formed it was the largest single group of Jews in the world and its creation was merely a matter of the British setting borders in the area to best represent the political/racial groups. Most of the Arab countries in the area have no more historical right than Israel does.
Then consider the tactics. The Palestinians intentionally target civilians. The israelis intentionally target known terrorists, often passing up a chance at assasinating them until they're not surrounded by civilians. The Muslims intentionally try to kill the innocent - the Israelis do so only by accident.
Israel has gone out of their way to be fair, even going so far as to give back land taken during a defensive war. Ask yourself what any other country would do if in the process of defending itself in a war it pushed the enemy back and captured land. Would they give it back later, or keep it as just spoils of war? There's very little historical precedent for giving territory back to the agressors, yet Israel did this. The countries surrounding them easily have enough territory to take in the Palestinians and this has been proposed by people looking for peaceful solutions for years, but the Palestinians are left where they are. It just goes to show that the Muslims in the area aren't united by the fight for Palestinian freedom, they're united by religious hatred for Jews and the Palestinians are being used as pawns.
One group is secular, democratic, multi-racial, and targets military targets. The other group is religious, a theocracy (in practice, not on paper), racist, homophobic, etc, and intentionally targets civilians. Who really is the bad guy in this scenario?
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, I have to disagree with this one. It's a new century and we can no longer pretend that murder is not murder by arbitrarily classifing the victims as acceptable military targets. There will never be world peace until solders accept that what they do is murder. I no longer accept that there is any difference between civilian murder and military murder. There are other ways of dealing with political situations; it's just that murder is the usually the fastest, cheapest, and easiest.
But let's not pretend any more that this is not was it actually is. Killing people is murder, and wrapping the act in military metaphors is just a way to do and feel good about it afterwards.
Re:Fly through Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only ones you'll terrorise with this thing is your cats! Mine hate it, they hide when I fly it indoors
Re:72 Virgins (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it for a second. Who is taking whose land? I'm not talking about the past: I'm talking about the present.
Re:Asymmetric situations. (Score:4, Insightful)
It may well be the case that, according to certain readings of international law, Israel is not defined as occupying the areas where the Palestinians live.
In which case, the Palestinians are long-time residents of Israel and should be given full citizenship and voting rights. Israel is a democratic state, right?
Re:Absurd level of moral relativism. (Score:3, Insightful)
My point, and I think that of the original poster, is the morality of killing innocents does not hinge on the mode of delivery.
Re:Asymmetric situations. (Score:3, Insightful)
This report by the US State Department makes interesting reading if you think that Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as Jewish citizens:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/7
How many Palestinians have you actually met?
The ones that I have met didn't seem to want anyone dead, of any religion.
The vast majority (at least in my experience) are just normal people who desperately want to do all the things that normal people do. They are afraid of the hardcore Palestinian militants in the same way that they are afraid of the IDF. The older people are worried that their children are being turned to militancy because what they see and hear about week by week is IDF troops and tanks knocking down houses and killing people. These kids do not have the opportunity to see the devastating effects that Paelstinian terrorism is having on Israeli citizens.
I really think you need to stop taking the actions of a small minority of Palestinians and using it to form an opinion of over 3 million people (that's a 2001 figure so probably higher now)
There are Israelis who hate Arabs with the same religious fevour that you are attributing to the Palestinians. Do I think that all Israelis think like that? No, of course I don't - I have taken the time to talk to some real Israelis and find out what they really think.
Dan.
Re:Very clever (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, Israel is criticized mostly for non-rational reasons. Some are anti-semitic, some are a feeling for the Arabs. The latter is many times labeled anti-semitic as well. The reasoning, according to those who apply this label, is that for those who would look at the facts would realize that the Arabs are completely in the wrong. As such, anyone who sides with them and believes their lies, is "obviously" doing it for anti-semetic reasons.
This goes one more step though. There is much propoganda throughout the Arab world. Many lies, and much distortion of fact. The Elders of Zion is best seller there, cartoons constantly depict Israeli's as killing Arabs for fun, statistics are abused, and the like. The main reason is the various dictators are anti-semetic, and the closed press is allowed to print only their views.
The non-Arab media tends to take the Arab's point of view. Their opinions are treated as fact, yet official Israeli statements are somewhat disqualified by the wording introducing it. This is then taken as being anti-semetic.
Traditional Judaism has a rule. If all judges in a death-penalty judgements believe the victim is guilty of death, the penalty is not applied. This is because something is amiss, as it can't be that noone found some merit. This is the case with the world. The whole world condemns Israel. If noone can find merit, there is something amiss. Compare it to the Nazis. There are *still* people who stand on their side. So how can it be that *everyone* is against Israel?
Because of all this, the word anti-Semetic is appropriate. It is not a dilution. Rather, it is a statement of reality, that just happens to be against the comfortable postition assumed by all.