Military Review

Soaring above the law. A growing army of winged killer robots is subject only to the CIA and the president

39
Soaring above the law. A growing army of winged killer robots is subject only to the CIA and the presidentEditor’s Note: December 19 has a rather remarkable article on the Foreign Affairs website. It was called "The decrees of drones: setting the rules for unmanned aerial vehicles." Its author, an employee of the authoritative British Royal United Institute for the Study of Defense and Security Issues (RUSI), Aaron Stein, argues that the flights of drones are not governed by national laws or international rules, and it is supposedly the time to establish such rules.


It would seem that one can only rejoice at such an initiative! However, from the content of the article it becomes clear that the rights of victims of deadly drone attacks or the definition of a framework for reconnaissance and paramilitary operations by the United States drones are not discussed. The author cares more. First, many countries have drones. Yes, these machines cannot act globally, but only near their territories (read, for defense purposes), but they can pose a threat to the US military and allies (as events in the East China Sea have shown). Secondly, the American UAVs themselves may be attacked or captured. Everything is clear with manned military aircraft - their actions and, accordingly, actions against them are regulated by hundreds of formal and informal international rules. But what if an American drone is shot down? How is this different from neutralizing, say, a cruise missile? And if, for example, a Chinese drone collided with a Japanese manned fighter? How to determine the guilt of the parties? Finally, who is to blame for the fact that the drone launched a missile attack on the ground target, and took off not from the territory of the state to which it belongs?

There is one more subtlety. When subjected to air invasion or air attack, the party does not want to escalate the conflict, it can “consider” (this informal rule is valid from World War II) as the culprit of the pilot and, having shot down the plane, she “closes the question”. But what to do in case of a drone attack? Often it is impossible to determine who was the “pilot” who controlled the drone remotely, as well as the place from which the control was exercised. The latter today very rarely coincides with the place from which the drone took off. Moreover, many modern UAVs do not need “pilots” at all - they are controlled by embedded computer systems. How to be?

Aaron Stein proposes to make, by definition, a guilty (that is, a potential target for retaliation) the base from which the UAV took off in order to prevent the allies of the likely enemy from providing their runways and airfields for drones ... And then the “refined” logical maneuver is made: since the same reasoning can be applied to the bases of allies of the United States, it is necessary to ensure the protection of these bases. At the same time, the problem of airspace violation by American drones is proposed not to pedal.

Most of all, this article is struck by a calm, reasonable tone and the absence of any kind of aggression. It is as if you are reading a legal bulletin in which a certain law professor expresses his opinion on a certain complex issue of pre-trial settlement and gives appropriate recommendations for those who have encountered such a question.

It becomes clear that today we live in a completely different world. A world where not only total surveillance, but also the total vulnerability of everyone from the deadly airborne flotilla ever-improving drones are becoming everyday reality.

But the article described above poses at least some quasi-legal problems. De facto, the use of drones for any kind of operations anywhere in the world today is generally not subject to the laws. Meanwhile, it is this component of American military power that becomes increasingly frightening and inevitable.

How “we have come to such a life,” says our regular author Vladislav Vladimirov.

* * *

The “killer machines”, smashing the US enemies somewhere in Pakistan or Yemen with thunder from the sky, have become almost a routine tool for punitive operations of the White House. And the tool is very convenient. Firstly, there is no direct contact with the enemy, so that American society is not “annoyed” by the coffins arriving at home, covered with a star-striped flag. After all, even the excellent training of special forces cannot exclude numerous victims - as in the disastrous operation in Mogadishu 3 of October 1993 of the year.

Secondly, unlike previously used cruise missiles as the main tool for distance warfare, drones provide higher accuracy of destruction, which is important for public reaction, both Western and “native”, which is sometimes no less important. The newspaper The New York Post wrote about this:

“The first strike in Yemen, delivered by order of the Obama administration in December 2009 ... ended in disaster. Cruise missiles with cluster munitions destroyed dozens of civilians, including a large number of women and children. In the course of the second strike, struck six months later, the deputy governor, popular among the people, perished, which provoked angry protests and led to the terrorist attack, which resulted in the important [for the US] oil pipeline being closed. ”

There are other reasons why the use of drones is more attractive to their owner. One of them is financial. The A-10 Thunderbolt attack plane costs 18,2 million dollars, and the MQ-9 Reaper combat drone, which has similar flight data and firepower, has 6,4 million, i.e. almost three times cheaper. The use of robots turns out to be cheaper and living soldiers in a land war, the 60-thousandth group of which in Afghanistan cost the US $ 51 a billion dollars every year. It is more profitable to send a drone to a mission, rather than a platoon of soldiers, each of whom stands outside the borders of the fatherland to the 850 government thousands of dollars a year.

However, robots do not guarantee against errors. There are frequent cases when, for example, weddings were attacked instead of congregations of militants ... However, if you take extremely cynical intonation, it can be assumed that in Pakistan, where drones are used quite regularly, the difference between two goals and a person is not easy to determine - in the form of a crowd of bearded men of warlike appearance, scorching into the air from small weapons.

According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, from the beginning of 2004 to mid-December, 2013 was attacked by drone attacks in Pakistan from 2077 to 3424 (approximate figures, because, of course, no corpses on the ground count forces), of which from 1620 to 2783, that is, four out of five, were militants. Similar figures for Yemen (albeit combined with victims of other air strikes, including cruise missiles) are from the beginning of the 2002 year to mid-December 2013 of the year from 715 to 923 killed, of which from 605 to 790 were militants. And here the accuracy seems to be higher, but after all, the “point” targets are not the Afghan-Pakistani borderlands, where the Taliban actually rule, and the “enemies” from the “peaceful Afghans” are difficult to distinguish.

There are other, higher ratings of those killed by the blows of “killer cars” from the sky. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, in February 2013, the total number of people killed by drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia was 4756 people. The same figure was called in a public speech and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham.

The New America Foundation notes that the real “boom” of using drones began when Obama came to power. In Pakistan, of the total number of 369 drone attacks, only 47 occurred during the Bush administration, and in Yemen, 96 of 97 machine-killer strikes were carried out during the 44 president.

Under Bush, at the very beginning of whose presidency, 16 February 2001, the first successful test of the Armed Predator drone MQ-1B Armed Predator, which launched the Hellfire air-to-ground missile, was held, drones were still a rare “piece” product. With the help of the 16 UAV, November 2001, in Kabul, Mohammed Atef, who was involved in the September 11 terrorist attack, 3, November 2002, was destroyed in Yemen by Abu Ali Al-Khariti, one of the organizers of the terrorist attack against the American destroyer Cole in the Gulf of Aden 12, killed in Kabul. And as follows from the figures above, the strike in Yemen was the only case when Americans used combat drones up to the 2000 year.

It was under the current president that the United States began to actively create overseas bases for drones. In 2011, such a base appeared in Saudi Arabia for "operations against al Qaeda in Yemen." The very first drone that took off from it in September 2011, Anvar al-Awlaki, who headed this international terrorist network after the death of Osama bin Laden, was killed. At the same time, the UAV bases were equipped in the Seychelles and in Ethiopia to attack Somalia, where Al-Shabab, a terrorist group close to Al-Qaeda, operates. In January, 2013 reported on the upcoming creation of a drone base in Niger, for strikes against the Islamists operating in West Africa, which was also sanctioned by the government of this African country. Actively used for the basing of drones and the NATO air base Sigonella in Sicily.

However, the newest models of shock drone airfields are no longer needed. 10 July 2013, the X-47B combat drone, successfully carried out several take-offs and landings on the deck of the aircraft carrier George Bush. And in the period from 9 to 19 in November, the Theodore Roosevelt practiced simultaneous takeoffs and landings of two drones.

Given that the X-47B's flight range is about 4 thousands of kilometers, at a speed of 1035 kilometers per hour (this is the speed of the best modern commercial passenger airliners), almost the entire surface of the globe will be accessible to these “winged lizards of Washington”.

There are other successfully tested drone launch projects related to the US submarine fleet. 5 December this year, the drone was launched from under the water from a nuclear submarine of the type "Los Angeles" (SSN-719). From time-lapse photography it is clear that the underwater launch was carried out with respect to the old drone model, however, the new models have their own advantages.

The main difference between new flying robots is that they are equipped with "artificial intelligence". The ABC News channel in 2013 year reported:

“Unlike drone type Predator or other UAVs that are remotely controlled by people, X47-B is autonomous. The computer system receives the GPS coordinates of the target and flies to the specified location. ”

What the “computer system” does in the “specified place” is not hard to guess.

In March, 2010, when X-47B was still in the final stages of development, expert on combat robots (robotic warfare) Peter Singer said at a congressional hearing on behalf of the Brookings Institute:

"Predator drones are only the first generation of UAVs, the equivalent of the Model T at the Henry Ford plant or the Wright brothers."

And he was right. Following the X-47B was followed by the RQ-170 Sentinel, the design of which was implemented technology Stealth. True, the 170 was a very unlucky model. In December 2011, he was either bewildered, or forcibly planted by the Iranian Air Force using active radio-electronic interference, "confusing" the drone's GPS system.

But the US military-industrial complex did not grieve for long. In December of this year, Aviation Week weekly published a full-format test report on the newest drone RQ-180, which has a higher degree of protection from external influences, as well as a new generation artificial intelligence system.

It is alleged that new flying robots do not carry weapons. But this is only for the time being ...

* * *

Many of the above quotes were taken from the voluminous Human Rights Watch NGO Report on Case against Killer Robots published in November 2012. Its authors ask a reasonable question:

“If the murder was carried out with fully autonomous weapons, then who is to be held responsible for this? Response options include: a warlord, a programmer, a manufacturer, and even the robot itself, but none of these options is satisfactory ... There will not be any fair and effective way to impose legal responsibility for illegal actions committed with fully autonomous weapons, endowed with full control over the adoption decisions that undermine all civil rights protection mechanisms. ”

Similar concerns were raised in December 2013 by the representative of the Vatican to the United Nations in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, speaking at a meeting of representatives of the countries that signed the "Convention on the Prohibition or Restriction of Weapons, which may be considered to cause excessive damage or exercise indiscriminate effects." He declared:

“Automated and programmed technical systems are not capable of thinking in terms of moral judgments about life and death, respect human rights and abide by the principles of humanity ... When the battle drone is in the air thousands of kilometers away, who is responsible for the humanitarian violations committed when using it? ! When important information about drones is excluded from verification by [international organizations], how can you verify compliance with international humanitarian law and ethical standards? And would not such a war “without human participation” make it more attractive and easy to decide to unleash this war? ”

And the archbishop is right even on formal grounds - a fundamentally new type of weapon that appeared at the beginning of the century is at least in the “gray zone” of legislation.

University of Massachusetts professor Brian Glyn Williams explains:

"From the point of view of American laws, there is an important aspect in the application of drones: non-participation of the judiciary ... This area is entirely within the purview of the CIA and the president, who, in a sense, are here as if above the law."

And this is exactly the same thing that Peter Singer said in 2010, about combat UAVs - Congress never discussed any aspect of using them. Only in 2013, against the backdrop of scandals around the NSA and the possibility of using drones in the United States, the Senate began a meticulous interrogation of officials involved in the program of flying robots.

And here one more unpleasant circumstance became clear. More than once, Singer mentioned by us stated that

“75% of the service and weaponization of vehicles like the Predators were transferred to private firms, including such“ ambiguous ”as Blackwater, while other army command systems in Iraq were described as“ state-controlled ”.

Well, really! If private companies, as a matter of fact, conducted combat operations in the course of the US wars, why should they, if necessary, not transfer the control functions of UAVs? After all, the main effect - the removal of responsibility from the government - in this case is achieved.

But international military legislation, including regulating the actions of robots, was adopted when robots seemed fantastic.

So today the world, as Peter Singer warned, has entered the era of new wars, and their “universal soldiers” are still above the law - in every sense of the word.
Author:
Originator:
http://terra-america.ru/
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Stiletto
    Stiletto 30 December 2013 15: 16
    +10
    For those who are equal or stronger, Americans write laws. For everyone else - Colt, "Tomahawk", other manifestations of "democracy".
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 30 December 2013 17: 31
      +5
      Quote: Stiletto
      For those who are equal or stronger, Americans write laws. For everyone else - Colt, "Tomahawk", other manifestations of "democracy".

      So far, for all American drones, there is only one way to proceed:
      Ready or not, here I come!
      Crossed the border of a foreign state, then it’s time to air defense to let him into the scrap! Otherwise, it turns out like in Pakistan - the gathering of terrorists thought, but it turned out to be a wedding!
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 30 December 2013 18: 47
        0
        Quote: APASUS
        Crossed the border of a foreign state, then it’s time to air defense to let him into the scrap! Otherwise, it turns out like in Pakistan - the gathering of terrorists thought, but it turned out to be a wedding!

        Using drones they make more and more enemies. And their only happiness is that they live across the ocean from countries that bomb and have only one problem border ... But I think they will soon fight separatism when the Indians want their land back, blacks and their whites ... The second civil ...
        1. Kir
          Kir 30 December 2013 19: 52
          +1
          I’m afraid I will have to wait a long time, they actually exterminated the Indians, and they have education at someone’s level, and with regards to the rest they acted cunningly against each other, so the people would sooner annihilate each other than the top crush, and the bastard paid by them all over crawling and wrecking the world.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 30 December 2013 23: 25
        0
        Quote: APASUS
        I thought a gathering of terrorists, but it turned out to be a wedding!

        If the government of Pakistan spit on their subjects, then this is the problem of subjects
        Quote: sledgehammer102
        Using drones they make themselves more and more enemies

        Golden words. Aboriginal sympathies pass to Taliban
        In general, the future of aviation for robot drones does not care for 10 g overloads. And it will launch a rocket somehow
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 31 December 2013 00: 49
      +3
      Quote: Stiletto
      For those who are equal or stronger, Americans write laws. For everyone else - Colt, "Tomahawk", other manifestations of "democracy".


      For those who do not have a colt with a tomahawk, the AK-47 and S-300 are well suited. More accessible, let’s say so, and you can always get it if you wish.

      The article in my opinion was written by a person who is far from technology technology. In the text, drones are demonized and attributed to them are purely human qualities, which is actually not and will not be in the foreseeable future.

      The author, once and for all, remember and tell the children that it is not the weapon that kills, but the person who owns it.

      Further - to establish a person who controlled the drone can always be in 100% of cases, if someone says that this is not possible - he lies consciously, which is sad. Further, there is no point in looking for the one who specifically pressed the button or didn’t press, but watched the MCC as civilians are killed - there is an operation commander who ordered the use of weapons - he and only he is ultimately guilty of murder. You must deal with drones in the same way as with saboteurs in wartime - shooting on the spot, or interrogation and execution, in the case of a drone laughing first shooting then interrogation. And there’s no problem, all these sentiments — the bullshit on a moonless night — are an attempt to drive into the panic the already overloaded brain of the average statistical man in the street. PMC.
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 30 December 2013 15: 18
    +2
    Drones are good where the enemy can not shoot them down - that is, against partisans or small countries without adequate air defense.
    It is clear that the main task of drones is to collect information; deciding on a strike will still remain for a person because the probability of a soulless machine error is very high.
    Well, imagine what a computerized mind would think when it saw the boys playing war games with children's pistols — of course, for him, these are enemies with the ensuing consequences.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 30 December 2013 15: 25
      +3
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Drones are good where the enemy can not shoot them down - that is, against partisans or small countries without adequate air defense.


      Alexei, what about stealth for air defense radars? Interference and other traps?
      1. knn54
        knn54 30 December 2013 17: 01
        +4
        Against scrap-scrap. The same drones controlled from the remote control.
        Given that they are software-controlled (autopilot) to find the opportunity:
        -include a self-destruction system,
        -exact, for example, on the system for determining the height ...
        But here you can not do without spies and hackers.
        PS I advise you to read: Robert Sheckley "The Guardian Bird" (1963).
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 31 December 2013 01: 06
        +1
        Quote: Vadivak
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        Drones are good where the enemy can not shoot them down - that is, against partisans or small countries without adequate air defense.


        Alexei, what about stealth for air defense radars? Interference and other traps?


        An airplane with a wingspan of 20 meters according to your unobtrusive target ???
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 30 December 2013 15: 32
        0
        There was a recent article on this topic on the site - read a rather interesting look at this problem.
  3. makarov
    makarov 30 December 2013 15: 27
    +3
    I will sound the name differently.
    Flight of American UAVs - license to kill.
  4. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 30 December 2013 15: 36
    +2
    There will definitely be a counteraction to any action .. I think I’ll surely come up with (if you haven’t already come up with) some kind of scanner to intercept the control signal or blind these things .. (these are the same computers ..) So let the Yankees not really hope for them ..
  5. mountain
    mountain 30 December 2013 15: 38
    +4
    Yes?? We survived, Arrived such a drone from the north, and we are south with the war.
    1. sds555
      sds555 30 December 2013 15: 50
      +3
      That's right, because of the geopolitical interests of the United States, it is beneficial that the world remains unipolar, they don’t need a strong Russia, ideally they need the collapse of the country according to the Yugoslav scenario, therefore, despite the attacks, the situation in the country cannot be destabilized
  6. alone
    alone 30 December 2013 15: 53
    +1
    If we allow the possibility that the BLPA can be shot down, but there is one catch. If you even shoot the BLP out of an air defense system, then after the air defense system is empty, it needs to be refueled with missiles, and this is not a matter of minutes. drums have shown their effectiveness in action. To be honest, Russia now really lacks BLPA drums to plug Wahhabi caves in the Caucasus mountains.
    1. Kir
      Kir 30 December 2013 16: 40
      +2
      As you say, "shut up" first of all, it is necessary not to "shut up" puppets, but forgive their customers and ideologists, and forgive me in this matter, I am in solidarity with the Israelis, the enemy is an enemy, no matter what status he has and wherever he is, he must be deleted from the list of the living ... With regards to terrorists, how many of them have been sent there from where there is no return, and fellow citizens continue to die. So that........
      With regards to drones, they will still need a "guide" and it is desirable that he be near, and not beyond the distant Earths, unless of course only against People armed with old clothes.
      1. Vadim12
        Vadim12 30 December 2013 20: 44
        0
        I completely agree, the Jews do not judge the terrogyug, we need to learn from them how to get them at least distant lands, and like mad dogs.
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 30 December 2013 23: 32
      0
      Quote: lonely
      it’s all the same, after the air defense system is empty, it must be refueled with missiles

      It is necessary to use not single PUs but regional groups where stationary S-300-400 are covered with trifle-tunguska, tori and other husks. They also look at the drying top. And reloading the trailer with already loaded launchers can solve the reloading problem.
  7. yehat
    yehat 30 December 2013 16: 18
    +2
    and I would pass such a law - any automatic device whose potential radius of attack crosses the territory of our country should be shot down, because poses the same danger as a ballistic missile that has lost control.
    Do not shoot down only on foreign territory or on neutral, if the flight plan is thoroughly known and if rejected, the right to shoot down opens unilaterally
  8. Clueless
    Clueless 30 December 2013 16: 37
    +2
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    Drones are good where the enemy can not shoot them down - that is, against partisans or small countries without adequate air defense.


    Now the Americans are developing mini drones that carry 1-2 air-to-ground missiles, moreover, they must fly in "large flocks" of 50-100 pieces each, having artificial intelligence, a flight time of several days, etc. Not only is it quite difficult to detect them, and their cost is cheap, difficult to get. An ideal tool for controlling vast territories, stuck his head out of the cave - received a rocket in return. Yes, and such kids crush various S-300, etc. not difficult, corny there will not be enough missiles in return.

    Those who played starcraft at one time know what zerg tactics are.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 30 December 2013 18: 45
      0
      Quote: Bad
      ... the Americans are developing mini drones that carry 1-2 air-to-ground missiles, moreover, they must fly in "large flocks" of 50-100 pieces ...

      Why chase after all? They are controlled from somewhere, most likely via satellite, but for these purposes, C-500 will come in handy and it doesn’t matter what if there are a dozen other superfluous ones. No matter how we survive laughing
      1. Kir
        Kir 30 December 2013 19: 46
        0
        An absolutely correct postulate is to suppress (destroy) the system through which they are controlled, but there is only one question, but is it not better to immediately "decapitate" - suppress the objects from which the command is carried out, since by disabling the repeater you will only temporarily eliminate the problem, but "right decapitating "at least for a long time, disabling the machine of aggression. In general, ideally, I see that some missiles destroy repeaters, while others "decapitate" the command of the operation.
        In general, there is a more and more "savage way" to stop selling materials to them, as well as to stop supplying them with "heads" - to follow the people working in certain industries, when they are educated and so on, they will quickly calm down, but if they start to sabotage here and stuff, so just accomplices under the Tribunal.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 31 December 2013 00: 26
        0
        Quote: Boris55
        most likely via satellite

        At the beginning of the conflict, it is imperative to clean out the satellites, and that's all. Regardless of race
        Quote: Kir
        In general, ideally, I see that some missiles destroy repeaters, while others "decapitate" the command of the operation.

        Yeah, and they will sit and watch. They also have air defense. The question is, will there be enough intellectual ammunition? The first strike along with the command and control posts will also undergo warehouses
        1. Kir
          Kir 31 December 2013 04: 18
          0
          That is, but in terms of efficiency it is inferior to ours, this is one thing, besides, there is also a hit percentage, and the other is that no one has yet canceled the principles of camouflage and disinformation, and then why there is intelligence and counterintelligence. Then there is such a thing as rare earth metals (in particular, used in microelectronics) that "our" businessmen supply there to the detriment of Russia, then titanium products, carbon fiber and so on, one thing when it goes to the Treasury, and another when it settles in their pockets .. ... that there is no real opportunity to bring the prices for all this to the point where all of them will become so dear to them .... that ...., and we de-signed long-term contracts, forgive me, but when they sabotaged by placing we contracted equipment that resulted in explosions on the Urengoy -... highway, and what?
          And if so how do you reason
          Yeah. and they will sit and watch. etc.,
          so let's do what we are offered to give up everything that they don’t ask us if only God forbid ..... and even exterminate after the recent terrorist attacks so you know what we’ll get to!
  9. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 December 2013 16: 47
    +3
    Americans muddy the water. Everyone understands where and whose drones are flying and who is to blame for what they are doing. But to pretend to be dull but executive fascists in Nuremberg and hope that only the weak-minded can give a ride. I think Russia should report to the UN that a strike within the borders of Russia will be an act of war, the leadership of the country conducting the operation will be guilty, and the territory of third countries with which the strike will be bombarded. Otherwise, the water will be turbid to opacity, and then they will justify any of their actions.
    1. Kir
      Kir 30 December 2013 16: 58
      +2
      It’s wise to do a report together with the States affected by shit-democrats and at the same time to seek the creation of an Independent War Crimes Tribunal, and at the same time to make it clear that any action, such as sponsoring the so-called opposition, as well as imposing sanctions on the list should be considered as an act of aggression !!! And Russia and other States reserve the right to apply any means not only to eliminate the consequences, but what is equally important to prevent them, and those who within the Fatherland are yapping from the enemy’s submission to the Tribunal without any snot !!!
  10. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 30 December 2013 18: 51
    0
    In fact, an act of aggression is an act of aggression. In their mentality, the Americans want, as usual, to motivate their aggressions i.e. justify. And drones are their dream, which almost came true, to remove the human factor during the fighting. And war is war, what are the laws other than moral among soldiers.
  11. Russ69
    Russ69 30 December 2013 18: 52
    +1
    As they like at first, do business, and then complain about their suffering. As if they themselves are the main victims ...

    I served as a drone operator. Society should know how things really are with drones.
    Whenever Heather Linebo, a former drone operator, reads politicians' comments in defense of drone use, she wants to ask them a few questions. "How many children and women incinerated by a Hellfire rocket have you seen?" or "How many soldiers have you seen die by the side of the Afghan road because our ultra-precise UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) were unable to locate an IED (improvised explosive device) convoy waiting for them?"
    The US and British military call the UAV program advanced, but they feel the need to report false information, publish a minimum of data on civilian casualties and false reports on the capabilities of drones, writes Linebo in The Guardian.
    According to her, society should understand that the picture transmitted from the drone is not at all so clear as to make out weapons on it, even on a clear day with moderate cloud cover and perfect lighting. Because of this, even the best analysts cannot determine if a person is armed or not.
    "We all the time think whether we killed those people, did we harm who we shouldn't, whether we took the life of an innocent peaceful person because of the poor quality of the video or the wrong angle," the author of the article shares his feelings.
    UAV operators suffer not only from the obsessive memories of this work that they carry in themselves, but also from guilt. It seems interesting to Linebo that the defense department does not publish statistics on the number of suicides among drone operators, as well as data on the number of colleagues taking heavy drugs for depression, sleep disorders and anxiety.
    "UAVs are used in the Middle East as a weapon, not a means of defense, and as long as society is ignorant, the serious threat to the sanctity of human life - both domestically and internationally - will not disappear," Linbo concludes.
  12. INVESTOR
    INVESTOR 30 December 2013 20: 40
    0
    All wet in the toilet. along with drones.
    1. Kir
      Kir 30 December 2013 20: 55
      0
      The toilet honestly pity ....., poor thing clogged up with it ......, I just wonder what they hope so much for electronics, if already so much trouble Ours was in orbit with their ....., or that sabotage ?, by the way, and their satellites have nothing to deliver into orbit, you might think we hired them in cabs, so who has the maximum money from this even if he puts them on his hump.
  13. Turkestan
    Turkestan 30 December 2013 20: 55
    0
    And yet, drones can be shot down and destroyed by creating an electromagnetic zone or momentum in the area where they are used. Their invulnerability is a bluff. This is not a fantasy.
  14. mad
    mad 30 December 2013 22: 11
    +2
    One fine day, these glands will rebel and fly to bomb the white house (mattresses)!
    And in Sichuan, at this time, a Chinese hacker will grin wryly;)
    1. Kir
      Kir 30 December 2013 22: 45
      0
      I hope Ours will also make a feasible contribution to this good deed, and then Together we together will keep what remains of their military infrastructure, and most importantly from their exchanges and breeding banks of global evil.
  15. 120352
    120352 30 December 2013 22: 33
    0
    It’s time to squeeze shotguns!
  16. voliador
    voliador 30 December 2013 22: 54
    0
    Both the owner country of the drone and the one from whose territory it was launched should answer.
    1. Kir
      Kir 30 December 2013 23: 03
      0
      In the first case (the country of the owner), I completely agree with you, according to the second, my opinion is that it is Not the Country but the rulers of the kingdom-state, the Japanese are against the bases, but where are the authorities7, and the authorities are in no hurry to deduce something, here and goes out and so suffering from entih occupiers, they also have to hit.
  17. kundyshev
    kundyshev 30 December 2013 23: 11
    0
    For a reliable P & O System, there is no difference whether the GOAL is inhabited or not !!!
    "... the target does not respond to the request ... when entering the zone - DESTROY! ...." .... Start! ...
    And Us Rat - who and from where "taxied" !!!!
    I have the honor
  18. 5pgpat5
    5pgpat5 31 December 2013 02: 27
    +2
    Quote: kundyshev
    For a reliable P & O System, there is no difference whether the GOAL is inhabited or not !!!
    "... the target does not respond to the request ... when entering the zone - DESTROY! ...." .... Start! ...
    And Us Rat - who and from where "taxied" !!!!
    I have the honor

    maybe us. But where is the supreme? Why did not give
    the team of all the apricots - home? Drive everyone to hu yam.
    And there let them figure out who is to blame for the fact that their harvest
    on ... do not need anyone. And finally it hurts me for STALINGRAD. Ready to accept death. The question is in finance.
    1. Kir
      Kir 31 December 2013 04: 24
      0
      Come on, strangers, but what will be paid to students "independently enrolled" in foreign universities, this is how to assess it ?, and what he expects in the final he would like to know.
  19. Horn
    Horn 31 December 2013 06: 29
    +2
    It's very simple, in fact. Want to know who the "lights of democracy" think should be responsible for using drones? Send a RUSSIAN drone to any of the countries: Lithuania-Latvia-Estonia-Poland and you don't even need to destroy anyone. Just let him knock down or land him. A howl will immediately rise over the guilt of Russia, the owner COUNTRY. And then - to apply this precedent to ovs and other drones.
  20. July
    July 31 December 2013 09: 23
    0
    The thesis about the stupidity of amers seems to be eternal for centuries. They decided to become the first at the expense of technology, how many times it has already been completed! Only the most stupid Neanderthal, having mastered a club against his enemy, thought that it would always be so. This is already a diagnosis of power lovers. How many of these variants of "weapons of retaliation" were there, but for each another "Kuz'kina's mother" was born and the inventors of the first step fled with a plaintive squeal, having received their full. They do not yet understand that the new miracle weapon not only prolongs the length of their arms, but and erases the boundaries between opponents, let them not howl then when 911 is common for them.
  21. realstrannik
    realstrannik 31 December 2013 19: 30
    0
    A deep modernization of the Pantsir-S air defense missile system began at the Pantsir-SM air defense missile system



    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/45046/


    Complex 1L267 "Moscow-1" with modules 1L265 / 1L266 entered serial production





    Russian Army and Fleet Blog
    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/44869/


    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/?id=69&page=0
  22. realstrannik
    realstrannik 31 December 2013 19: 36
    0
    EW "Krasuha-4" is able to completely close from radar detection plots of land of 500 kilometers.

    The “Kraukha-4” complex suppresses the actions of radar radar satellite-spies, radars installed on aircraft and helicopters of the enemy, radars installed on ships, the avionics system and communications.





  23. Zomanus
    Zomanus 1 January 2014 06: 48
    +1
    Well, in general, nothing has changed since the Second World War. There are partners and there are subhuman. You can kill subhuman by mistake, there will be nothing for it. After all, all the statements of the bearded cannot be considered dangerous. By the way, if we lose to the amers, they will just chase us through the fields with drones.