Does this new weapon bother anyone else?

[Terry Penrod]

.

Obviously, a new, unmanned, very efficient, airborne weapon delivery system like this could revolutionize the way we actually fight wars - big and small. However, is it really our main purpose to create an arsenal of high tech devices that allows us to so easily, quickly, conveniently, safely and lethally carry out political agendas, etc. from afar without commiting any real human lives in the process?

At least a part of me is genuinely bothered by this type of future "advancement" in modern weaponry in that it would without question make the decision to deploy death / destruction so much easier from every angle (by the attacking party - whomever that may be at the time).

What do you think about it?

Cheers, Terry

************************************************** ****************************************

FROM: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=17&u=/ap/20040419/ap_on_re_us/combat_drone_test


U.S. National - AP

Robot Plane Drops Bomb in Successful Test
Sun Apr 18, 9:59 PM ET

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040418/capt.la10104182340.combat_drone_test_la101.jpg

LOS ANGELES - A robotic plane deliberately dropped a bomb near a truck at Edwards Air Force Base on Sunday, marking another step forward for technology the U.S. military hopes will one day replace human pilots on dangerous combat missions.

Under human supervision but without human piloting, a prototype of the Boeing Co.'s X-45 took off from the desert base, opened its bomb bay doors, dropped a 250-pound Small Smart Bomb and then landed.

The inert bomb struck within inches of the truck it was supposed to hit, Boeing said, adding that had the bomb contained explosives, the target would have been destroyed.

"It's absolutely a huge step forward for us. It shows the capability of an unmanned airplane to carry weapons," said Rob Horton, Boeing's chief operator for the mission. "From the video, you see the weapon going down and a huge cloud of dust and the truck shaking around."

The X-45A was preprogrammed with the target coordinates and used the satellite-based Global Positioning System to adjust its course.

Horton, who was sitting 80 miles from the target, authorized the drone to drop the bomb, which was released from 35,000 feet as the plane flew at 442 mph.

The military sees such aircraft taking part in its most dangerous missions, such as bombing enemy radar and surface-to-air missile batteries, in order to clear the path for human pilots.

The Y-shaped, tailless plane has a 34-foot wingspan and weighs 8,000 pounds empty. It is the first drone designed specifically to carry weapons into combat.

Other robotic planes, including the Predator spy drone currently being used in Afghanistan (news - web sites), have been modified to carry weapons.

Boeing hopes to build hundreds of the X-45 planes, which would cost $10 million to $15 million each.

.

[Rafal Dudek]

sounds cool to me

[Terry Penrod]

.

sounds cool to me


Not just cool but also highly cost / human efficient, fast, accurate, hard to detect and potentially very, very deadly depending on the payload and target.

The question is, do we really need safe, convenient, cheap, conscience-free forms of dealing out even more death and destruction by those already in power - regardless of their justification for such acts?

Cheers, Terry

.

[Rafal Dudek]

we already have tomahawk missles and ICBM's, how is this any different then?

Does making decisions to attack someone any easier? Other nations and popular opinion still stands the same. Any form of attack can have drastic effect on international view and will cause you more trouble and good.

[Terry Penrod]

.

we already have tomahawk missles and ICBM's, how is this any different then?

Does making decisions to attack someone any easier? Other nations and popular opinion still stands the same. Any form of attack can have drastic effect on international view and will cause you more trouble and good.


By its very design, it has a vastly different intended usage for a different kind of precision warfare in heavily populated areas.

An ICBM is a true WMD intended for total destruction of any given geographic target and all life therein during declared wartime or in direct national defense against a major first strike. An unmanned but heavily armed drone however could be used very effectively for all sorts of other missions against a wide variety of enemy targets even during peacetime and with no risk to even a single allied pilot.

The potential for extreme abuse by virtually any entity that gets their hands on a weapon system like this is frightening because it is so comparatively inexpensive, easy to assemble / operate, small, portable, hard to detect once launched covertly, disposable, remotely guided and if need be, fully self-destructible in order to erase any traceable physical evidence as to who sent the weapon from where or why they did so.

I could see this being a very effective new method of justifiable, isolated political and private assassinations, cleansing individual pockets of deadly criminals even in heavily populated areas, against terrorist cells and a host of other "worthy" targets. However, by the very same virtues and using the very same methods, anyone with an agenda, a few key connections and a little cold, hard cash could easily acquire similar technology and create havok anywhere on earth, from afar, undetected and without putting themselves or their cohorts in any immediate danger.

As a result, the technology would become far too accessible to the very enemies we are trying to fight (not to mention highly desirable) and therefore the risk of it backfiring on us would be greatly increased.

Think about just a single one of these covert drones in the wrong hands, stored quietly in a garage somewhere near a major city and armed with the deadliest biochemical or toxic agents known to man. At any time of their choosing, a member of a terrorist organization or just an individual malcontent could (like a kid with a remote controlled plane) simply launch, attack, destroy and laugh all the way from a very safe distance as perhaps a million lives were lost.

Some fun huh?

So ask yourself, just how realistic or unrealistic would a scenario like that be in today's world? I say it is not just likley but virtually guaranteed and that you, I and/or our loved ones could very easily be amongst the countless dead the very first time it is used this way. The greater problem is that there would be very little we could do to stop a hundred, simultaneous attacks or a random series of them across the planet by anyone crazy enough to want to instigate that kind of mindless mass human misery.

But more to the point, think about the sheer fun that bin Laden could personally have a with just a few well-placed verisons of these nifty new toys - aimed directly at the city you live in right now and without any regard whatsoever to international treaties, borders, human rights or anything else. His ONLY justification is that the majority of those targted are not of his personal religious belief and are therefore fair game at all times - including every single man, woman, child and animal that might stand in his way.

Does this not bother you in the least?

Cheers, Terry

.

[Rafal Dudek]

You still didnt answer my tomahawk missle question =P

However, by the very same virtues and using the very same methods, anyone with an agenda, a few key connections and a little cold, hard cash could easily acquire similar technology and create havok anywhere on earth, from afar, undetected and without putting themselves or their cohorts in any immediate danger.

I doubt it. US keeps their tech secrets really tight. What you just said can apply to any piece of weapon there is. And if this was true, we would see people standing outside airports with heat-seeking shoulder-fired missles shooting down any airplane that tries to land or takeoff.

As a result, the technology would become far too accessible to the very enemies we are trying to fight with it and therefore the risk of it backfiring on us is greatly increased.

I am yet to see enemies using stealth fighters on us, so I'm not worried.

But more to the point, think about the sheer fun that bin Laden could personally have a with just a few well-placed verisons of these nifty new toys - aimed directly at the city you live in right now and without any regard whatsoever to international treaties, borders, human rights or anything else.

Last I checked, Bin Laden and his goons still using AK-47's and RPG's. Not to mention outfitting pickup trucks as technicals for their use. Something like this project would be way too complicated for their use. I'm 99.9% sure that this thing requires some sort of a command center with clear line of communication between the flying robot and a person sitting in a tower. And then there is also the whole access-code thing to provent some silly hackers outside from using this thing.

Does this not bother you in the least?

Nope, not at all. This thing will be used merely for tactical purposes rather then personal agenda. If it saves our troops lives in the field, I'm all for it.

Any piece of military hardware used for destruction can be deadly to us. With all the nukes in the world, we're pretty much sitting on a timebomb anyway.

[DanTheManPR]

Very valid points, Terry.

Think about just a single one of these covert drones in the wrong hands, stored quietly in a garage somewhere near a major city and armed with the deadliest biochemical or toxic agents known to man.

However, why use a drone like this, when you can just tell some crazy young kid that he'll go to heaven if he carries a can of some biological agent into the airport and releases it, so that the unlucky passengers will carry it to every other part of the world? If you wanted to cause mass destruction, there are lots of other, simpler ways of doing it.


I do, however, agree about the part of the government abusing this sort of technology. It does give them an unprecedented ability to wage a "clean" war (that is, no American casualties for CNN to bitch about. Who cares about a few foreign civilians?) on anyone they please. The US is getting into a bad habit of lobbing cruise missiles at everyone they don't like, simply because it lets them do something without fear of retaliation from the American public. Imagine now that we have these drones, how much the military could get done behind our backs.

Unfortunately, these technologies will get development no matter what, methinks. Whats better is to raise a big stink whenever something really questionable is done with them (something that unfortunately doesn't happen right now).

[DanTheManPR]

Last I checked, Bin Laden and his goons still using AK-47's and RPG's. Not to mention outfitting pickup trucks as technicals for their use.
Right. AK's and RPG's work. Why should they go through the trouble to obtain one of these (if they even could), when they could just recruit a thousand more suicide bombers?

[Terry Penrod]

.

You seem to be overlooking the simple matter of cost, scale, portability, ease of access and other practical points that clearly separate this kind of streamlined, highly focusable, remotely steerable and easily hidden weapon delivery vehicle and a large, sophisticated Tomahawk missle system - let alone a full scale nuclear ICBM and all the subsystems they require. Those weapons are very hard to acquire, hide, assemble, operate and afford by comparison to a small drone with a remote control that could so easily be smuggled into or assembled from scratch and launched within the borders of any country undetected. So too would the payload be extremely easy to alter to accommodate a very deadly dose of Anthrax or worse that could spread across a whole city with a remarkably small, quiet single covert drone at night using nothing more than natural wind patterns and rising heat pockets to target and locally contain it in ultra lethal concentrations.

And don't think for a second that bin Laden can not afford such a sophisticated device or that his network lacks the technological skills to effectively use it - not to mention the burning will to do just that. That is very naive of you after all that has occured in the past few years.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Right. AK's and RPG's work. Why should they go through the trouble to obtain one of these (if they even could), when they could just recruit a thousand more suicide bombers?

The reasons are very clear Dan.

1. There is not an unlimited pool of such easily fooled, suicidal young zealots who have any real degree of sophistication, training or experience to act efficiently on their own under extraordinarilly stressful, dangerous circumstances - especially now that the entire complex of international intelligence, defense and security communities are on high alert and watching for them everywhere all the time. So too are passengers / private citizens of every nationality hyper aware and ready to report even the slightest suspect activity anywhere near a mass transit center, etc.

2. A single biochemical attack at any international airport would be revealed instantly and all planes would be grounded immediately, all people isolated and quarantined totally and NOBODY would be allowed to board another plane let alone take off from that target area. That plan simply would not work other than to infect whoever happened to be passing through that airport at the moment.

3. The above simply does not address the long-range accurate targetability of a drone with a large and very lethal but light, cheap, easily acquired and very hard to detect payload. It could be launched say from any place in New Jersey to fly low at night across the river to Manhatten or across the Potomac to Washington, DC or anywhere else by a single mole with relatively limited expertise and almost guaranteed to hit its intended target from the air (a critical key difference here), suddenly, without warning and with an awful vengance - also allowing that same remote operator to safely and easily slip away to do the very same thing again elsewhere.

Hey, the one thing we all should have learned by now is that bin Laden, his core organization and now an increasing number of associated groups / cells are globally mobile, very sophisticated by historical standards, communicating covertly across the net, VERY well funded and eagerly willing to explore the most efficient new methods for causing the most death and destruction (in the specific places they want to target the most) all around the world and as soon as humanly possible.

Ignoring those terrible facts is a good formula for our death and their ultimate victory.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Rafal Dudek]

see, the reason I'm not worried about is because anything we have can be used against us at any moment. So I'm not gonna go hide in my basement biting my nailis and waiting for something to happen. I rather live my life =P

And I support this unmanned bomber. Why risk a multi-million dollar airplane and a pilots life when we can used an unmanned flying object to destroy the stinger sites?

[Terry Penrod]

.

see, the reason I'm not worried about is because anything we have can be used against us at any moment. So I'm not gonna go hide in my basement biting my nailis and waiting for something to happen. I rather live my life =P

And I support this unmanned bomber. Why risk a multi-million dollar airplane and a pilots life when we can used an unmanned flying object to destroy the stinger sites?



First of all ZZZ, I am not the sort of person who shrinks from any personal risk or cowers when faced with the toughest subjects of the day - politically or otherwise.

That aside, you are wrong if you think that every current weapon system we have can so easily be used against us by those who are most likely to do so. Every facet of our nuclear arsenal is extremely well protected with many safegaurds in place and the technology that makes them so powerful is carefully monitored around the world. They are also ultra expensive and very large / easy to detect when transported in the open, across any distance at all.

A simple, remote controlled drone that is designed to deliver a small but potentially devastating payload to a very specific target, covertly, quickly and with virtually no risk to the operator is however an entirely differerent matter. It is a new development that could benefit us in the short run but would be so easy to acquire / replicate that an organization like al-Queda (a.k.a al-Qa'ida) could very easily turn it into the perfect hi-tech weapon to use against us and any number of our global allies large and small.

This concept, if perfected, will indeed represent a far greater immediate threat for real world use by our most vehement enemies in a very short span of time - compared to the complexities, costs and risks of attempting to acquire a nuclear missile system or any other sophisticated, easily detected WMD that relies on so many technically advanced physical parts - as well as the expertise needed simply to understand and use them effectively.

If bin Laden were to commission the perfect covert first strike weapon system from a leading weapons designer, he most likely would end up with something very much like the above pictured drone - but outfitted to carry a much more widepsread, destructive payload like airborne biochemicals or concentrated toxic agents to be delivered to densely populated urban areas by a single, hidden operative from a safe distance.

Sorry but your analogies are just not valid in this case and your willingness to average-out or generalize specific potential risks - directly related to each other and comparable or not - is naive.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Gary V.]

You can never replace the soldier on foot.

[Bruenor]

The problem I have with this type of technology is that it eliminates the risk of losing soldiers lives. You may ask why that is a bad thing but IMO it is the risk, both politically and morally, of losing your own countrymens' lives that encourages leaders of the world to seek out diplomatic solutions prior to engaging in combat, leaving combat as a last resort. This type of technology eliminates that risk, and combined with an irresponsible leader, this could lead to a conflict that could have been avoided.

Maybe my view is a little simplistic, but I do believe that it is a very possible scenario.

[Terry Penrod]

.

You can never replace the soldier on foot.

No you can't - at least not in a conventional ground war, an occupation of a country or even a limited peacekeeping operation.

Unfortunately, bin Laden & company are not slightly interested in any of those things and are fully attuned to and commited to their position as covert, terrorist fighters willing to do virtually anything, anywhere at any time to anybody in order to directly or indirectly harm us.

In this case, foot soldiers are practically useless as counter measures to non-centralized, mobile, globally-based terrorist threats with a new emphasis on advanced technology. Ones that never have and never will openly identify themselves in any normal theater of war or even as private citizens in public debate, elections or other peaceful methods of getting their opinions heard and implemented.

They are not in a debate and could not possibly care less about winning elections or sitting down at a neutral table to discuss our differences. They want to destroy, utterly an entire way of life and replace it - by force - with a dictated, single minded, religious idealogy that they have twisted into a hideous, ultra violent, self-serving version of its original form. In their attempt to do so, they have and will conitinue to kill or maim anyone who gets in their way and very much consider woman, children, elderly people, invalids and all other innocent civilians to be fair game. Heck, they love to target them - they are easy, untrained, unarmed prey simply going about their personal business and trying to get through life as best they can.

So any reference (in traditional terms) to rules of engagement, normally accepted wartime strategies, traditional battle tactics, diplomacy, treaties or other avenues we might otherwise explore are pretty much moot when it comes to these fanatical, suicidal yoyos.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Shardos]

killing people in war is starting to become an arcade game.
"Hey Ted, watch me get this thing in between those houses and bomb that factory"

[Rafal Dudek]

I still dont believe this thing is meant to replace foot soldiers. For one, it only carries one missle. It will most likely be just used against tactical tagets that would cause great risk for air forces.

Sorry but your analogies are just not valid in this case and your willingness to average-out or generalize specific potential risks - directly related to each other and comparable or not - is naive.

I wonder if you would think the same if 9/11 didnt happen. But since it did happen, more effort has been placed on security, which means any military secrets will be more secure then they ever were. So I seriuosly doubt a terrorist organization would "steal" one of those for themsellves. And at a price of 10-15 million (This price includes mass production probably and not just indiividual unit which will probably be more like 20-25mil and hell lot more on illegal market if one lands there) a pop, this thing isnt something you'll just buy off a shelf at KMart. Remember, Bin Laden isnt exactly stupid. Dont you think he probably thought of something like this but just cant get the parts in his world to even build one? Not to mention alot of funding he would have to put towards this project to work which he could use to buy military supplies.

As for my analogy being naive? m'eh. I just look at facts for info. I'm not playing the "what if" game because you can drown yourself with all the possibilities. Any new military technology can be put at risk. But I'm quite confident US takes great care of keeping them secured especially now after all this terrorist threat.

Oh yea... you can call me Rafal instead of ZZZ :p:

[Terry Penrod]

.

It's quite obvious that we now have a new and very deadly type of covert 21st century enemy and that 9/11 was the focal point that made us all hyper aware of his ruthlessness.

That changes nothing though Rafal. It simply means that any new innovation in modern weaponry that can be easily copied, hidden and deployed with the same potential as many larger, traditional WMDs (assuming it is retrofitted for biochems / toxins), is also a whole new potential threat to us that we simply did not consider prior to the fateful events of these past few years.

So yes, now that we have established that this new foe is very real and very determined to ultimately destroy us at any and all costs, we had better consider this possible application - even of just the concepts if they are then taken by bin Laden or another ultra wealthy terrorist leader and made to conform to his agenda.

Failing to seriously consider those consequences would be a very dangerous thing to do.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Terry Penrod]

.

killing people in war is starting to become an arcade game.
"Hey Ted, watch me get this thing in between those houses and bomb that factory"

Kinda makes that old sci-fi movie ring true doesn't it?

You know the one where all the kids with the very best video game skills were recruited to play war games in a secret military facility, unknowingly controlling deadly remote drones with real human targets that were represented by pixelized enemies on screen. They thought they were just testing some cool, new "experimental" 3D VR tech and had no idea that each one was in fact systematically slaughtering a huge number of human beings every time they grabbed a joystick in one hand and a Pepsi in the other.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Fzoulcmbyl]

IMO it is the risk, both politically and morally, of losing your own countrymens' lives that encourages leaders of the world to seek out diplomatic solutions prior to engaging in combat, leaving combat as a last resort.

Excellent statement, and I totally agree, but to answer the Topic question, ya this sort of thing does scare me a bit. What scares me even more, are the advances they are making with robotics, and in my opinion, the Robotic Footsoldier, and Armored Vehicles are inevetable. They may not be as good as a human, but I still believe that the Military is working hard at making them a reality.

Terminator/ Clone Wars / Mech wars, call it what you will, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.


Fzoul

[Gary V.]

Excellent statement, and I totally agree, but to answer the Topic question, ya this sort of thing does scare me a bit. What scares me even more, are the advances they are making with robotics, and in my opinion, the Robotic Footsoldier, and Armored Vehicles are inevetable. They may not be as good as a human, but I still believe that the Military is working hard at making them a reality.

Terminator/ Clone Wars / Mech wars, call it what you will, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.


Fzoul

Absolutely agree that sometime in the future a big chunk of war will be fought with robots. Scary to think of one side's robots wiping out the others' and coming in to kill a few humans until they surrender.

Sadly, eventually terrorists will get their hands on the technology which kills them. And as long as Muslims and Jews and Christians exist there will be terrorists. The more we kill, the more we create I'm afraid. But what do you do? Fanatics don't listen to reason.

[Gotanypop]

I know this is starting to meander off-topic a little, but isn't there a law in the US regarding the development of "fully automated" weopons? The idea of robotic soldiers whch have autonomy in weapons fire is counter to your governments own laws. There must be a human being on the fire button. I thought this because Canadian Navy Frigates are armed with a Phalanx gun which is an anti missile mini-gun system which is able to perceive a threat lock on and fire thousnads of rounds completely without human intervention. I was talking to some US Navy personnel at a demonstration when one of the ships (built in my city) and they told me that such a system would be illegal on a US ship.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Not sure of the specific legalities involved as they relate to U.S. military weaponry used here or abroad, as offesive or defensive measures. But it would be foolish to trust a fully autonomous system that had no human in the immediate loop as a safety valve to over-ride the most serious potential errors of judgment. I will never trust a machine to make those critical life and death decisions in behalf of mankind - ever. It's bad enough that human beings can not always be trusted and that we are all capable of making mistakes. But to assume that any invention of man will be 100% reliable at all times is complete insanity.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Bruenor]

.

Not sure of the specific legalities involved as they relate to U.S. military weaponry used here or abroad, as offesive or defensive measures. But it would be foolish to trust a fully autonomous system that had no human in the immediate loop as a safety valve to over-ride the most serious potential errors of judgment. I will never trust a machine to make those critical life and death decisions in behalf of mankind - ever. It's bad enough that human beings can not always be trusted and that we are all capable of making mistakes. But to assume that any invention of man will be 100% reliable at all times is complete insanity.

Cheers, Terry

.

Couldn't agree more.

[Gotanypop]

WOW, It would appear that the Navy fellas were wrong about Phalanx not being allowed on US ships. It looks as if this technology has been in use for sometime: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-phal.html

This is scary stuff when you think about it.

[Terry Penrod]

.

WOW, It would appear that the Navy fellas were wrong about Phalanx not being allowed on US ships. It looks as if this technology has been in use for sometime: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-phal.html

This is scary stuff when you think about it.


FutureTechWars are upon us and they are scary.

Cheers, Terry

.

[DejaFu]

next will be your house heheheh

[Lou Cypher]

I myself think it's a fantastic weapon system.

Originally posted by Terry Penrod
Obviously, a new, unmanned, very efficient, airborne weapon delivery system like this could revolutionize the way we actually fight wars - big and small. However, is it really our main purpose to create an arsenal of high tech devices that allows us to so easily, quickly, conveniently, safely and lethally carry out political agendas, etc. from afar without commiting any real human lives in the process? This really isn't new stuff, The cruise missle has been around for awhile now, the only difference is that the "pilot" can choose were to drop his ordinance and then return to base and reload.

Not just cool but also highly cost / human efficient, fast, accurate, hard to detect and potentially very, very deadly depending on the payload and target. And whats wrong at being cost efficient?, as for being fast, not really. As for being hard to detect, just the opposite, why would it be any less detectable than a F-18, there not using stealth technology.

The potential for extreme abuse by virtually any entity that gets their hands on a weapon system like this is frightening because it is so comparatively inexpensive, easy to assemble / operate, small, portable, hard to detect once launched covertly, disposable, remotely guided and if need be, fully self-destructible in order to erase any traceable physical evidence as to who sent the weapon from where or why they did so. Comparatively inexpensive, easy to assemble / operate, small, portable, hard to detect once launched covertly?, none of the above. First, 10 to 15 million is not cheap, easy to assemble, hardly, small, not really, portable, not easy, and not hard to detect?, heck it's 34 feet wide.


As a result, the technology would become far too accessible to the very enemies we are trying to fight (not to mention highly desirable) and therefore the risk of it backfiring on us would be greatly increased. If we worried about that we wouldn't build any weapon system.

You seem to be overlooking the simple matter of cost, scale, portability, ease of access and other practical points that clearly separate this kind of streamlined, highly focusable, remotely steerable and easily hidden weapon delivery vehicle and a large, sophisticated Tomahawk missle system Actually a cruise missle would be more practicle, you would need a runway for an aircraft but you could launch a cruise missle from a small ship. You would see a plane coming in on radar but a cruise missle is vertually undetectable.

That aside, you are wrong if you think that every current weapon system we have can so easily be used against us by those who are most likely to do so. Every facet of our nuclear arsenal is extremely well protected with many safegaurds in place and the technology that makes them so powerful is carefully monitored around the world. They are also ultra expensive and very large / easy to detect when transported in the open, across any distance at all If you haven't noticed lately, were not the only ones with nukes, and not all of those countries have the safegaurds that we do ie: Russia. As for being hard to move, very easy, 1 MRV could fit in the trunk of my Crown Vic.

A simple, remote controlled drone that is designed to deliver a small but potentially devastating payload to a very specific target, covertly, quickly and with virtually no risk to the operator is however an entirely differerent matter. It is a new development that could benefit us in the short run but would be so easy to acquire / replicate that an organization like al-Queda (a.k.a al-Qa'ida) could very easily turn it into the perfect hi-tech weapon to use against us and any number of our global allies large and small. One suicide pilot in a cessna could do it far easily, and at the fraction of the cost.

Not sure of the specific legalities involved as they relate to U.S. military weaponry used here or abroad, as offesive or defensive measures. But it would be foolish to trust a fully autonomous system that had no human in the immediate loop as a safety valve to over-ride the most serious potential errors of judgment. I will never trust a machine to make those critical life and death decisions in behalf of mankind - ever. It's bad enough that human beings can not always be trusted and that we are all capable of making mistakes. But to assume that any invention of man will be 100% reliable at all times is complete insanity. Yes the Phalanx system has been around for some time and is a very effective defensive weapons system, as for being fully autonomous?, it isn't. It has to be manually switched on, so theres no chance of it becoming "aware" and shoting down our own aircraft.

Lou :globe:

[Terry Penrod]

.

There's a big difference Lou between the logistics of transporting, placing, assembling and launching a cruise missile system within our borders and hiding a single drone. But those practical differences aside, my primary point was that a system like this would not be used for the same purpose as a cruise missile but instead to deliver a chemical agent to a densely populated area via natural air currents. These are obviously apples and oranges and I really don't see your point.

As far as costs go, even though you cited a multimillion dollar price tag per unit, the sad fact is that bin Laden could personally pay for a fleet of these with his spare pocket change and still have plenty left over for research, planning, operations, training and payload. But more strangely, you then turn around and laud the cost efficiency of this system. Yes it is relatively cheap and that is precisely why I said it also offers the same benefit to our potential enemies.

Those details aside, evidently you missed the single most important word I wrote when describing the drone's characteristics - "comparatively". Compared to the size, complexity and total cost of manned F-18s (let alone an ICBM system), this is quite small, simple, easy to transport, easy to conceal, easy to assemble and cheap. More to the point, how would a piloted craft like that be smuggled into this country, along with its ground crew, pilot and payload in order to be launched close to a major city covertly in the first place? That is just a silly analogy. A drone with a single remote operator however fills all these parameters quite nicely.

Also, a Cessna still requires a live human pilot and that is the single most significant difference between a drone and any other plane from our perspective or anyone's. But even if a suicide pilot flew such a mission, he would - by design - die and his aircraft would be destroyed. In the case of a remote controlled drone, it carries no such risk to any human pilot and if launched covertly from within our borders, nearby a major city like New York, could easily fly fast and low across either river, climb sharply, release its deadly payload from a designated altitude and then return to "base" long before our domestic defense system knew what hit it. At worst, the drone would simply be purposely crashed the second it delivered its payload and then the remote operator could easily slip away undetected before anyone had a clue. Unlike a suicide pilot, he would simply hop in his SUV, blend into traffic in any direction and be gone without a trace.

As far as who has nuclear weapons programs, yes we all know about them. But we are not discussing potential attacks by established governments, from long range or short. We are talking about a new type of hit-and-run system that readily lends itself (due to its size, design, cost efficency and minimal manpower requirements) to independent terrorist organizations and their covert cells around the world.

Oh, and when did I personally mention the Phalanx System?


Cheers, Terry

.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Terry Penrod

There's a big difference Lou between the logistics of transporting, placing, assembling and launching a cruise missile system within our borders and hiding a single drone. But those practical differences aside, my primary point was that a system like this would not be used for the same purpose as a cruise missile but instead to deliver a chemical agent to a densely populated area via natural air currents. These are obviously apples and oranges and I really don't see your point. Hmm, lets see, the Drone is 34 feet wide and probibly just as long and weighs 8,000 pounds, A Tommahawk Cruise missile is roughly 18 feet long with a wingspan of about 8 feet and weighs around 3,000 pounds. I would say the logistics are far more difficult with the drone. And as for delivering a chemical agent to a densely populated area via natural air currents, the cruise missile can do it at a much lower cost and without the possibility of pilot error, and thats if I were two pick one of the two.

As far as costs go, even though you cited a multimillion dollar price tag per unit, the sad fact is that bin Laden could personally pay for a fleet of these with his spare pocket change and still have plenty left over for research, planning, operations, training and payload. But more strangely, you then turn around and laud the cost efficiency of this system. Yes it is relatively cheap and that is precisely why I said it also offers the same benefit to our potential enemies.Ok, lets talk about cost:
Drone: 15 to 20 million
Cruise Missile: 1 to 2 million
Which would you say is a better deal?, I would say the Cruise Missile.

As for lauding the cost of the Drone, I did no such thing, all I said was "whats wrong at being cost efficient?".

Those details aside, evidently you missed the single most important word I wrote when describing the drone's characteristics - "comparatively". Compared to the size, complexity and total cost of manned F-18s (let alone an ICBM system), this is quite small, simple, easy to transport, easy to conceal, easy to assemble and cheap. More to the point, how would a piloted craft like that be smuggled into this country, along with its ground crew, pilot and payload in order to be launched close to a major city covertly in the first place? That is just a silly analogy. A drone with a single remote operator however fills all these parameters quite nicely.Now your twisting, I said nothing about "Comparing to the size, complexity and total cost of manned F-18s (let alone an ICBM system), this is quite small, simple, easy to transport, easy to conceal, easy to assemble and cheap. More to the point, how would a piloted craft like that be smuggled into this country, along with its ground crew, pilot and payload in order to be launched close to a major city covertly in the first place?".
What I said was "As for being hard to detect, just the opposite, why would it be any less detectable than a F-18, there not using stealth technology", Nice try!.

Also, a Cessna still requires a live human pilot and that is the single most significant difference between a drone and any other plane from our perspective or anyone's. But even if a suicide pilot flew such a mission, he would - by design - die and his aircraft would be destroyed. In the case of a remote controlled drone, it carries no such risk to any human pilot and if launched covertly from within our borders, nearby a major city like New York, could easily fly fast and low across either river, climb sharply, release its deadly payload from a designated altitude and then return to "base" long before our domestic defense system knew what hit it. At worst, the drone would simply be purposely crashed the second it delivered its payload and then the remote operator could easily slip away undetected before anyone had a clue. Unlike a suicide pilot, he would simply hop in his SUV, blend into traffic in any direction and be gone without a trace.Yes a Cessna requires a pilot, and yes he would die along with the destruction of his plane, but thats kind of like 9-11 isn't it.
But lets look at the cost:

Drone: 15 to 20 million
Cessna: (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=2472724395&category=63677) $85,000 + pilot
Which would you say is a better deal?, I would say the Cessna is.

Now with a Cessna there would be no "launching covertly from within our borders, nearby a major city like New York, could easily fly fast and low across either river, climb sharply, release its deadly payload from a designated altitude and then return". A Cessna could just meander over a smaller city, drop it's deadly Bio weapon and then return to the local airport unbeknownst to the local populist.


As far as who has nuclear weapons programs, yes we all know about them. But we are not discussing potential attacks by established governments, from long range or short. We are talking about a new type of hit-and-run system that readily lends itself (due to its size, design, cost efficency and minimal manpower requirements) to independent terrorist organizations and their covert cells around the world.I guess you didn't understand what I said, I never said anything about "potential attacks by established governments". I was talking the safegaurds of Nuke weapons, be it outright theft or being sold on the black market.

Oh, and when did I personally mention the Phalanx System? You were responding to Gotanypop about the Phalanx System and you said "Not sure of the specific legalities involved as they relate to U.S. military weaponry used here or abroad, as offesive or defensive measures. But it would be foolish to trust a fully autonomous system that had no human in the immediate loop as a safety valve to over-ride the most serious potential errors of judgment. I will never trust a machine to make those critical life and death decisions in behalf of mankind - ever.". So I was just giving info that the Phalanx System isn't Fully autonomous.

But lets get back to the Cruise Missile, the technoledgy surrounding it is much more readily availible allready in the world, and how easy it is to aquire one.

Cruise Missiles (http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml)

Cruise Missile (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cm/)

Or you could build your own.

DIY (http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/procurement.shtml)

So I think we have to worry more about Cruise Missles in the future than Drones.

Lou :globe:

[Terry Penrod]

.

It sounds like we should be equally worried about unconventional terrorist usage of present cruise missiles - either purchased on the black market and retrofitted or assembled from available parts and modified as needed - as well as any newer drone technology like this Lou. But to be comparatively accurate, the current specs for the drone pictured above are very much in the prototype stage as is the current estimated cost per unit. Give that system a little time for further development / refinement, and the size, specs and costs will change quite a bit.

Nevertheless, this all still goes straight to the same bottom line originally mentioned at the head of this discussion. We are actively developing more and more weapons for our own military that are virtually perfect terrorist deliver systems. As I said above, if bin Laden commissioned the perfect custom system for his stated purposes and methods, these would pretty much be the end result.

However, none of that addresses the very first and most significant point made in this thread - the elimination of pilots and the further distancing of our military personnel and in a very real way our politicians from the ethical and moral consequences of instigating war. It also fails to address the subsequent, covert uses for all such systems when war is not openly declared between nations for single assassination missions by our own government / agents / allies or (unfortunately) to target us by terrorist organizations or other smaller groups at a very reasonable cost and with no real immediate human risk involved on the part of the attacker/s.

Those are the primary areas of concern that I expressed about this kind of advanced, unmanned high-tech weapon delivery system that is designed to replace traditionally piloted aircraft.

You say that you like this weapon system, and I agree that from a purely selfish, logical cost / risk perspective it answers several problmatic issues. But in doing so, it also removes some of the main moral deterrants to violent action and it does provide a steady stream of even better new design concepts to our most dangerous enemies - ones that fit their agenda and specific needs like a glove.

If those dilemmas do not bother you or if you simply choose to ignore them, that is entirely your concern. But please do not try to convince me that these possibilities are not real and that they do not carry potentially dire consequences for many people - including us.

Cheers, Terry

.

[OldsterHolster]

Personally, this seems like much ado about nothing. Its just another little step in the normal, and unstoppable, progression of the natural purpose of all weapons. Somewhere in our history, someone discovered that he could throw a rock, or a spear, and kill from a distance; and this weapon is just one more of the latest ways to do the same thing. As always, the advantage depends on having the latest or newest weapon that the enemy doesn't have any defense against, yet. Once your target aquires a shield, you are wasting your time throwing rocks, and you have to come up with something else.

Almost certainly, we are headed to the point where satellite based laser or sci-fi type plasma weapons will be able to target virtually any target on the planet, with only the push of a button required by those who hold the power. The technology of destruction, and the resulting technology of defense, is not going to stop; and all we can hope for is that the "good guys" lead the race.

What's really scary is that technology may eventually spawn a new generation of control that doesn't even use physical destruction. Its people, after all, that other people want to destroy or control. I fear that we are headed towards a world where every individual is "bar-coded," using nanotechnology, or somehow; and ultimately can be "deleted" with the push of another button or by being zapped by a DNA specific ray or something. If that button ever came into the possession of the bad guys, then we really would have problems. Physical destruction is limited in its effect because there's just too much to destroy, but direct control of the lives of individuals would truly be total power.

I sure as hell don't know what's going to happen in the future, but it sure seems the ugly side of human nature is not going to disappear anytime soon; nor is the ugly side of technology to go with it. Its kind of sad. It seems we have the power to become Godlike if we would just learn to handle it and quit killing each other, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In fact, I think I'll go over to my favorite watering hole and have a few beers before some idiot decides to blow it up. Heh, heh, heh. Edward.

[DanTheManPR]

Imagine the day we have death ray satellites that could be hijacked by some script kiddie in the Philippines to rain down apocalyptic destruction on the world.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Well, the difference between some of those examples and an armed drone is that most of them have many peaceful, constructive uses.

For example, satellites were created for observation and communication. But if altered in the future to specifically target human beings with advanced, space-based weapon systems, then we will need to start a whole different debate about the morality and wisdom of implementing such a concept. Another would be the way that the Internet is now used to coordinate or even perpetrate crimes. However, the web still functions very well for a world of other (legal / beneficial) purposes and the potential good IMO far outweighs the bad. With nanotechnology, that goes double.

Yes, most all of man's creations can be twisted around and employed for evil purposes. But the primary reasons they were designed and built are generally not as overt or covert human killing machines. A weapon delivering drone serves no other useful purpose other than to kill people as efficiently as possible with the least fuss and muss.

So, what we have here is a very focused, new offensive military weapon design that can really only be used for one thing. And, by its very design, seems to be a perfect fit for small, covert, moblie, outlaw groups to use for whatever they want. There's a pretty big difference between these two types of inventions in terms of original intent and practical applications - good or bad.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Gaim Mastr]

However, is it really our main purpose to create an arsenal of high tech devices that allows us to so easily, quickly, conveniently, safely and lethally carry out political agendas, etc. from afar without commiting any real human lives in the process?

And security. You forgot to include that in with "political agendas". But to answer your question..... yes, that should be our goal.

After all, in every war or conflict, one of the chief goals was to lose as little human life as possible, both friend and foe. Can't maintain that goal if we throw people into harms way for no other reason than to keep some ideal of a 'human element' in battles.



The question is, do we really need safe, convenient, cheap, conscience-free forms of dealing out even more death and destruction by those already in power - regardless of their justification for such acts?

Since the crux of your concern appears to be related only to the "conscience-free" aspect, I'd have to ask how you came to that conclusion ??

If the pilot is sitting in an enclosed room on the ground, are they inherently less conscious about dropping bombs onto people than if they were sitting in the plane at 50,000 feet ??

When a CO commands for a bombing run, they try their best to do their job objectively. But they are always aware that they are giving orders to take real human lives. Whether that bombing run is performed by manned or unmanned aircraft is irrelevant. The ONLY difference is that the CO would likely feel a little better about not having to put his own men at a higher risk. A perfectly natural and understandable feeling.



The potential for extreme abuse by virtually any entity that gets their hands on a weapon system like this is frightening...

As humanity advances technologically, potential for abuse of that technology is always present. That is not a legitimate reason to cease technological advancement.

Way back when, wars were fought ONLY with humans doing hand-to-hand combat with each other. Right up and in your face. Actually looking into the other guy's eyes and see his face as he was being killed.

Fast forward a few thousand years and WWI happened. First advent of airplanes in warfare. Hand-dropping packaged loads of explosives onto enemy troops seriously took away the aspect of having to look your enemy in the eye as you killed him.

This new plane is nothing more than a natural extension of that. Eliminate as much of the enemy while preserving as much of yourself as possible.

As for potential abuse by rogue sects, there are defenses always being developed right along side of offensive weapons. You think the US is unable to detect and bring down our own stealth bombers and fighters ??

Point is that we already have the technology to track and destroy unmanned aircraft. As for some undeveloped country attacking another undeveloped country with such a weapon, well, they would find ways to attack each other regardless of any technologies used by the US.

The prospect of small unmanned planes to drop precision bombs onto small threatening targets is quite appealing to me. Helps to reduce the loss of innocent lives, as opposed to when we use larger bombs launched from ships or dropped from high-altitude bombers.



As a result, the technology would become far too accessible to the very enemies we are trying to fight (not to mention highly desirable) and therefore the risk of it backfiring on us would be greatly increased.

Looks like a fair bit of doom-mongering.

By the time these rogue elements were able to construct or steal a working plane like this X-45, it would be passe' technology that the US and it's allies could easily defend against. So the worry would primarily only need to be had by enemies of the US and our allies in regard to what WE use against THEM. And I can't say I'm too overly worried about the safety of those enemy states/groups/sects.



US keeps their tech secrets really tight. What you just said can apply to any piece of weapon there is. And if this was true, we would see people standing outside airports with heat-seeking shoulder-fired missles shooting down any airplane that tries to land or takeoff.

Yes, and we know that bin Laden can get his hands on hundreds of shoulder-fired SAMs. The technology is old enough. So why hasn't he or his cronies set a date to have followers standing in fields just a mile or two from several airports and bring down 20 planes inside of 5 minutes ??

Security measures are FAR better than Terry would otherwise have people believe. As for having an X-45 parked in a some suburban garage, launched down the street and armed with a high-explosive bomb, that's just unfounded speculation and a wild doom scenario.


I agree that we should always be concerned about any new technology that is or even CAN be used in military or destructive manner. And I'm thankful that the US and it's highly advanced allies have been and continue to do a good job of keeping military secrets while hunting down those who would use such weapons against us.

Otherwise we'd have seen bin Laden in Afghanistan, or Saddam in Iraq using US Patriot missile technology against our aircraft.



However, why use a drone like this, when you can just tell some crazy young kid that he'll go to heaven if he carries a can of some biological agent into the airport and releases it, so that the unlucky passengers will carry it to every other part of the world? If you wanted to cause mass destruction, there are lots of other, simpler ways of doing it.

True enough. Simpler, and a great deal cheaper and more easily accessible/practical.



Unfortunately, these technologies will get development no matter what, methinks. Whats better is to raise a big stink whenever something really questionable is done with them (something that unfortunately doesn't happen right now).

Certainly these sorts of technologies are inevitable. As a race we can't afford to become stoic and passive in our advancements.

However, your comment regarding some sort of American public apathy in regards to American political agendas or military action is way off. As I recall, Bush's decision to go into Iraq had a great many (high percentage) people of the American public in an uproar with protests and condemnations. Same was true within a great many countries around the globe.

And I'm not personally aware of a single US citizen who hasn't expressed outrage regarding the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war.



And don't think for a second that bin Laden can not afford such a sophisticated device or that his network lacks the technological skills to effectively use it - not to mention the burning will to do just that. That is very naive of you after all that has occured in the past few years.

Your assertions that X-45 technology is easily obtained and replicated is what's off-base. This technology is brand new to the most technologically advanced military on the planet. Yet you already have bin Laden building one from scratch in the suburbs outside of your city.

Will someone like bin Laden eventually, actually, have the ability and wherewithal to build one of these things inside of US boarders ??

Yes.

Will it happen any time soon ??

Not a chance.

By the time that it does happen, such a threat will be fairly easily neutralized.

Also, let's not forget that the US and its allies have spooks all over the world trying to buy & sell advanced weapons technologies. They do this to find and eliminate black market dealers, infiltrate terrorist cells and seize their financial connections. So you can bet that some watered-down form of the X-45 schematics are already being waved under the noses of a great many 'bad guys' as bait.



As for scenarios with terrorists building, operating and using unmanned aircraft to deliver payloads to destroy and maim, it's a little passe'. There have been remote flying planes used by hobby enthusiasts for decades. One has only to build these toy planes on a larger scale to carry a heavier payload and transmit signals farther.

But they wouldn't even have to bother with that. Hollywood has used full-sized remote controlled airplanes and helicopters for certain movie scenes for a long time now. Strapping heavy equipment (cameras) onto unmanned planes and flying them remotely isn't new technology.

It' be easy for group of terrorists to position themselves like a picket fence between a small airport and a target. The guy at the airport launches the unmanned Cessna and flies in off low on the horizon in a certain direction. After a few miles the next guy with his remote takes control of the plan and continues its flight path. This keeps up for many miles until the last guy near the target slams the plane, or releases the payload, into the target area.

So this scenario of a rogue person secretly, remotely piloting a plane armed with a weapon into one of our cities is hogwash. Sure, it's possible to use a Cessna-type plane in such a manner. But there really are far easier and more reliable ways to launch an attach than to risk the high cost of a remote plane in such a scenario with a high risk of failure and complications.

The difference is that the X-45 is FAR more advanced in terms of accuracy, speed, stealth, etc. For reasons already mentioned, terrorists won't be getting their hands on a working X-45 for a very long time to come.


And let's not forget that bin Laden's most successful attacks have always been with the low-tech approach. The more complicated the plan, the more that something can go wrong. That's why the 9/11 attacks were carried out by a few people with minimal flight training and a couple of cheap box cutters.



This type of technology eliminates that risk, and combined with an irresponsible leader, this could lead to a conflict that could have been avoided.

A very true statement. That is why it's every responsible citizen's duty and obligation to make damn sure that they know who they are voting for and why. It's also why Americans who vote for Republicans or Democrats for no other reason than the political party that they belong to really upsets and aggravates me. Bush wasn't elected into office because he was the best person for the job, he was elected because he was a member of the Republican party, pure, simple and sad.

But, my political rant is a topic for a different thread. :wink:



I still dont believe this thing is meant to replace foot soldiers. For one, it only carries one missle. It will most likely be just used against tactical tagets that would cause great risk for air forces.

Precisely. This particular plane is designed to be used in the most hazardous of cases, such as first-strike weapons against an enemy's radar net and mobile SAM launchers. It's important to weaken the enemy's ability to see, communicate and command before sending too many allied personnel into harms way. And I see that as a perfectly logical and reasonable military tactic.



Remember, Bin Laden isnt exactly stupid. Dont you think he probably thought of something like this but just cant get the parts in his world to even build one? Not to mention alot of funding he would have to put towards this project to work which he could use to buy military supplies.

Absolutely right. It wouldn't necessarily be a fair statement to say that al Queada is still well funded or organized. Mostly because that is a highly subjective statement. More accurately, we can safely state that al Queada isn't nearly as well funded as they were pre-9/11. Nor are they as well organized.

Aside from America's own boarders, many other countries all over the world have greatly stepped up their efforts to track down these terrorist networks & cells. The seizing of monetary and other assets, as well as prisoners, should be clear to everyone.

Add to that the tremendous pressure placed onto certain countries that had once turned a gleeful, blind eye to terrorists within their boarders. I'll say one thing about US President Bush, his willingness to take military action despite massive global opposition definitely has some of these other leaders thinking twice about ignoring terrorist groups and war-mongering clerics within their territories.




So yes, now that we have established that this new foe is very real and very determined to ultimately destroy us at any and all costs, we had better consider this possible application - even of just the concepts if they are then taken by bin Laden or another ultra wealthy terrorist leader and made to conform to his agenda.

Failing to seriously consider those consequences would be a very dangerous thing to do.

True enough. Whether or not anyone agrees that the X-45 or similar technologies can/will be used against us in the near future, it would be folly to ignore the premise. I would agree that it's absolutely critical that we always consider worst case scenarios before unleashing any new technologies or advancements, irrespective of how implausible.

Though I would still openly suggest that the prospect of bin Laden, or any other nut-job, getting their hands on a fully functional, working X-45 type of military plane within the next 30 years is outstandingly miniscule, at best. The remote-controlled Cessna scenario is considerably more plausible and feasible.




What scares me even more, are the advances they are making with robotics, and in my opinion, the Robotic Footsoldier, and Armored Vehicles are inevetable. They may not be as good as a human, but I still believe that the Military is working hard at making them a reality.

Doesn't scare me one bit, because In know I'm not a terrorist or a despotic ruler of a country. Those people are the ones who really ought to be getting worried. Imagine automated robots the size of a grown house cat, deployed by the thousands. Their goals are to hunt down and kill everyone in specific locations with lasers or other high-precision fire.

We'd see FAR less collateral damage in terms of destroyed infrastructure and loss of civilian/innocent lives.

As military technology improves, so does our ability to be much more selective of whom we attack, where and how. In WWII we saw the brutal results of carpet bombing cities. Seriously indiscriminant of anyone, good or bad, who happened to be anywhere in or around the cities.

In Vietnam we had massive amounts of napalm. In Desert Storm, Desert Fox and Desert Freedom we had far more accurate missiles being dropped onto buildings and bunkers. Far more accurate, yes, but also a fair number were off course, or just plain directed wrongly to begin with.

Even with the most modern warfare at our disposal, we're still seeing way too many lost lives of innocents/civilians in my opinion. Therefore, I warmly welcome any new technologies that will reduce that problem. War is ugly, always has been. And I for one support any reasonable measure that helps to ensure the safety of innocent people, while also effectively eliminating dangerous enemies.

It would be overly simplistic to say that peaceful diplomacy is best for preventing the loss of innocent lives. Because in certain circumstances diplomacy simply cannot work. Only then would we send in the attack drones.



But those practical differences aside, my primary point was that a system like this would not be used for the same purpose as a cruise missile but instead to deliver a chemical agent to a densely populated area via natural air currents.

This scenario is totally impractical. There are much more effective, simple, low-cost, low-risk ways of spreading a biological or chemical weapon within a city. City water supplies aren't nearly as secure as they should be. Some are fairly secure, such as in New York, but others aren't.

Even easier is the long-known technology of building simple rockets. I'm talking about actual functional rockets that are easily/cheaply built, hidden and fired from the rooftop of most any apartment or office building. The rocket would detonate at a certain altitude, releasing its payload into the winds over a city.

No matter how you try to slice it or dice it, Terry, your doom scenario of terrorists using such a costly brand new technology as the X-45 to attack US interests, here or abroad, is pure balderdash.

Again, the smarter terrorists maintain the concept of "keep it simple, silly". Your scenarios with the X-45 are the antithesis of that.



As far as costs go, even though you cited a multimillion dollar price tag per unit, the sad fact is that bin Laden could personally pay for a fleet of these with his spare pocket change and still have plenty left over for research, planning, operations, training and payload.

I am not aware of any facts to back up what I perceive as such a wild claim. It's known that bin Laden once had access to multiple hundreds of millions of dollars. But that was all pre-9/11 and pre-war Afghanistan. I'd be very interested in any legitimate sources which would claim that bin Laden still has unfettered access to massive finances after the continued efforts of the US and many other countries to freeze not just known terrorist assets, but even suspected terrorist assets.



Compared to the size, complexity and total cost of manned F-18s (let alone an ICBM system), this is quite small, simple, easy to transport, easy to conceal, easy to assemble and cheap. More to the point, how would a piloted craft like that be smuggled into this country, along with its ground crew, pilot and payload in order to be launched close to a major city covertly in the first place? That is just a silly analogy. A drone with a single remote operator however fills all these parameters quite nicely.

Hardly.
Civilian-safe replicas of old military jets can be purchased privately. Also, surplus, outdated, actual US military jets, with their 'guts' ripped out, can be purchased privately in the US. Enthusiasts have been buying and flying such planes for decades.

I wish I could recall some of the specific models of jets available for purchase, but I can't off-hand.

Regardless, if a terrorist has the technological wherewithal to build an X-45 from schematics, then they could certainly retrofit one of these hobby jets with a payload and remote control. Cheaper, less risk, and can be done much more openly than messing around with something that looks like the X-45 does. And, most importantly, the technology has been available for a long time now.

But it wouldn't even need to be a replica of a military fighter. It would be even cheaper and easier to retrofit some old private jet that some business exec or Hollywood actor no longer wants and is willing to sell... cheap. At least in that scenario radar and other detection systems would identify it as a small civilian transport jet and not a replica of some old Hornet or some such.

The prospect of terrorists obtaining or building an X-45 type of aircraft to attack a target in the US or any other country is ludicrous and repugnant to the methodologies of al Queada, bin Laden, or most any other terrorist network. And will remain so for many decades to come, at the very least.



Those are the primary areas of concern that I expressed about this kind of advanced, unmanned high-tech weapon delivery system that is designed to replace traditionally piloted aircraft.

You say that you like this weapon system, and I agree that from a purely selfish, logical cost / risk perspective it answers several problmatic issues. But in doing so, it also removes some of the main moral deterrants to violent action and it does provide a steady stream of even better new design concepts to our most dangerous enemies - ones that fit their agenda and specific needs like a glove.

If those dilemmas do not bother you or if you simply choose to ignore them, that is entirely your concern. But please do not try to convince me that these possibilities are not real and that they do not carry potentially dire consequences for many people - including us.

Can't speak for Lou, but for myself I'm merely dispelling falsehoods for the readers of this thread. Whether you refuse such information and choose to remain unconvinced is a personal decision you have to make for yourself. Same holds true of everyone drawing their own conclusions.

You claim that unmanned weapons counter otherwise inherent moral or ethical standards in the politicians and military commanders who wield them. I concede that the higher the volume of expected dead military personnel, the less likely a leader would be willing to commit to battle or war. Up to a point.

That little factoid has held true (for the most part) throughout human history. But your insinuations that American Presidents would be more likely to initiate a military conflict just because fewer American soldiers would die is outlandish at best. At least in the context you've been presenting it.

Another way to look at it is for us to ask ourselves how many times in the past should we have lent military aid to a country to help defend itself from aggressors or radical insurgents, but we didn't because we couldn't afford the loss of American lives in the conflict ??

How many times have we sat idle while potential democratic allies have been overthrown or crushed by fanatical clans/groups within their own boarders because we simply could not afford to spread our military too thinly ??

Let's not forget that many countries in this world are still real s**tholes, ripe with constant political and military violence that continues to bring tremendous harm to the innocents and civilians of those countries.

America rarely starts trouble, but we sure don't shrink away from it, when we can. Bush is desperately trying to spin the Iraq fiasco into a mission of liberation. Well, maybe with the proper new technologies we actually can go into several other countries and liberate the populace from their currently brutal dictators and tyrannical regimes.

Of course, this is all assuming that legitimate and reasonable diplomacy has failed utterly.

Am I in any way insinuating that advanced military technology will somehow help to usher in a form of world peace ??

On a very narrow tangent, yes.
With modern technology and tactics it's easy for large scale terrorist networks and national despots (Kim of North Korea, for example) to sometimes seemingly act with impunity. I imagine a time when such people have to face the very real prospect of having small, stealth, unmanned attack drones knocking on their front doors regardless of where they may try to hide. Let these degenerates be aware that they can be removed from existence without the need of a massive and bloody military conflict. And that will bring some measure of peace to the world.

As for the "...and it does provide a steady stream of even better new design concepts to our most dangerous enemies..." comment, it couldn't be more nonsensical. We're not at war with the United Kingdom here. We're talking about cave dwellers, literally. They simply do not have the ability to obtain advanced weapons or technology.

Oh we can all fantasize about some Hollywood-esque storyline where a bin Laden type of villain miraculously gets his hands on a suitcase nuke, or an advanced stealth fighter and wrecks havoc on some poor unsuspecting populace. But there's a reason why fantasy so rarely becomes reality. al Queada will continue to rely on low-cost, low-tech methodologies as a means to their ends for one simple reason, it works best for their agendas. Hinging too much on overcomplicated, high-cost, high-risk plans is the stuff of James Bond villains, not real-world terrorists.



I agree with just about everything OldsterHolster stated. Except that I can already see that the 'good guys' are winning.



Doom-mongering about how absolute power corrupts absolutely with high-tech weaponry is inane. There are a lot of seriously bad people out there that need to be taken out of the human equation. But that doesn't mean that anyone whose views differ from our own are to be counted among the bad.

Canada has different views on how to run its political and civil systems from the US. But you're not going to see both countries having at each other in open conflict.

Despite any nay-sayers, very select few people are born with a disposition toward wanting war just for the sake of chaos or domination. Most people who lead their countries do not drag their people into a war on a whim, irrespective of any assertions otherwise.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I did read your reply GM and simply have nowhere near the time to address each and every point, whether I agree with you or not. But in general and in several specific cases, I do agree with some of the things you said and sternly disagree with others.

But at the heart of this argument is a fundamental element that you sort of glossed over before diving into all the details. I would like to bring this full circle and focus ONLY on it for a moment. Because frankly, everything else is (or at least IMO should be) secondary to it.

That detail is the single most troubling issue attached to the ongoing development of all such new, remotely controlled, robotic or automated military weapon systems - the ever decreasing consequences to the decision makers and the operating personnel.

What we are striving to do seems perfectly logical and justified until you apply the fact that all of the people who are always in direct control of these weapons are human beings with real feelings. Take away the personal and political risk to the decision making process and one of the most crucial safeguards that we have against unwarranted violent action goes away. At the very least, it becomes diminished to the point of no longer having the kind of significant impact it needs to.

I see a strong, current trend to remove ourselves individually and as a societal / political group from having to face the most difficult decisions because in effect, we are removing the most serious personal and collective consequences from the equation. IMO, that single fact supercedes any and all other practical arguments in favor of developing this kind of at-arm's-length, risk-reduced weaponry.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Gaim Mastr]

Sort of glossed over ?? :wtf:

I specifically addressed that issue 9 different times in that post. You can read through it to find my multiple responses, on multiple levels, to that particular concern.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Terry Penrod

It sounds like we should be equally worried about unconventional terrorist usage of present cruise missiles - either purchased on the black market and retrofitted or assembled from available parts and modified as needed - as well as any newer drone technology like this Lou. But to be comparatively accurate, the current specs for the drone pictured above are very much in the prototype stage as is the current estimated cost per unit. Give that system a little time for further development / refinement, and the size, specs and costs will change quite a bit.But thats the mistake your making Terry, I'm not worried by an attack from Drones, Cruise Missiles or any other high tech weapon. The point I was making which seems to have eluded you is that why would any Terrorist go through all the trouble of aquiring a high tech weapon when they could do it on the cheap. As far as "the current specs for the drone pictured above are very much in the prototype stage as is the current estimated cost per unit. Give that system a little time for further development / refinement, and the size, specs and costs will change quite a bit", you could say the same for the Cruise Missile or any other weapons system. But what it comes down to is, why kill the spider on the wall with a shotgun when you can squash it with your finger?.

Nevertheless, this all still goes straight to the same bottom line originally mentioned at the head of this discussion. We are actively developing more and more weapons for our own military that are virtually perfect terrorist deliver systems. As I said above, if bin Laden commissioned the perfect custom system for his stated purposes and methods, these would pretty much be the end result.And as I stated before, if we worried about someone using out technoligy agaist us we would still be using primitive weapons. And this is far from the "perfect custom system for his stated purposes and methods".

As for the rest of your post, I can only say is that your imagination is on overtime.

Lou :globe:

[RHooks]

We killed an Al Queda bigwig not all that long ago with a Predator drone armed with Hellfire missles. No one seemed to think that was a big deal. Plenty of things to worry about other than a radio controlled plane that can drop bombs. The goal of the military is to effciently, qucikly dispatch the enemy with as little loss to themselves as possible. It's what makes the other guy reluctant to go to war.

If it was an intelligent autonomous weapon system, I would be more concerned. As long as there is still a human in the decision making chain I'm not. This is a tool just like any other. It is not "good" or "bad". It's what is done with it that causes these distinctions. An intelligent autonomous weapon, free from conscience, social restraint or any conception of right or wrong is scary.

When crossbows first came into wide use they were decried as the end of civilized warfare. It took no special skill to use one, they were quite accurate and lethal, and you could attack your target from the safety of great range. I believe the Vatican went so far as to issue an edict against their use. We couldn't have peasants shooting nobility indiscriminately. They were supposed to face them fairly, face to face, in their peasants rags against a rich man in full plate.

Warfare has never been about obtaining a level playing field.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Perhaps a did overstate the specific dangers of this new drone in immediate terms. But it was as a result of some early replies in this thread that evaded the primary question I posed in the initial post, that did not mention potential terrorist backlash or any other details.

The main question was and still is centered on the dilemma of developing a whole new arsenal of unmanned, remote-controlled weaponry that does not require ANY risk of human life on the side of the attacking party and therefore removes the greatest single deterrant we have to war from the all important perspective of political and military decision makers.

In regards to comparisons of past and current nuclear arms, there is a built-in deterrant. That is the very real possibility that any such conflict could very well destroy all of mankind. But when more focused killing machines are developed for surgical strikes (and potentially for much wider weapon deployment), killing machines that eliminate the immediate risk of human lives by the ones using them, then we do have a different scenario.

The political and other consequences of nuclear war are self-evident. But the consequences of risk-free conventional war are not and that is the crux of my concern about this and all other new weapon systems like it. They are part of a growing trend to remove human lives, risk, political liabilities and other elements that currently make it very hard for elected leaders to make the decision to go to war or enact any form of brute military force.

In that light, I do not think that we have come close to thoroughly discussing this crucial aspect of the issue.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Terry Penrod

Perhaps a did overstate the specific dangers of this new drone in immediate terms. But it was as a result of some early replies in this thread that evaded the primary question I posed in the initial post, that did not mention potential terrorist backlash or any other details.No one has evaded your question Terry, you just don't like the answers your getting.

The main question was and still is centered on the dilemma of developing a whole new arsenal of unmanned, remote-controlled weaponry that does not require ANY risk of human life on the side of the attacking party and therefore removes the greatest single deterrant we have to war from the all important perspective of political and military decision makers.I myself see no "delimma" in this sort of weapon, because we have them already in great number.

In regards to comparisons of past and current nuclear arms, there is a built-in deterrant. That is the very real possibility that any such conflict could very well destroy all of mankind. But when more focused killing machines are developed for surgical strikes (and potentially for much wider weapon deployment), killing machines that eliminate the immediate risk of human lives by the ones using them, then we do have a different scenario.Obviously, if your using strategic Nukes. But then theres tactical Nukes.

The political and other consequences of nuclear war are self-evident. But the consequences of risk-free conventional war are not and that is the crux of my concern about this and all other new weapon systems like it. They are part of a growing trend to remove human lives, risk, political liabilities and other elements that currently make it very hard for elected leaders to make the decision to go to war or enact any form of brute military force. There's no such thing as risk-free warfare, period!

In that light, I do not think that we have come close to thoroughly discussing this crucial aspect of the issue.Like I said earlier, you just don't like the answers your getting, plain and simple.




Lou :globe:

[Terry Penrod]

.

You're entitled to your opinion Lou. However, I happen to disagree with it in regards to the core question raised in this thread.

It matters not that I like or dislike your answers, I simply disagree that this sort of weaponry is okay. I also feel very strongly that it merits serious debate by far more powerful people than you and I.

It IMO is a grave mistake to ever think that we can separate ourselves from morality by eliminating specific risks in offensive weapons that are so quick, convenient, cheap and operated remotely. They do remove the immediate risk of danger to human lives on the sdie of the attacker and that does reduce a vital deterrant to making the decision in the first place. They are also a part of a growing trend to automate all our deadliest weapons, further reducing risk to human lives by the attacker and making it ever easier to push the button from afar. And, as we all know, the very weakest link in anything man ever creates is man himself.

That part is not opinion, It is fact and it to me is worrisome. You can agree or disagree, I simply don't care either way. But my view on this issue will not change as long as people think that mankind can safely create such deadly weapons enmasse - designed to make warfare extremely quick, easy and clean - and not have to pay the price eventually.

Cheers, Terry

.