China's Military Drone Program: What Now?

In summary: I do have a problem with the US expanding their capability to do the same, for fear that other countries will want to match that capability. So, while I don't find the drone itself inherently wrong, the expansion of drone capability is something that I am very concerned about.
  • #36
russ_watters said:
"Even so, the data suggest that the ratio of senior terrorism suspects being killed is declining at a substantial rate. The New America Foundation recently concluded that 12 "militant leaders" were killed by drone strikes in 2010, compared with 10 in 2008. The number of strikes soared over that period, from 33 to 118."
Fact: The number of "militant leaders" killed INCREASED, not decreased. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that
the number of high value militant targets is decreasing
If the number of targets was decreasing I would expect to see less of them being hit, not more. The fact that they decided to blow up a bunch of other people as well is irrelevant
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
MarneMath said:
Any reason you don't wish to help facilitate a less hostile dialog?
There is nothing hostile about emphasizing things for someone who keeps missing them. Clearly, I should have also bolded the part of my post about the US violating Pakistan's sovereignty so you wouldn't miss it.
Thanks, you have shown that maybe drones are being used less to kill HVT not that there exist less HVT. Which is completely not the point I was making. So, again, i'll ask for a source that shows there exist less HVT.
Not my point or even an important issue and not a hair I care to split. That's as far as I'm taking it.
Besides the fact that a nation can declare war and mobilized mass weapons of destructions? Yea, I see no difference my mistake.
I suspect that this is a part of your mistake about my stance on the "sovereignty" issue so there is nowhere else to go with this either. If you reread and get it sorted out (and still disagree with me), you can try again. But I really don't know what you could be after beyond just misreading me.

Helpful hint though: "less hostile dialogue" is better facilitated by explaining yourself than by sarcastic one-liners.
Definition of ASSASSINATE

1: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously

2: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

I think bomb from the sky is pretty unexpectedly and treacherous of a way to be killed!
Um, ok, so you don't think definition #2 applies at all then, right? Only definition #1? That's why you didn't comment on it?

I'm not sure how "treacherously" applies here but my point - my perception - was that people use the word "assassinate" to highlight their opinion that the killings are illegal. You quoted it, but then didn't comment on it, so I take it to mean that you agree with me that the killings themselves are not illegal, just the incursions into foreign sovereign territory to do it are? That is what this entire line of argument is about, so you really should be explicit about this most critical part of the issue instead of dancing around it.

Let me say it again, explicitly: killing the targets of these drone attacks is not illegal. That's my beef with using the word "assassinate".
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Office_Shredder said:
Fact: The number of "militant leaders" killed INCREASED, not decreased. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that

If the number of targets was decreasing I would expect to see less of them being hit, not more. The fact that they decided to blow up a bunch of other people as well is irrelevant
Actually, I would expect the number to follow the ratio because more drones in the sky means more eyes tracking high value targets and more opportunities to kill them. Since the ratio has dropped drastically, it must indicate either a purposeful change in targets or a decrease in the availability of those targets or a combination of both. But again, which one of those is actually the case isn't an important piece of the puzzle here, so let's just drop it.
 
  • #39
Not my point or even an important issue and not a hair I care to split. That's as far as I'm taking it.
Then why even bring it up?

I suspect that this is a part of your mistake about my stance on the "sovereignty" issue so there is nowhere else to go with this either. If you reread and get it sorted out (and still disagree with me), you can try again. But I really don't know what you could be after beyond just misreading me.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you did literally ask what is the difference between a random American (not associated with the government) going into Pakistan and committing a murder, versus a military drone conducting a tactical strike? Do you really not see a difference between this? One is clearly a person committing a crime in a another country where he would be subject to that nation's laws. The other has the potential and has in this case set up international incident that harms international relations that can eventually lead to more broad and overarching actions.

Um, ok, so you don't think definition #2 applies at all then, right? Only definition #1?

I'm not sure how "treacherously" applies here but my point - my assumption - was that people use the word "assassinate" to highlight their opinion that the killings are illegal. You quoted it, but then didn't comment on it, so I take it to mean that you agree with me that the killings themselves are not illegal, just the incursions into foreign sovereign territory to do it are? That is what this entire line of argument is about, so you really should be explicit about this most critical part of the issue.
Like all definitions with multiple definitions, definitions may obviously apply to different events. I still fail to see how you cannot define individual targeting as an assassination. Even applying definition 2, I would still have no problem calling it an assassination. Once again, I wasn't arguing for the right or wrong about these actions. I believe the killing is illegal because to do so you must violate international law. If the targets where in kwost or mai'wan, then blow them up all day long, but once they are out of region where we have no international consent or approval to operate then it becomes an illegal action. I don't think I've been unclear on that at all.
 
  • #40
russ_watters said:
Actually, I would expect the number to follow the ratio because more drones in the sky means more eyes tracking high value targets and more opportunities to kill them. Since the ratio has dropped drastically, it must indicate either a purposeful change in targets or a decrease in the availability of those targets or a combination of both. But again, which one of those is actually the case isn't an important piece of the puzzle here, so let's just drop it.

It's a very important piece in the puzzle. A change in targeting directive is the key aspect of this whole discussion. What is an accept level for any military to use drones and who can they target? Is it acceptable for China to target drug dealers in Burma? It is acceptable for Burma to target terrorist in Burma? Is it acceptable to target political dissents in Burma? To say that a targeting directive is a non-factor is clearly avoiding the issue. The issue is targeting directive. What are we, as a society, going to say is acceptable action for us and acceptable action for other countries. Drones exist and that fact has to be accepted. What we now have to do is determine how can we use drones in a responsible matter while at the same time following guidelines we would want other countries to follow.
 
  • #41
MarneMath said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but you did literally ask what is the difference between a random American (not associated with the government) going into Pakistan and committing a murder, versus a military drone conducting a tactical strike?
Yes, you are wrong. I asked what difference I "failed to acknowledge". I still don't have a clue as to why you brought up the comparison. I don't see the relevance.
Do you really not see a difference between this? One is clearly a person committing a crime in a another country where he would be subject to that nation's laws. The other has the potential and has in this case set up international incident that harms international relations that can eventually lead to more broad and overarching actions.
That's all fine. So what? You brought it up, not me, so you're going to have to explain the relevance!
Even applying definition 2, I would still have no problem calling it an assassination. Once again, I wasn't arguing for the right or wrong about these actions.
Those two sentences contradict each other and that's the point of my disagreement on the use of the term. Definition #2 is that the action is murder and therefore by definition wrong. My sole disagreement on the use of the term is from the fact that these targeted killings are not murder. If you don't think they are, then I suggest using a different term to avoid confusion.
 
  • #42
russ_watters said:
Agreed, but at the same time, Pakistan's harboring of the militants (whether they really want them there or not) is a violation of our sovereignty.

Yes, I understand that position. However, I fail to see how that justifies the measures taken from a legal point of view. The formal way is of course to have consent of the UN before acting. I also do not see any justification in applying article 51 of the UN Charter (the one about self defence before the UN comes to some decision) here. This article does not justify preemptive war or this kind of drone war.

I understand that the current international legislation lacks some clear policy on how to deal with this kind of asymmetric threats. Looking at Israel where the situation is even more complicated as the distances are small, makes that clear. I also understand that the US have the feeling that there is some need to act. However, to cite what you just wrote:
russ_watters said:
Right and wrong, legal and illegal are not based on feelings or polls!

But to be honest I also do not see an easy solution. However, I think the current US way of stretching self defense as justifying preemptive strikes is dangerous. If adopted as a general policy, it can be easily misused to start a seemingly justified war by enabling countries to blame foreign countries of choice for terrorist attacks or other destabilizing actions without prior consent of the UN - independent of whether the accusations are adequate or not. I think the intentions of the US are honest, but rules are rules because they should not depend on such assumptions.

In my opinion that is a reason to change the rules, but not to stretch them, but I see that this may be kind of hard to accept.
russ_watters said:
If the US had an infestation of terrorists who controlled a segment of our territory and were continuously attacking China, with our government helpless to stop it, I'd be more upset about those issues than with China going after them.

Fair enough.
 
  • #43
Cthugha said:
Yes, I understand that position. However, I fail to see how that justifies the measures taken from a legal point of view. The formal way is of course to have consent of the UN before acting. I also do not see any justification in applying article 51 of the UN Charter (the one about self defence before the UN comes to some decision) here. This article does not justify preemptive war or this kind of drone war.
I certainly think there is an argument to be made either way there and in cases where the case on either side is murky...well... I take the selfish view. Ultimately, I think there is little disagreement on the US's invasion of Afghanistan, it is only the following of the Taliban/al Qaeda to Pakistan (also into some African countries) that people question.

In any case though, in your last sentence:
1. This war was not preemptive.
2. The UN charter doesn't say anything about drones as far as I know so I'm not sure what connection you are trying to draw.

The drones really are irrelevant to the issue of Pakistan's sovereignty. I guess maybe it's the instant thoughts of 1984 that people get when they hear about drones that gets them all uppity about the issue*. But the sovereignty issue is completely separate. The attack on Bin Laden's compound was a much worse incursion than any individual drone attack, for example.
But to be honest I also do not see an easy solution. However, I think the current US way of stretching self defense as justifying preemptive strikes is dangerous.
You keep mentioning preemptive strikes. To what are you referring? The only preemptive action I'm aware of here is the Iraq war and it isn't part of this discussion. Every aspect of the War on Terror, be it our attacks on Afghanistan, in Pakistan and northern Africa are responses (to several al Qaeda attacks), not preemptions.

*Because so much of this issue is false/improper conflagurations of separate issues, I'm really at a loss sometimes to figure out peoples' issues with drones. I think some might also be that people are uncomfortable with the power - the apparent invincibility - of the US's drone actions. As if it is just so easy for us that people feel uncomfortable and figure it must be wrong.
 
  • #44
russ_watters said:
Ultimately, I think there is little disagreement on the US's invasion of Afghanistan, it is only the following of the Taliban/al Qaeda to Pakistan (also into some African countries) that people question.

In any case though, in your last sentence:
1. This war was not preemptive.

From the legal point of view, there is (maybe) little difference. The United Nations Security Council did not authorize the US campaign. So the US considered the invasion as an act of collective self defense as allowed by chapter 51 of the UN when an attack has occurred. This is the only way such an invasion can be allowed in terms of international law unless of course the UN authorizes it (or the state in question agrees). You are right that preemptive is not really a matching word. What I meant to express is the action of performing an attack in collective self defense before the UN has come to a conclusion or given authorization. Now the catch is that the international court of justice has stated the opinion (back in 2004 concerning Israel building a wall in Palestine territory) that this right of collective self defense only applies in responses to attacks from states. This is in some contrast to UN resolutions 1368 and 1373 (the ones directly from 2001) which might be read in a manner allowing collective self defense in response to attacks not coming from states.

This gives the asymmetry problem I mentioned. The attacks came from organized groups, but not states. However, collective self defense requires to take measures against states. Up to now the UN have not come up with a solution for this problem and strictly speaking there is no right for self defense against terrorist attacks - just authorized campaigns are allowed. This is obviously not satisfying, not acceptable and needs to be resolved.

russ_watters said:
2. The UN charter doesn't say anything about drones as far as I know so I'm not sure what connection you are trying to draw.

No, it does not. My only point was that pretty much any countermeasure is not allowed unless authorized. This was not specific to drones.

russ_watters said:
The drones really are irrelevant to the issue of Pakistan's sovereignty. I guess maybe it's the instant thoughts of 1984 that people get when they hear about drones that gets them all uppity about the issue*. But the sovereignty issue is completely separate. The attack on Bin Laden's compound was a much worse incursion than any individual drone attack, for example.

Yes, of course. I agree with that. I just mentioned drones as they come up frequently in this thread. I also do not see anything special about drones. The way sovereignty is undermined does not really make a difference.


russ_watters said:
You keep mentioning preemptive strikes. To what are you referring? The only preemptive action I'm aware of here is the Iraq war and it isn't part of this discussion. Every aspect of the War on Terror, be it our attacks on Afghanistan, in Pakistan and northern Africa are responses (to several al Qaeda attacks), not preemptions.

As said above, preemptive was maybe not the right word. Unauthorized might be a better match. They are responses on a questionable legal basis. In my opinion it is necessary to find an acceptable way to deal with the issue of self defense in response to terrorist attacks and put it on a solid legal base quickly. Otherwise, it will be problematic to draw the line in the future. If the US can invade without UN authorization, what do we do if Israel wants to invade one of its neighbors claiming that terrorism originates from there? What about India and Pakistan? Ireland and North Ireland (ok, that is an absurd scenario, but it illustrates the point)? What are the rules? What kind of proof is required? Besides that having an accepted legal basis for these cases will significantly reduce the odds of breeding more terrorists in the countries which are subject to the countermeasures. It is easy for terrorist recruiters to blame the US as evil invaders. It is harder to blame the whole world/UN.

Anyway, you are right that this is probably not too drone specific anymore and I do not want to get off topic.

russ_watters said:
*Because so much of this issue is false/improper conflagurations of separate issues, I'm really at a loss sometimes to figure out peoples' issues with drones. I think some might also be that people are uncomfortable with the power - the apparent invincibility - of the US's drone actions. As if it is just so easy for us that people feel uncomfortable and figure it must be wrong.

Maybe there is a lower inhibition threshold for using drones as there are no lives at risk on the attacking side, but I am not sure whether that is a really important factor.

Besides I can see some points of how drones might seem creepy. A whole army consisting of men still has some group dynamics, conscience and (hopefully) some sense of right or wrong and ethics. So in order to commit a war crime - like killing lots of innocent civilians - one needs to convince a large group of people that wrong is right, maybe brainwashing them over the course of time. With drones you need just few ruthless people and need almost no time. I know that this is far fetched, but this is how fear works: worst case scenarios. However, in my opinion, one could already achieve the same using more conventional types of weapons like bombs. It might appear less horrible for the world when drones are used, though.
 
  • #45
This report is the result of nine months of research by the International Human Rights
and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School (Stanford Clinic) and the Global
Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law (NYU Clinic):

“In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U. S. safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.” This narrative is false.

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.
Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury.
Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best.
Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents.”
http://www.livingunderdrones.org/ [Broken]

The two bombs at the Boston Marathon killed three and injured nearly 200 people. The bombs were deliberately fabricated to spread shrapnel in order to cause maximum injuries. The deaths and maiming of innocents shocked our entire nation and prompted a massive law enforcement effort to find and arrest those responsible. Those exploding bombs that killed and maimed is called an act of terror.

When US Drone unleash their missiles on targeted “plotters” and inadvertently kill and injure nearby innocent adults and children it is called “collateral damage”. It is mainly ignored by the U. S. media and, in turn, by the public. The surviving families of the dead and injured in those faraway countries call the U. S. drone attacks an act of terror.

U. S. CIA Drone attacks target gatherings such as weddings and funerals in order to “take out” a person suspected of planning something. Eye witness reports have shown evidence that at least 50 civilians have been killed in rapid follow-up strikes when rescuers had gone to help victims. When an explosion in the midst of a wedding party or among the mourners at a funeral kills and injures innocents, are those victims somehow less valuable than our victims in Boston? Are these targeted killings acts of terror?

“Our government has decided that instead of detaining members of al-Qaida (at Guantánamo) they are going to kill them using unmanned armed drones. An estimated 4,000 people have been killed by U. S, drones in approximately 420 “targeted killings” operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Niger, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, and Somalia since the first drone strike was conducted under the Bush Administration. These estimated numbers of deaths include 176 children.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ch...-humanity-committed-by-barack-h-obama/5320570

“The White House, together with the Pentagon and the CIA, reportedly maintains a "kill list" with potential drone targets. President Barack Obama reportedly approves every name that is added to the list after looking over biographies of the suspected terrorists that one official referred to as "baseball cards." According to the Justice Department white paper, the U.S. does not need evidence of a specific attack to consider an alleged terrorist an "imminent" threat worthy of a targeted strike.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/aclu-drones_n_2926785.html

“The MQ-9 Reaper drone can carry up to 14 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles. The MQ-1 Predator can carry 2 Hellfires. Each missile carries a warhead: the AGM-114M Hellfire II warhead is the Blast fragmentation/incendiary type, and the AGM-114N Hellfire II carries the Metal augmented charge (MAC) (Thermobaric) warhead. This thermobaric weapon, which includes the type known as a "fuel-air bomb", is an explosive weapon that produces a blast wave of a significantly longer duration than those produced by condensed explosives. This is useful in military applications where its longer duration increases the numbers of casualties and causes more damage to structures.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_augmented_charge

“The CIA and the military are carrying out an illegal “targeted killing” program in which people far from any battlefield are determined to be enemies of the state and killed without charge or trial. The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy. The targeted killing program operates with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.” http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones

The U. S. government is relying on two arguments to justify its drone policy under international law:
1. That the US remained in a state of war with al-Qaida and its affiliates, or
2. That those individuals targeted in countries such as Pakistan were planning imminent attacks against US interests. This procedure allows the U. S. to assign the roles of Judge, Jury, Prosecutor, and Executioner to a select group, with no opportunity for the exercise of any of the rights of the accused suspected plotter.

“The legal justification for drone strikes has become so stretched that critics fear it could now encourage other countries to claim they were acting within international law if they deployed similar technology. Hina Shamsi, a director at the American Civil Liberties Union, warned that the issue of legal reciprocity was not just a hypothetical concern: "The use of this technology is spreading and we have to think about what we would say if other countries used drones for targeted killing programmes. The drone strikes are counterproductive because they gave rise to a desire, particularly among young men, to seek revenge for the drone strikes, thus radicalizing a new generation that hate the United States. Retired Navy Commander Leah Bolger, past president of Veterans for Peace, explains, “The combat drone program is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, none of whom received any sort of due process; were citizens of a country with which we are not at war; and were murdered, not as a result of military action, but by a civilian agency – the CIA.”
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pre...ywhere-washington-march-against-us-drone-warf

The height of hypocrisy is reached every day that US media do not even mention that our own government is murdering innocents in countries around the world and yet, when an American child is murdered our media and our nation can focus on nothing else. Is an American innocent person in Boston any more valuable than an innocent person in Pakistan?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
  • #47
Bob, that is a disgusting collection of morally depraved propaganda nonsense. It makes my skin crawl to read it. It is unworthy of a full point by point analysis, so just a quick couple of high(low)lights.

1. Yes, drones kill civilians. Duh. Stating that fact without analysis of the historical context is at best pointless. But here's the context and it is utterly obvious: drones make war safer for civilians than similar alternatives. That is an obvious result of the fact that they use small, accurate missiles and are relatively stealthy.

2. Equating collateral damage in war to the Boston Bombings? Disgusting, morally twisted and unworthy of a direct response. You may as well be calling fatal car accident perpetrators terrorists for all the usefulness of the comparison.

3. Murder? You keep using that word. I don't think you have any idea what it means.
 
  • #48
1. Yes, attacking people in Pakistan is a violation of their national sovereignty.

2. Yes, the people we do attack in Pakistan are legitimate military targets, as they're conducting a war in Afghanistan and then fleeing back over the border into "safe" territory.

3. Yes, Pakistan is one of our allies - or at least they receive military aid from us, even if we're not exactly close allies.

I guess the legal way to handle this would be to consider Pakistan providing safe haven to organizations conducting attacks in Afghanistan and to declare war on Pakistan. That wouldn't help either the US or Pakistan. Finding some pretense that both governments can find acceptable is a solution that works.

The pretense being that as long as US military troops don't actually set foot upon Pakistan territory, we're not really violating their sovereignty - an act that would require Pakistan to take an action they definitely don't want to take. They'd lose the military aid we provide them, plus they'd be fighting a nation that was militarily superior to them.

It's a solution that works in practice, even if it doesn't seem like it should work in theory.

The fact that we use drones (or any weapons) to attack legitimate military targets is what differentiates military attacks from terrorist attacks.

(Although I have to admit that if the facility that drones were operated from were attacked by a suicide car bomb, the public would still probably cry that it was a terrorist attack. Terminology seems to be rather sloppy when it comes to terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, for that matter.)
 
  • #49
Thread closed for moderation.
 
<h2>1. What is China's current status in terms of military drone technology?</h2><p>China is currently one of the leading countries in terms of military drone technology. They have made significant advancements in both the development and deployment of various types of drones for military use.</p><h2>2. How does China's military drone program compare to other countries?</h2><p>China's military drone program is considered to be one of the most advanced and rapidly growing in the world. They have invested heavily in research and development, and have successfully developed and deployed a wide range of drones for various purposes.</p><h2>3. What types of drones does China currently have in their military arsenal?</h2><p>China's military drone program includes a variety of drones, including reconnaissance drones, attack drones, and even stealth drones. They also have a range of drones specifically designed for maritime and land-based operations.</p><h2>4. How has China's military drone program evolved over the years?</h2><p>China's military drone program has evolved significantly over the years. They started with basic surveillance drones in the 1990s and have since developed more advanced and sophisticated drones with improved capabilities and technologies.</p><h2>5. What are the potential implications of China's military drone program for global security?</h2><p>China's military drone program has raised concerns among other countries, particularly in terms of its potential impact on global security. Some worry that China's advanced drone technology could challenge the current military balance and lead to increased tensions and conflicts.</p>

1. What is China's current status in terms of military drone technology?

China is currently one of the leading countries in terms of military drone technology. They have made significant advancements in both the development and deployment of various types of drones for military use.

2. How does China's military drone program compare to other countries?

China's military drone program is considered to be one of the most advanced and rapidly growing in the world. They have invested heavily in research and development, and have successfully developed and deployed a wide range of drones for various purposes.

3. What types of drones does China currently have in their military arsenal?

China's military drone program includes a variety of drones, including reconnaissance drones, attack drones, and even stealth drones. They also have a range of drones specifically designed for maritime and land-based operations.

4. How has China's military drone program evolved over the years?

China's military drone program has evolved significantly over the years. They started with basic surveillance drones in the 1990s and have since developed more advanced and sophisticated drones with improved capabilities and technologies.

5. What are the potential implications of China's military drone program for global security?

China's military drone program has raised concerns among other countries, particularly in terms of its potential impact on global security. Some worry that China's advanced drone technology could challenge the current military balance and lead to increased tensions and conflicts.

Similar threads

  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
85
Views
12K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
13
Views
737
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top