One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:47 am


Scott Horton Interviews Chris Woods
Scott Horton, February 07, 2012

Chris Woods, documentary producer and freelancer for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, discusses his article “Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals;” why these attacks qualify as state terrorism by any sensible definition; how the MSM enables government officials to smear their critics behind a veil of anonymity; the circumstantial evidence that former CIA Director Leon Panetta was responsible for the targeting of rescuers and funeral goers; and why the time is ripe for formal investigations, now that Obama himself has outed the “secret” war in Pakistan.

MP3 here. (19:36)
http://dissentradio.com/radio/12_02_06_woods.mp3

Chris Woods is an award-winning London-based investigative journalist and documentary film maker. He specialises in world affairs, notably the global war on terror. For many years he was based at the BBC, working as a senior producer on flagship programmes Newsnight and Panorama. More recently, he has written and directed major documentaries for Channel 4′s Dispatches and for Al Jazeera. He has been with the Bureau since spring 2010.

http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/07/chris-woods-2/


User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:53 am


Attack on the drones
•Pakistan blasts US blitz
•Hints they may hit back
•Pledges support for Iran


Warning ... envoy Hasan
Exclusive By STEPHEN MOYES Published: Today at 01:00

PAKISTAN yesterday warned Britain to help stop the American "Drone Wars" that are slaughtering hundreds of its innocent civilians.

The nuclear power chillingly declared it "has the means" to retaliate unless the carnage ceases.

Pakistan's High Commissioner to Britain Wajid Shamsul Hasan told The Sun in an exclusive interview that his country's relations with America are at their lowest ebb.

He said: "Patience is definitely reaching exhaustion levels." Mr Hasan said Pakistan backs the War on Terror waged by Britain and the US.

But he urged PM David Cameron to condemn US drone attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban training camps in the north west of his country — dubbing them as "war crimes" and "little more than state executions".

Tough-talking Mr Hasan also declared Pakistan would have no choice but to support Iran if "aggressive" Israel attacks it.

But his immediate concern is the drones known to have killed 535 civilians, including 60 children, in three years.

Pakistan claims the real death toll is more than 1,000. The unmanned aircraft blast missiles at targets, directed by a computer thousands of miles away.

The High Commissioner said: "I think time is running out until the Pakistan government can take a stand.

"They will have to at some stage take punitive actions to stop them. They have got means to take such actions to defend their own frontier and territories.

"But that will inflame the situation and stop the War on Terror and that is not what we want."

The US military claim drones have "decimated" the al-Qaeda leadership since 2008 with no reported civilian casualties.

But Mr Hasan said: "We know the damage — destroyed schools, communities, hospitals. They are civilians — children, women, families. Our losses are enormous.

"Generally people think that deaths caused by drone attacks should be treated as war crimes.

"There is so much animosity that perhaps the Americans are the most hated people in the minds of the people in Pakistan."

Mr Hasan urged Britain to tell the US its drone strikes are counter-productive.


On Iran, Mr Hasan said: "We would not like Israel to attack any country, irrespective of whether it's Iran or any nuclear country. We wouldn't like to be seen as part of Israel's campaign against any country. If Israel attacks Iran, it will have an impact on Pakistan as well.

"We will have to safeguard our own interests. We also have a Shia population in Pakistan who will not take it lying down.

He warned that India and Gulf countries could also get involved in any conflict.

Historian Mark Almond said of Mr Hasan's declarations: "This represents an escalation in tension."


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... tacks.html

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Grizzly » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:01 am

Drones will be admitted to standard US airspace by 2015
http://www.popsci.com.au/technology/avi ... ce-by-2015

Australian Media Properties
Where To Buy Advertise Contact Us
Australian Popular Science
FOLLOW US
Subscribe
New Issue
Facebook
Twitter
What is Popular Science? What is Popular Science?

Gadgets
Cars
Science
Technology
DIY
Galleries

// Home // Technology // Aviation // Drones Will Be Admitted to Standard US Airspace By 2015

Drones Will Be Admitted to Standard US Airspace By 2015
Rebecca Boyle
at 06:02 AM 08 Feb 2012
Comments 1
The FAA's NextGen update is finally being funded.
The FAA's NextGen update is finally being funded.
IMAGE BY FAA
Aviation //

The skies are going to look very different pretty soon, and it's been a long time coming. United States Congress finally passed a spending bill for their Federal Aviation Administration, allocating US$63.4 billion for modernising the country's air traffic control systems and expanding airspace for unmanned planes within three and a half years.

By Sept. 30, 2015, drones will have to have access to U.S. airspace that is currently reserved for piloted aircraft. This applies to military, commercial and privately owned drones - so it could mean a major increase in unmanned aircraft winging through our airspace. That's airspace to be shared with airliners, cargo planes and small private aircraft.

As it is now, drones can only use some pieces of military airspace and they can patrol the nation's borders. Some 300 public agencies can also use drones, according to the AP, but they must be at low altitudes and away from airports.

The FAA has spent years planning its NextGen upgrade, a new system designed to streamline traffic at airports, save fuel and reduce air travel headaches. NextGen is a behemoth program that consists of several complementary systems, notably the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or ADS-B in airspace lingo. This system uses GPS to determine aircraft location, and it will enable planes to land in a more efficient, steep glide, rather than the fuel-wasting stair-step descents of the past and present. This is already being rolled out in some places, but the new bill requires the FAA to set up new arrival procedures at the country's 35 busiest airports.

Eventually, planes will all have GPS that can update a plane's location every second, instead of the six to 12 seconds it takes with current radar systems, AP points out. This will allow pilots to know where their planes are relative to each other, and this could help ease congestion and make for smoother taxi procedures.

NextGen has been planned and debated for years, and the modernisation plan has been stymied by Congressional wrangling since 2007. This new bill, which now goes to President Obama for his signature, will finally get things moving again.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:04 am

What a mean looking a-hole. Kinda looks like Malcolm McDowell.


General: ‘Use drones to kill’ the Taliban in Pakistan
Keane fears loss of Afghanistan progress

By Rowan Scarborough
-
The Washington Times
Wednesday, February 8, 2012

ImageA longtime adviser to U.S. commanders in Afghanistan says now is the time for President Obama to change strategy and target Taliban leaders ensconced in Pakistan, using drones and other tactics employed to kill al Qaeda operatives over the past 10 years.

“We kill them. We use drones to kill them, just like we did al Qaeda,” said retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, just back from a two-week tour of the battlefield and consultations with U.S. commanders. “The president has to change the policy and issue a ‘finding’ that this is a covert operation under the province of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

A White House spokesman declined to comment Wednesday.

Gen. Keane pointed out one of the great ironies of the long war in Afghanistan: The main U.S. foe is the Taliban, but senior Taliban leaders have untouchable safe havens in Quetta and Peshawar.

Taliban leaders in Pakistan work out of command centers and conduct conferences, or shuras, with lower-level commanders on tactics for killing NATO troops and bringing down the elected government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Taliban leaders have havens in Quetta and Peshawar in Pakistan, said retired Army Gen. Jack Keane,“A lot of these guys command from the rear, if you will, telling their guys by orders what to do and what not to do,” a U.S. briefer said to visiting officers last year.

Until now, the U.S. has not targeted senior Taliban leaders for fear of alienating Pakistan, whose intelligence service helped put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan in the 1990s. Pakistan will not target them because of tribal loyalties and fears that such action could destabilize the country via a militant uprising.

What Gen. Keane is recommending is a war campaign in which the intelligence community, principally the CIA and the National Security Agency, focus spies, communications intercepts and satellites on Taliban commanders inside Pakistan. Once a commander is located, a Predator drone would be sent to kill him with a Hellfire missile.

“If we don’t start targeting the Taliban leadership now … the risk is much too high in terms of our ability to sustain the successes that we’ve had. We cannot let that Afghan Taliban leadership that lives in Pakistan continue to preside over this war and recruit and provide resources,” Gen. Keane said.

“We’ve got to get involved in disrupting those functions. We have to target them like we have done al Qaeda. We would not have to conduct on-ground operations, but we have to change their behavior by targeting them.”

‘A persistent campaign’

He added: “Once you turn all of our intel systems on a priority target, we start to get a considerable amount of information, and the people who run these operations know how best to deal with it.

“We’re talking about a persistent campaign that puts the Taliban leadership at risk, which would change their behavior, and as a result of this, they would no longer be able to control operations effectively in Afghanistan.

“For 10 years, we have been unwilling to do this because we have believed this would destabilize Pakistan. The result is, we are destabilizing Afghanistan, and that is really tragic.”

One of those who would be targeted presumably is a Taliban leader whom the U.S. once held at the military detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Qayyum Zakir returned to Afghanistan after his release in 2008 and eventually became the underboss for Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
‹‹ previous123next ››

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -pakistan/

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:12 pm

DHS looking for vendors to perform ‘remote sensing’ airborne photography
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/25608?c ... y_response
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:17 pm

Ten Fun Facts About Drones

Drones are coming to America in force! (Thanks to Congressional pushing.) So you’d better be ready for them. Here are 10 fun facts about drones from recent news and gleaned from attending a trade organization conference Wednesday. Members of the military spoke to an audience comprised mainly of drone industry folks about how they’re using “weapons that both look and shoot” abroad and how they hope to ease those drones’ transition into U.S. skies.

1. There could be 30,000 drones overhead in the U.S. by 2020, reports the Washington Times.

2. Reaper drones’ “unblinking stare” can currently take in a 4 kilometer by 4 kilometer area — about the size of Fairfax — but that will soon be expanded, said Air Force Lieutenant General Larry James, to a 10 kilometer by 10 kilometer stare, or two-thirds the size of Washington, D.C. They call this the “Gorgon Stare” — named for the terrifying females of Greek mythology, the best known being the snake-headed Medusa. No drones have the ability to turn you to stone with their gaze (yet).

Protesters outside of the UASVI conference

3. There’s a fair amount of disagreement about what to call drones. The industry refers to them as UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). Though one manufacturer, MLB Company, which launched its business in the late 1990s when no one knew what a “UAV” was and associated “drones” only with Office Space, coined the name “spy planes” for the flying machines. The Air Force calls them RPAs (remote piloted aircraft) because “they aren’t unmanned; there are pilots involved,” protested one Air Force lieutenant general. When not talking about massive Predator type drones, but instead referring to the type you can fit in the trunk of your car, many call them sUAS (small unmanned air systems). Opponents meanwhile have coined the catchy “killer drones” to describe the not-so cuddly flying machines.

4. The surveillance industry wants drones to be more cuddly, though. In Britain, manufacturers have suggested painting drones bright colors as a way to make them seem friendlier and less reminiscent of war zones, reports The Guardian. Because Big Brother is a lot more appealing wearing hot pink, quips Slate.

The Northrop Grumman LEMV may be the world's largest unmanned aircraft. The all-seeing blimp is seven stories tall.

5. To drone manufacturers, resistance is futile… but hilarious. California Congressman Buck McKeon, a proud member of the Unmanned Systems Caucus, gave a keynote hoorah at the AUSVI conference Wednesday morning. His speech lamenting cuts to the military budget over the last 50 years was interrupted by a middle-aged woman who rushed the stage saying, “We want spending on education, not war.” This got a few laughs from the hundreds of drone industry members in the audience. As she was physically lifted and carried off the stage, she chanted, “Stop killer drones.” That got some boos and even heartier laughs from the audience.

6. The Air Force has 65,000 – 70,000 people working to process all of the data and footage it’s currently collecting from drones. Lt. Gen. James says the analysts’ work includes “watching life in Afghanistan and looking for patterns,” and that a Rand review suggested they need 100,000 people devoted to the task. The military hope is that better computer algorithms and software analysis can be developed to combat their drowning in data.

7. Cape Canaveral is now a drone base. Since the space program is now on a death watch, it’s good to know they’ve found a way to repurpose this base. U.S. Customs and Border Protection flies drones on our northern, southern, and southeastern borders. The base previously used primarily to launch shuttles is now a drone practice spot and sends out a General Atomic Guardian drone to monitor the SE border and fly over the ocean to make drug busts.

8. The FAA Reauthorization Act calls for six drone test sites around the U.S. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security plans to launch a site in June — likely in the Southeast — devoted to testing drones for use by first responders (local and state police, firefighters, etc.). DHS is looking to provide funds to industry partners so they can bring their drone technology in for test drives. This is how they will ensure that drones are safe for use — and have mastered the “sense and avoid” features that are so important to the FAA, so that a drone doesn’t fly into a plane engine or crash into a home — and how drones will more easily be making their way to your local police station.

Requests to the FAA to fly drones almost doubles each year. Congress has ordered the agency to speed up its process for granting those requests.

9. The Coast Guard thinks that drones will increase their prosecutions by 95%. Coast Guard Captain Chris Martino says the Coast Guard is currently restricted in its use of drones, and has to partner with the Navy to use theirs, but projects that integrating unmanned vehicles into the Coast Guard’s array of tools will increase their surveillance of U.S. waters by 70%, meaning they’ll catch (and prosecute) far more drug runners, among others.

“The 20th century was the era of manned aircraft; the 21st Century is the era of unmanned aircraft,” said Martino.

10. Drones can tase you, bro.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:16 pm

Voters Are Gung-Ho for Use of Drones But Not Over the United States
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ted_states
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:31 pm

Pentagon working with FAA to open U.S. airspace to combat drones
The military says the nearly 7,500 robotic aircraft it has accrued for use overseas need to come home at some point. But the FAA doesn't allow drones in U.S. airspace without a special certificate.


Drones such as the jet-powered, high-flying RQ-4 Global Hawk made by Northrop Grumman have been successful in providing aerial coverage of recent catastrophic events like the tsunami in Japan and earthquake in Haiti. (U.S. Air Force / January 25, 2012)

By W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times
February 13, 2012, 9:57 p.m.
With a growing fleet of combat drones in its arsenal, the Pentagon is working with the Federal Aviation Administration to open U.S. airspace to its robotic aircraft.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, the military says the drones that it has spent the last decade accruing need to return to the United States. When the nation first went to war after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the military had around 50 drones. Now it owns nearly 7,500.

These flying robots need to be shipped home at some point, and the military then hopes to station them at various military bases and use them for many purposes. But the FAA doesn't allow drones in national airspace without a special certificate.

These aircraft would be used to help train and retrain the pilots who fly the drones remotely, but they also are likely to find new roles at home in emergencies, helping firefighters see hot spots during wildfires or possibly even dropping water to combat the blaze.

At a recent conference about robotic technology in Washington, D.C., a number of military members spoke about the importance of integrating drones along with manned aircraft.

"The stuff from Afghanistan is going to come back," Steve Pennington, the Air Force's director of ranges, bases and airspace, said at the conference. The Department of Defense "doesn't want a segregated environment. We want a fully integrated environment."

That means the Pentagon wants the same rules for drones as any other military aircraft in the U.S. today.

Robotic technology was the focus of the Assn. for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International's annual program review conference in Washington last week. For three days, a crowd made up of more than 500 military contractors, military personnel and industry insiders packed the Omni Shoreham Hotel to listen to the foremost experts on robots in the air, on the ground and in the sea.

Once the stuff of science-fiction novels, robotic technology now plays a major role day-to-day life. Automated machines help farmers gather crops. Robotic submarines scour the ocean floor for signs of oil beds. Flying drones have become crucial in hunting suspected terrorists in the Middle East.

Drones such as the jet-powered, high-flying RQ-4 Global Hawk made by Northrop Grumman Corp. have also been successful in providing aerial coverage of recent catastrophic events like the tsunami in Japan and earthquake in Haiti.

The FAA has said that remotely piloted aircraft aren't allowed in national airspace on a wide scale because they don't have an adequate "detect, sense and avoid" technology to prevent midair collisions.

The FAA does allow exceptions. Unarmed Predator drones are used to patrol the nation's borders through special certifications. The FAA said it issued 313 such certificates last year.

The vast majority of the military's drones are small — similar to hobby aircraft. The FAA is working on proposed rules for integrating these drones, which are being eyed by law enforcement and private business to provide aerial surveillance. The FAA expects to release the proposal on small drones this spring.

But the Pentagon is concerned about flying hundreds of larger drones, including Global Hawks as well as MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers, both made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. in Poway.

And last week Congress approved legislation that requires the FAA to have a plan to integrate drones of all kinds into national airspace on a wide scale by 2015.

The Army will conduct a demonstration this summer at its Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, testing ground-based radars and other sense-and-avoid technology, Mary Ottman, deputy product director with the Army, said at the conference.

These first steps are crucial, said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who co-chairs a bipartisan drone caucus with Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Santa Clarita). Officially known as the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, the panel was formed in 2009 to inform members of Congress on the far-reaching applications of drone technology.

McKeon also said he was in favor of moving along the process of integrating drones into civil airspace. This came before he was abruptly interrupted by an anti-drone female protester during a speech.

"These drones are playing God," she said, carrying a banner that read "Stop Killer Drones." She was part of a group that wants the end of drone strikes.

Within seconds, hotel security personnel surrounded the woman. She was carried out chanting, "Stop killer drones."

McKeon, who stood silent throughout the brief protest, went on with his speech.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:56 am


Animal rights group says drone shot down (Video)

A remote-controlled aircraft owned by an animal rights group was reportedly shot down near Broxton Bridge Plantation Sunday near Ehrhardt, S.C.

Steve Hindi, president of SHARK (SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness), said his group was preparing to launch its Mikrokopter drone to video what he called a live pigeon shoot on Sunday when law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying.

"It didn't work; what SHARK was doing was perfectly legal," Hindi said in a news release. "Once they knew nothing was going to stop us, the shooting stopped and the cars lined up to leave."

He said the animal rights group decided to send the drone up anyway.

"Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out," Hindi said in the release. "As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter."

He claimed the shooters were "in tree cover" and "fled the scene on small motorized vehicles."

"It is important to note how dangerous this was, as they were shooting toward and into a well-travelled highway," Hindi stated in the release. He said someone from SHARK called the Colleton County Sheriff's Department, which took a report of the incident.

The Colleton County Sheriff's Department filed a malicious damage to property incident report.

According to the report, Hindi told the responding deputy the group's remote-controlled aircraft "was hovering over U.S. 601 when he heard a shot come from the wood line. The shot sounded to him that it was of small caliber."

The incident report went on to state that "once shot, the helicopter lost lift and crash landed on the roadway of U.S. 601."

The deputy noted in the report that he was unable to speak to anyone at Broxton Bridge Plantation following the incident.

Hindi estimated damage to the drone at around $200 to $300.

Hindi said he will seek charges against those who shot down the drone.

"This was SHARK's first encounter with the Broxton Bridge Plantation, but it will certainly not be the last," Hindi said in the release. "We are already making plans for a considerably upscaled action in 2013."

http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group ... 3ce6c.html

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Allegro » Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:51 am

.
Tom Engelhardt’s essay may not disclose new news for many RI readers, but I think a few passages introduce elements of history that would be informative. This one excerpt I thought to highlight for you.

    “(…if you’re in the mood to indulge in irony, citizen’s war would be left to the guerrillas of the world, which in our era has largely meant to fundamentalist religious sects.)”

No personal highlights in this read; lots of links in original.

_________________
Remotely Piloted War
How Drone War Became the American Way of Life
— By Tom Engelhardt | posted 9:27am, February 23, 2012

    In the American mind, if Apple made weapons, they would undoubtedly be drones, those remotely piloted planes getting such great press here. They have generally been greeted as if they were the sleekest of iPhones armed with missiles.

    When the first American drone assassins burst onto the global stage early in the last decade, they caught most of us by surprise, especially because they seemed to come out of nowhere or from some wild sci-fi novel. Ever since, they've been touted in the media as the shiniest presents under the American Christmas tree of war, the perfect weapons to solve our problems when it comes to evildoers lurking in the global badlands.

    And can you blame Americans for their love affair with the drone? Who wouldn’t be wowed by the most technologically advanced, futuristic, no-pain-all-gain weapon around?

    Here’s the thing, though: put drones in a more familiar context, skip the awestruck commentary, and they should have been eerily familiar. If, for instance, they were car factories, they would seem so much less exotic to us.

    Think about it: What does a drone do? Like a modern car factory, it replaces a pilot, a skilled job that takes significant training, with robotics and a degraded version of the same job outsourced elsewhere. In this case, the “offshore” location that job headed for wasn’t China or Mexico, but a military base in the U.S., where a guy with a joystick, trained in a hurry and sitting at a computer monitor, is “piloting” that plane. And given our experience with the hemorrhaging of good jobs from the U.S., who will be surprised to discover that, in 2011, the U.S. Air Force was already training more drone “pilots” than actual fighter and bomber pilots combined?

    That’s one way drones are something other than the futuristic sci-fi wonders we imagine them to be. But there’s another way that drones have been heading for the American “homeland” for four decades, and it has next to nothing to do with technology, advanced or otherwise.

    In a sense, drone war might be thought of as the most natural form of war for the All Volunteer Military. To understand why that’s so, we need to head back to a crucial decision implemented just as the Vietnam war was ending.

    Disarming the Amateurs, Demobilizing the Citizenry

    It’s true that, in the wake of grinding wars that have also been debacles -- the Afghan version of which has entered its 11th year -- the U.S. military is in ratty shape. Its equipment needs refurbishing and its troops are worn down. The stress of endlessly repeated tours of duty in war zones, brain injuries and other wounds caused by the roadside bombs that have often replaced a visible enemy on the “battlefield,” suicide rates that can’t be staunched, rising sexual violence within the military, increasing crime rates around military bases, and all the other strains and pains of unending war have taken their toll.

    Still, ours remains an intact, unrebellious, professional military. If you really want to see a force on its last legs, you need to leave the post-9/11 years behind and go back to the Vietnam era. In 1971, in Armed Forces Journal, Colonel Robert D. Heinl, Jr., author of a definitive history of the Marine Corps, wrote of “widespread conditions among American forces in Vietnam that have only been exceeded in this century by the French Army’s Nivelle mutinies of 1917 and the collapse of the Tsarist armies [of Russia] in 1916 and 1917.”

    The U.S. military in Vietnam and at bases in the U.S. and around world was essentially at the edge of rebellion. Disaffection with an increasingly unpopular war on the Asian mainland, rejected by ever more Americans and emphatically protested at home, had infected the military, which was, after all, made up significantly of draftees.

    Desertion rates were rising, as was drug use. In the field, “search and evade” (a mocking, descriptive accurate replacement for “search and destroy”) operations were becoming commonplace. “Fraggings” -- attacks on unpopular officers or NCOs -- had doubled. ("Word of the deaths of officers will bring cheers at troop movies or in bivouacs of certain units.") And according to Col. Heinl, there were then as many as 144 antiwar “underground newspapers” published by or aimed at soldiers. At the moment when he wrote, in fact, the antiwar movement in the U.S. was being spearheaded by a rising tide of disaffected Vietnam veterans speaking out against their war and the way they had fought it.

    In this fashion, an American citizen’s army, a draft military, had reached its limits and was voting with its feet against an imperial war. This was democracy in action transferred to the battlefield and the military base. And it was deeply disturbing to the U.S. high command, which had, by then, lost faith in the future possibilities of a draft army. In fact, faced with ever more ill-disciplined troops, the military’s top commanders had clearly concluded: never again!

    So on the very day the Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973, officially signaling the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam (though not quite its actual end), President Richard Nixon also signed a decree ending the draft. It was an admission of the obvious: war, American-style, as it had been practiced since World War II, had lost its hold on young minds.

    There was no question that U.S. military and civilian leaders intended, at that moment, to sever war and war-making from an aroused citizenry. In that sense, they glimpsed something of the future they meant to shape, but even they couldn’t have guessed just where American war would be heading. Army Chief of Staff General Creighton Abrams, for instance, actually thought he was curbing the future rashness of civilian leaders by -- as Andrew Bacevich explained in his book The New American Militarism -- “making the active army operationally dependent on the reserves.” In this way, no future president could commit the country to a significant war “without first taking the politically sensitive and economically costly step of calling up America’s ‘weekend warriors.’”

    Abrams was wrong, of course, though he ensured that, decades hence, the reserves, too, would suffer the pain of disastrous wars once again fought on the Eurasian mainland. Still, whatever the generals and the civilian leaders didn’t know about the effects of their acts then, the founding of the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) may have been the single most important decision made by Washington in the post-Vietnam era of the foreshortened American Century.

    Today, few enough even remember that moment and far fewer have considered its import. Yet, historically speaking, that 1973 severing of war from the populace might be said to have ended an almost two-century-old democratic experiment in fusing the mobilized citizen and the mobilized state in wartime. It had begun with the levée en masse during the French Revolution, which sent roused citizens to the front to save the republic and spread their democratic fervor abroad. Behind them stood a mobilized population ready to sacrifice anything for the republic (and all too soon, of course, the empire).

    It turned out, however, that the drafted citizen had his limits and so, almost 200 years later, another aroused citizenry and its soldiers, home front and war front, were to be pacified, to be put out to pasture, while the empire’s wars were to be left to the professionals. An era was ending, even if no one noticed. (As a result, if you’re in the mood to indulge in irony, citizen’s war would be left to the guerrillas of the world, which in our era has largely meant to fundamentalist religious sects.)

    Just calling in the professionals and ushering out the amateurs wasn’t enough, though, to make the decision truly momentous. Another choice had to be married to it. The debacle that was Vietnam -- or what, as the 1970s progressed, began to be called “the Vietnam Syndrome” (as if the American people had been struck by some crippling psychic disease) -- could have sent Washington, and so the nation, off on another course entirely.

    The U.S. could have retreated, however partially, from the world to lick its wounds. Instead, the country’s global stance as the “leader of the free world” and its role as self-appointed global policeman were never questioned, nor was the global military basing policy that underlay it. In the midst of the Cold War, from Indonesia to Latin America, Japan to the Middle East, no diminution of U.S. imperial dreams was ever seriously considered.

    The decision not to downsize its global military presence in the wake of Vietnam fused with the decision to create a military that would free Washington from worry about what the troops might think. Soon enough, as Bacevich wrote, the new AVF would be made up of “highly trained, handsomely paid professionals who (assuming that the generals concur with the wishes of the political leadership) will go anywhere without question to do the bidding of the commander-in-chief.” It would, in fact, open the way for a new kind of militarism at home and abroad.

    The Arrival of the Warrior Corporation

    In the wake of Vietnam, the wars ceased and, for a few years, war even fled American popular culture. When it returned, the dogfights would be in outer space. (Think Star Wars.) In the meantime, a kind of stunned silence, a feeling of defeat, descended on the American polity -- but not for long. In the 1980s, the years of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, American-style war was carefully rebuilt, this time to new specifications.

    Reagan himself declared Vietnam “a noble cause,” and a newly professionalized military, purged of malcontents and rebels, once again began invading small countries (Grenada, Panama). At the same time, the Pentagon was investing thought and planning into how to put the media (blamed for defeat in Vietnam) in its rightful place and so give the public the war news it deserved. In the process, reporters were first restrained from, then “pooled” in, and finally “embedded” in the war effort, while retired generals were sent into TV newsrooms like so many play-by-play analysts on Monday Night Football to narrate our wars as they were happening. Meanwhile, the public was simply sidelined.

    Year by year, war became an ever more American activity and yet grew ever more remote from most Americans. The democratic citizen with a free mind and the ability to rebel had been sent home, and then demobilized on that home front as well. As a result, despite the endless post-9/11 gab about honoring and supporting the troops, a mobilized “home front” sacrificing for those fighting in their name would become a relic of history in a country whose leaders had begun boasting of having the greatest military the world had ever seen.

    It wasn’t, however, that no one was mobilizing. In the space vacated by the citizen, mobilization continued, just in a different fashion. Ever more mobilized, for instance, would be the powers of big science and the academy in the service of the Pentagon, the weapons makers, and the corporation.

    Meanwhile, over the years, that “professional” army, that “all volunteer” force, began to change as well. From the 1990s on, in a way that would have been inconceivable for a draft army, it began to be privatized -- fused, that is, into the corporate way of war and profit.

    War would now be fought not for or by the citizen, but quite literally for and by Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, KBR, DynCorp, Triple Canopy, and Blackwater (later Xe, even later Academi). Meanwhile, that citizen was to shudder at the thought of our terrorist enemies and then go on with normal life as if nothing whatsoever were happening. (“Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life the way we want it to be enjoyed,” was George W. Bush’s suggested response to the 9/11 attacks two weeks after they happened, with the “war on terror” already going on the books.)

    Despite a paucity of real enemies of any substance, taxpayer dollars would pour into the coffers of the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex, as well as a new mini-homeland-security-industrial complex and a burgeoning intelligence-industrial complex, at levels unknown in the Cold War years. Lobbyists would be everywhere and the times would be the best, even when, in the war zones, things were going badly indeed.

    Meanwhile, in those war zones, the Big Corporation would take over the humblest of soldierly roles -- the peeling of potatoes, the cooking of meals, the building of bases and outposts, the delivery of mail -- and it would take up the gun (and the bomb) as well. Soon enough, even the dying would be outsourced to corporate hirees. Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan would be flooded with tens of thousands of private contractors and hired guns, while military men trained in elite special operations units would find their big paydays by joining mercenary corporations doing similar work, often in the same war zones.

    It was a remarkable racket. War and profit had long been connected in complicated ways, but seldom quite so straightforwardly. Now, win or lose on the battlefield, there would always be winners among the growing class of warrior corporations.

    The All-Volunteer Force, pliant as a military should be, and backed by Madison Avenue to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to insure that its ranks were full, would become ever more detached from most of American society. It would, in fact, become ever more foreign (as in “foreign legion”) and ever more mercenary (think Hessians). The intelligence services of the national security state would similarly outsource significant parts of their work to the private sector. According to Dana Priest and William Arkin of the Washington Post, by 2010, about 265,000 of the 854,000 people with top security clearances were private contractors and “close to 30% of the workforce in the intelligence agencies [was] contractors.”

    No one seemed to notice, but a 1% version of American war was coming to fruition, unchecked by a draft Army, a skeptical Congress, or a democratic citizenry. In fact, Americans, generally preoccupied with lives in which our wars played next to no part, paid little attention.

    Remotely Piloted War

    Although early drone technology was already being used over North Vietnam, it’s in another sense entirely that drones have been heading into America’s future since 1973. There was an eerie logic to it: first came professional war, then privatized war, then mercenary and outsourced war -- all of which made war ever more remote from most Americans. Finally, both literally and figuratively, came remote war itself.

    It couldn’t be more appropriate that the Air Force prefers you not call their latest wonder weapons “unmanned aerial vehicles,” or UAVs, anymore. They would like you to use the label "remotely piloted aircraft" (RPA) instead. And ever more remotely piloted that vehicle is to be, until -- claim believers and enthusiasts -- it will pilot itself, land itself, maneuver itself, and while in the air even choose its own targets.

    In this sense, think of us as moving from the citizen’s army to a roboticized, and finally robot, military -- to a military that is a foreign legion in the most basic sense. In other words, we are moving toward an ever greater outsourcing of war to things that cannot protest, cannot vote with their feet (or wings), and for whom there is no “home front” or even a home at all. In a sense, we are, as we have been since 1973, heading for a form of war without anyone, citizen or otherwise, in the picture -- except those on the ground, enemy and civilian alike, who will die as usual.

    Of course, it may never happen this way, in part because drones are anything but perfect or wonder weapons, and in part because corporate war fought by a thoroughly professional military turns out to be staggeringly expensive to the demobilized citizen, profligate in its waste, and -- by the evidence of recent history -- remarkably unsuccessful. It also couldn’t be more remote from the idea of a democracy or a republic.

    In a sense, the modern imperial age began hundreds of years ago with corporate war, when Dutch, British and other East India companies set sail, armed to the teeth, to subdue the world at a profit. Perhaps corporate war will also prove the end point for that age, the perfect formula for the last global empire on its way down.

    Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s as well as The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book, The United States of Fear (Haymarket Books), has just been published.

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.

    Copyright 2012 Tom Engelhardt
Art will be the last bastion when all else fades away.
~ Timothy White (b 1952), American rock music journalist
_________________
User avatar
Allegro
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:44 pm
Location: just right of Orion
Blog: View Blog (144)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby RobinDaHood » Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:23 pm

Starting March 1st, A Red License Plate in Nevada Means the Driver is a Robot!
An extended campaign in Nevada by Google has led to a new host of provisions which will allow automated cars to legally drive in the state. Starting March 1st, 2012 innovators like Google can officially apply for a new kind of robot driver’s license that will give them permission to openly test their cars on the road. Automated vehicles will be able to travel the same streets and highways as human drivers, with only a red license plate marking them as robots. Once research on those automated cars is complete (which may take years), the Nevada Department of Motorized Vehicles will issue them a neon green license plate – an indication that the robot drivers are good to go. Google, whose robotic Prius cars have already driven 200,000+ miles in California quasi-legally, will undoubtedly take full advantage of Nevada’s openness and further develop their technology for general use. Just as important, other states like Hawaii, Florida, and Oklahoma may follow Nevada’s example, paving the way for robot cars to operate all across the United States.

Last June Governor Sandoval signed AB511 into law, making it explicitly legal for cars to drive themselves. That same bill, however, required the Nevada DMV to establish rules and regulations as to how companies would apply for permission to get their robotic vehicles on the road. As of February 15, those guidelines are now in place, and Nevada is ready to hand out red license plates to Google and other robotic car developers. Each vehicle will require a $1-3 million bond to insure against damages and will have to give the Nevada DMV a detailed report on what they are testing with each car. Whether or not those provisions will prove adequate has yet to be seen, but actually having concrete rules on the use of robotic vehicles goes a long way towards legitimizing them. In the eyes of Google and other automated car researchers, Nevada’s become a paradise.

There is some concern however, that the new automated car law could actually stifle innovation. Under some interpretations of the bill, cars with computers that automatically engage brakes may constitute a robotic car and thus need to go through further red tape before the general public can drive them. Such systems, already developed by companies like Volvo, represent a stepping stone towards fully automated cars and it would be a shame if Nevada squashed their use just as the state was opening up further research into robotic vehicles.

Nevada’s new bill will undoubtedly come with complications, but overall it is a very hopeful sign for the future of automated cars. Previously I had been very pessimistic about the legal and social hurdles these vehicles would have to clear before they could be accepted by the general public. Now, however, it seems that at least a few states are trying to prove me wrong, clearing the way for robot cars to take their rightful place on our roads. Along with Nevada, the Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Florida legistlatures are all considering bills to allow automated vehicles on their roads for research purposes (or more). The Florida bills (HB 1207 in the House and SB 1768 in the Senate) seem to have considerable support. It seems possible, perhaps even likely, that robot cars from companies like Google will be able to take over driving for humans much sooner than anyone had anticipated. Such a transition could save thousands or even millions of lives each year.

I’ll leave you with a video featuring Sebastian Thrun, the project lead for Google’s robot car. Both his motivation for automating cars, and his vision for the future are inspiring:

http://singularityhub.com/2012/02/22/starting-march-1st-a-red-license-plate-in-nevada-means-the-driver-is-a-robot/
User avatar
RobinDaHood
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:35 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby eyeno » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:02 am

Swarms Of Autonomous Micro-Air-Vehicles Modeled On Insects
February 27th, 2012

Via: NPR:

Do bees, swarms of bees, make you nervous? Maybe not. Maybe they remind you of honey, flowers and warm summer days. You stay out of their way and they stay out of yours. What if, however, the bees weren’t bees at all but hundreds (or thousands) of autonomous microbots, facsimiles of the real thing, buzzing around in the real world?

That’s not Hollywood fantasy any more. It appears to be within reach. Researchers in the Microrobotics Lab at Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences say that they expect their Robobees project will demonstrate flying, autonomous micro-air-vehicles modeled on insects within the next 2 1/2 years.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=27762
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Ben D » Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:00 am

Meet Cheetah, Boston Dynamics' Terrifyingly Fast Running Robot

A warning for anyone who imagines a Skynet-ruled world of robot domination: Don’t watch the video below. Or if you do, prepare for nightmares of being chased at 18-miles an hour by a gas-powered steely automaton.



Boston Dynamics, a Waltham, Massachusetts technology firm and DARPA contractor, announced Monday that it’s broken the speed record for legged robots. Its new four-legged creation is Cheetah, which can run at 18 miles an hour, far faster than the 13.1 miles per hour record set by MIT in 1989.

When I spoke with Boston Dynamics ten months ago, the company’s president Marc Raibert told me the firm was building a four-legged robot that would run at 20 mph by late 2012. It seems to be ahead of schedule. As well as hitting that 20 mph mark, the company also aims to take Cheetah out of the lab and onto other terrains. “While 18 mph is a good start, our goal is to get Cheetah running much faster and outdoors,” reads a statement from Boston Dynamics’ chief roboticist Alfred Rizzi. “We designed the treadmill to go over 50 mph, but we plan to get off the treadmill and into the field as soon as possible. We really want to understand the limits of what is possible for fast-moving robots.”

Boston Dynamics rose to fame with its four-legged cargo robot Big Dog, (also captured in a YouTube sensation here) which shows an uncannily life-like ability to walk over terrain and recover its footing even when it slips or is kicked. The firm followed up with Petman, a two-legged prototype that applies the same technology to human-style walking.

In both cases, as with Cheetah, Boston Dynamics’ unique approach was to aim for what it calls “dynamic stability.” Most robots aim to maintain their balance at all points in their movement. But Boston Dynamics’ creations, like humans or other legged animals, are constantly tipping forward, falling and regaining equilibrium with every step.

That approach has allowed them a level of mobility that leaves other robots in the dust. At this rate, it won’t be long before they leave flesh-and-blood animals in the dust, too.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:26 am

FLASHBACK 2008: Robotic Insects Are Here – BEWARE! (Video)
http://www.anomalytelevision.com/site/2 ... re-beware/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSCLBG9KeX4



FLASHBACK 2007: Dragonfly or Insect Spy? Scientists at Work on Robobugs (Video)
http://www.anomalytelevision.com/site/2 ... -robobugs/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01434.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00958.html

Vanessa Alarcon saw them while working at an antiwar rally in Lafayette Square last month. "I heard someone say, 'Oh my god, look at those,' " the college senior from New York recalled. "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?' They looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects."



eyeno wrote:
Swarms Of Autonomous Micro-Air-Vehicles Modeled On Insects
February 27th, 2012
http://cryptogon.com/?p=27762
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:45 am


Police Drone | March 4, 2012
Drone crashes into SWAT team tank during police test near Houston
Stephen Dean / Houston Page One Examiner

(Conroe, Montgomery County) -- A drone has crashed during a police test flight near Houston, adding to growing safety concerns as more police departments take flight with the unmanned aircraft.

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office north of Houston became one of the first police departments in the country to begin flying Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for police missions in October 2011.

County officials and the maker of that drone confirmed on Friday that a recent police-only photo mission went terribly wrong.

As the sheriff's SWAT team suited up with lots of firepower and their armored vehicle known as the "Bearcat," a prototype drone from Vanguard Defense Industries took off for pictures of all the police action. It was basically a photo opportunity, according to those in attendance.

Vanguard CEO Michael Buscher said his company's prototype drone was flying about 18-feet off the ground when it started having trouble. It's designed to go into an auto shutdown mode, according to Buscher, but when it was coming down the drone crashed into the SWAT team's armored vehicle.

The damage was not severe, according to Buscher, who described only some 'blade strikes' on the prototype drone that was being shown off to the Montgomery County Sheriff's team.

It's the exact scenario that was mentioned as a major concern when the Government Accountability Office studied the growing use of police drones in 2008.

Ever since Houston Police were exposed in November 2007 on a secret test of drones for law enforcement, dozens of police agencies have applied for drones to be used on patrols throughout the country.

Couple that with recent approval for private sector use of drones and pilots and government watchdogs have plenty of concerns.

In the 2008 GAO study, Gerald Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation for GAO said,

"The concern is that you could lose control of that aircraft and it could crash into something on the ground or, in fact, it could crash into another air vehicle."

The GAO study found that 65% of drone crashes were caused by mechanical failures. The study analyzed Pentagon and NASA data on 199 crashes of drones on battlefields.

Before this Montgomery County crash, the only crash of a law enforcement drone was recorded in 2006 in Nogales, Arizona. The Customs & Border Protection flight crashed in the desert due to the same "lost link" scenario that sent the Montgomery County unit crashing into its SWAT team tank.

When the link between the drone and the control console on the ground is lost, all drones are designed to steady up and glide to a landing. In some cases, the drones already have a location programmed in for landing in the event of a problem. In others, there is no such pre-determined landing zone.

Dillingham said that's another dangerous problem with drones in urban areas. He said,

"If you're onboard the aircraft, you can tell that you're in turbulence and you can maneuver to get the plane or the aircraft out of the turbulence. But if you're using a UAV and there are no sensors aboard, you don't really know that and, again, if you lose that communication link as a result of that turbulence or for any other reason, then you have an aircraft that is not in control and can, in fact, crash into something on the ground or another aircraft."

The 73-page GAO study found 17-percent of the crashes studied were blamed on operator error and 12-percent were listed as unknown causes.

Montgomery County Sheriff Tommy Gage could not be reached for comment, nor could his chief deputy in charge of his drone program.

Buscher said his prototype aircraft veered to the right and he said it merely overshot its landing area a bit when the auto shutdown procedure kicked in.

The drone that actually belongs to the Montgomery County Sheriff, which was unveiled in October 2011, was sitting nearby and was not damaged in the crash.

Buscher said the drone that crashed was a different model from the ShadowHawk that was purchased for Montgomery County Sheriff's use in law enforcement. That unit cost $300,000 and the sheriff said Department of Homeland Security grant money was used.

When Montgomery County unveiled its drone to the public, the sheriff and his staff boasted that it would help the SWAT team for any hostage standoff or other tense scene. Some members of the sheriff's department SWAT team had already expressed reservations about whether they really need a drone when their riles are aimed for real.

Given how this first mission with their SWAT team ended, those skeptical deputies are unlikely to be converted into believers.

http://www.examiner.com/page-one-in-hou ... ar-houston

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 166 guests