"Any development that makes war appear to be easier or cheaper is dangerous and morally troubling. It lowers the political threshold of war. It threatens to weaken the moral presumption against the use of armed force."
"Drone technology is spreading rapidly. As many as 50 countries are developing or purchasing these systems, including China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Iran."
Given the dual and triple uses of these things, they could be sold to hostile nations for surveillance, for instance, not attack. It would be difficult to institute controls, especially after their abuse by the US. Much the way helicopters were given to Saddam for crop dusting, not for spreading the poison gasses supplied at the same time.
It seems to me a drone could fly under the radar, hit the White House, a convoy with the President, NY harbor, a rocket being launched at Vandenburgh or Kennedy and ditch itself in the sea. With some thought the warhead would not be traceable or could be traced to the US.
It could even hit the President giving a speech in some other country.
Those may not have been such a great idea after all. The leadership of the US is on the verge of being driven underground.
Arf
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind?
The whole thread (36 posts)
- Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind?
- Re: Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind?
- Sorry but your post reminded so much of this Star Trek episode.
- "The Capitalist Weapon"
- Re: Sorry but your post reminded so much of this Star Trek episode.
- Re: Sorry but your post reminded so much of this Star Trek episode.
- On the other hand,