Drones v- Drones

Ludwig von Gress

In a sense, the current hysteria of the socialist media against US drones could be good news – it could mean that China’s, Russia’s, Iran’s and North Korea’s drones are technically behind the US ones. Perhaps to clear up a possible, thought unlikely confusion – the drones first mentioned in the title “do not exhibit typical worker bee behaviours such as nectar and pollen gathering, nursing, or hive construction. While drones are unable to sting, if picked up they may swing their tails in an attempt to frighten the disturber”. That’s from wikipedia about insects. Comrade’s Lenin’s “useful idiots” is better characterisation. By the second mentioned drone I mean “An unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), also known as a combat drone or drone, is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is armed with weaponry and has no onboard human pilot. Currently operational drones are predominantly under real-time human control, with “The human’s role in UCAV system [varying] according to levels of autonomy of UCAV and data communication requirement[s].” Drones change the nature of modern aerial combat. Controllers of drones are in no immediate danger, unlike pilots.”

At least since the end of the World War II the Communists, at that time ruling the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, fomented, organised and financed “peace” movements, strictly and exclusively in the Western World (the Russian peace activists went to a gulag). The drones, a handful of whom might have genuinely believed that they are doing something towards the world’s peace, obediently wrote articles, made speeches and demonstrated against weapons, which the USSR not yet had, in turn- an atomic bomb, a hydrogen bomb, a neutron bomb, Pershing missiles [Hundreds of Thousands Protest Missiles in Europe] and Strategic Defense Initiative a.k.a “Star Wars”. The “inhumanity” of weapons was quickly forgotten when the protector of the world peace, and the “peace” movement financier, the Soviet Union managed to develop them also.

Now it is the turn of the drones of both kinds. A directive was issued and media puppets jump. The Time, The Guardian, CNN and others pontificate about immorality of remote killing. Only by USA of course, any Improvised Explosive Device (IED) remotely set off by a moderate Muslim is fine and humane.

The obedient activistas vent their rage on the streets and Twitter, suggesting, in effect, that the war for the survival of civilisation should be fought mano a mano or a kalashnikov v- AK47, perhaps IED v- IED or a suicide vest against a suicide vest. I fear that even that would not satisfy them. As we know, Islamists come from underprivileged, financially, intellectually or genetically, backgrounds. Our Left would demand some sort of affirmative inaction, and, obviously, on a larger scale than that practised by the West so far.

Amusing item 1 – There is a struggle for the domination, in other words, a war, and many simpletons seem to be concerned that America is not making enough friends and that all this will back fire [See Fog of Chaos – Iron Dome]. For example, General Stanley McChrystal, a former commander in Afghanistan, said that he was scared by the resentment provoked by drone strikes, and worried that the anger they stirred up was “much greater than the average American appreciates.” I might have missed something, but I do not recall reading anything about General Eisenhower worrying about the effect the Allies advance in 1944 had on the SS and their families’ feelings for America. Reluctant as I am to write anything even slightly derogatory about a long serving soldier, I have to point out that by the time McChrystal had a first sniff of cordite burnt in anger he was a brigadier general and thus more accustomed to the enticing smells emanating from a general officers’ mess. And, it would seem that despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese today are better friends of USA than the erstwhile WWII ally, Russians.

Amusing item 2 – The “humanists” and pacifists (anti-drones drones) are proudly parading in Che Guevara T-shirts and Guy Fawkes masks. One was a successful murderer, the other a failed one. It is not incongruity. If anything, it is a Freudian slip.

Amusing item 3 – During the televised confirmation hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s for John Brennan, Mr Obama’s pick to the next head of the Central Intelligence Agency it appeared that even some Democrats are uneasy about Obama’s finger on the drone trigger. Their concern was wrapped in ostensible worries about killing American citizens abroad. They could not come up with any better example but one outstanding American, Mr Anwar al-Awlaki who succumbed to a US drone strike in Yemen in 2011 whilst on a peace mission against USA.

Leaving aside a political problem of having someone like the semi-American Obama in charge of a remote murder machine, which is a matter for US voters, I feel somehow that a female operator in a comfortable chair playing with a drone joystick who only risks that her cola gets warm will make a more dispassionate decision than somebody who is getting shot at and may, just may, take it too personally, collateral damage be damned.

In any case, everybody who is anybody (don’t look in the list below for Australia) has them (operational armed drones) anyway:

  •  China – Guizhou WZ-2000, AVIC Wing Loong I
  •  France – EADS Harfang (based on the IAI Heron)
  •  Germany – Modified IAI Heron from Israel.
  •  India – IAI Heron, IAI Harop and IAI Harpy from Israel, DRDO AURA, DRDO Nishant, DRDO Lakshya, DRDO Rustom
  •  Iran – Karrar, Shahed 129 (UCAV), and others
  • Ireland – Aeronautics Orbiter UAV
  •  Israel – IAI Heron, IAI Harpy, Elbit Hermes 450, IAI Eitan, IAI Harop
  •  Italy – MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper from the U.S.
  •  North Korea – MQM-107-based flying bombs
  •  Pakistan – Shahpur (Testing), Falco UAV from Italy modified to carry rockets
  •  Russia – IAI Heron from Israel
  •  Taiwan – The Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST) is developing a defending and attack UCAV based on the US X-47B.
  •  Turkey – TAI Anka, Vestel Karayel
  •  United Kingdom – MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper from the U.S.
  •  United States – MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper

As one can see, not all of those countries have reputation for their steadfast adherence to the due legal process and strict observance of human rights. Well, hardly any country.

The Economist, in its typical pompous fashion, asks: But as Mr Obama’s second-term national team takes shape, the same dilemma will confront them as faced Mr Bush all those years ago: is the country made safer when enemies are killed, or when they are taken alive?

I would say Yes, provided we include also the enemies in certain editorial offices.

About Ludwig von Gress

Born in communist Europe, interested in defence matters on a macro scale, with a cavalry “devil may care spirit” from his grandfather and cautious effectiveness of asymmetric warfare approach from his guerilla father. He sometimes despairs that he may be the only one taking the defence of Australia seriously.
This entry was posted in America, Communism, History, Military and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Drones v- Drones

  1. Rohwer says:

    Those simple, mindless drones are responsible for more evil than the really evil people.

  2. magmaflier says:

    After all this time, the obedience of our media astonishes me. Is it fear?

  3. de writtoni says:

    They are the same people who only notice violations of human rights by the people they disagree with.

  4. Lensor says:

    Was it Lenin who said: It’s the media, stupid?

  5. Leo O'toole says:

    Media in the hands of scheming leftists are the main problem. Now more than ever, they work actively for dictatorship.

  6. Deidre Flanck says:

    Surely drones are immoral? Should not men die for freedom?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>