There are substantial and growing protests to the use of drone weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The latest have been quite strong from Britain but the opposition is growing in the U.S. as well. There are some saying it has to be stopped before it is too late but manufacture of drone weapons is not at all a rarity anymore and many countries are doing it.
The creation of drone aircraft isn't such a technological feat as people have been building radio-controlled aircraft for decades. The drones are just bigger and they carry weapons. When something is that easy obviously it's going to be copied and that's exactly what has happened. The U.S. has pioneered the use of these weapons in combat so now there is a market and drones are just one more product in the global arms trade.
Some believe it has to be stopped before other types of drones are created but it's already too late for that. An inventor in Britain has created a 2.5-ton, six-legged behemoth that can be manned or operated by remote control. All it needs is a microprocessor and a weapons system and you've got something straight out of "Star Wars." (CNN: 'Mantis:' the monster-sized hexapod robot)
The contemptuous reaction to protest against computer-controlled weapons systems typically consists of questioning why any economy would fail to meet the demand for such systems and wouldn't it be a shame if the U.S. missed out on this opportunity. However, given the U.S. has the largest Gross Domestic Product in the world, this opportunity is rather less than important.
The United States had the opportunity to demonstrate world leadership under the administration of Harry Truman but he failed to do so and deliberately launched into the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. It was only six months after the creation of the United Nations, the organisation specifically intended to prevent future wars, that the U.S. blew off the first post-World War II nuclear weapon. (Wiki: Nuclear Arms Race)
While the Baruch Plan was an attempt to take leadership in peaceful administration of nuclear technology, the Soviets rejected it and presented a proposal of their own which was, in turn, rejected. These plans floundered and the military technologists meanwhile worked assiduously toward creating the nightmare in which we lived for so many years. Each country points to the other as being the 'bad guy' in failing to come to agreement but that aspect is irrelevant as the incompetence was on both sides.
In large measure, what the Soviets were doing was trying to keep up with U.S. advances in nuclear technology and blaming them for instigating it is patently false. History shows who led the nuclear arms race after World War II and it was President Harry Truman's decision to enter it. What followed was fifty years of abject nuclear terror. That terror has abated but not for any good reason as there are still over seven thousand live nuclear weapons in each country. (World Nuclear Stockpile Report)
Just as the opportunity for leadership in nuclear technology existed and was handled very badly, another opportunity in leadership exists in the use of drone technology. I don't see anyone taking a long view of the purpose of these weapons. Is it ultimately that countries can fight a war in which there are no human combatants. Think that through as the only possible consequence of such a war is that the only casualties are civilian while the soldiers remain safe in bunkers somewhere such as the current drone pilots in Nevada. Why would the military reject a war when there is no consequence to their forces in waging it.
As always, one cannot prepare for peace while simultaneously preparing for war.
The creation of drone aircraft isn't such a technological feat as people have been building radio-controlled aircraft for decades. The drones are just bigger and they carry weapons. When something is that easy obviously it's going to be copied and that's exactly what has happened. The U.S. has pioneered the use of these weapons in combat so now there is a market and drones are just one more product in the global arms trade.
Some believe it has to be stopped before other types of drones are created but it's already too late for that. An inventor in Britain has created a 2.5-ton, six-legged behemoth that can be manned or operated by remote control. All it needs is a microprocessor and a weapons system and you've got something straight out of "Star Wars." (CNN: 'Mantis:' the monster-sized hexapod robot)
The contemptuous reaction to protest against computer-controlled weapons systems typically consists of questioning why any economy would fail to meet the demand for such systems and wouldn't it be a shame if the U.S. missed out on this opportunity. However, given the U.S. has the largest Gross Domestic Product in the world, this opportunity is rather less than important.
The United States had the opportunity to demonstrate world leadership under the administration of Harry Truman but he failed to do so and deliberately launched into the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. It was only six months after the creation of the United Nations, the organisation specifically intended to prevent future wars, that the U.S. blew off the first post-World War II nuclear weapon. (Wiki: Nuclear Arms Race)
While the Baruch Plan was an attempt to take leadership in peaceful administration of nuclear technology, the Soviets rejected it and presented a proposal of their own which was, in turn, rejected. These plans floundered and the military technologists meanwhile worked assiduously toward creating the nightmare in which we lived for so many years. Each country points to the other as being the 'bad guy' in failing to come to agreement but that aspect is irrelevant as the incompetence was on both sides.
In large measure, what the Soviets were doing was trying to keep up with U.S. advances in nuclear technology and blaming them for instigating it is patently false. History shows who led the nuclear arms race after World War II and it was President Harry Truman's decision to enter it. What followed was fifty years of abject nuclear terror. That terror has abated but not for any good reason as there are still over seven thousand live nuclear weapons in each country. (World Nuclear Stockpile Report)
Just as the opportunity for leadership in nuclear technology existed and was handled very badly, another opportunity in leadership exists in the use of drone technology. I don't see anyone taking a long view of the purpose of these weapons. Is it ultimately that countries can fight a war in which there are no human combatants. Think that through as the only possible consequence of such a war is that the only casualties are civilian while the soldiers remain safe in bunkers somewhere such as the current drone pilots in Nevada. Why would the military reject a war when there is no consequence to their forces in waging it.
As always, one cannot prepare for peace while simultaneously preparing for war.
No comments:
Post a Comment