Microdrone Spy Planes

glinden writes "BBC News is reporting that Israel is now deploying microdrone spy planes. These planes have a wingspan of 13 inches (33 cm), can be carried in a backpack, can be launched by a single soldier, and can even fly through windows. The next step in the drone wars?"

Comments

Re:Fly through Windows?

[airrage]

I have to agree that it sounds rather fishy. What happens if the window is in a hallway? They should make a helocopter one instead of a fixed-wing one. That way it could hover and enter windows, buildings, etc. Of course maybe it's hard to RC the collective as I think it's called?

Very clever

[ackthpt]

While I'm postive this will lead to heated debate, flames and trolls regarding the situation in Palestine. I think it's very clever and resourceful to develop inexpensive methods of reconnaissance. But as these things buzz around they'd be hard to overlook. Maybe the next time the Israeli Army assasinates a palistinian they can do it with a poison needle or dart on one of these things instead of firing air-to-ground missiles. What's to stop the palestinians from doing likewise?

Preferably they'd eliminate the need for such things by reigning in their own hardline elements demands and work toward peace.

No justice, no peace.
Know justice, know peace.

Re:Very clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Preferably they'd eliminate the need for such things by reigning in their own hardline elements demands and work toward peace.

That's a good one. Ask yourself these questions:

What would happen if tomorrow the Palestinians said, "We are tired of this. We are no longer going to use violence to achieve our goals."

Most people I ask say that a peace treaty would be signed.

What would happen if tomorrow the Israelis said, "We are tired of this. We are no longer going to use violence to achieve our goals."

Most people I ask say that the Palestinians will kill all the Israelis.

Why are these answers different? Discuss, compare & contrast.

Re:Very clever

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to start too much of a flame war, but I think that there is a lot of myths flying around regarding Israel. I will restrain myself from ranting, but want to steer your attention to this website [www.us-israel.org] full of facts, WITH SOURCES. Take some time and become educated.

Re:Very clever

[WNight]

You are so terribly uninformed. The area occupied by Israel was largely unoccupied before the late 1800s and early 1900s when Jewish settlers started moving into the area. In the beginning they were quite popular - despite the long-lasting anti-semitism of many Muslims they brought industry and prosperity to the area. Moreso, they let the Arabs in the area be full citizens in Israel when it formed - Israel is currently the only democracy in the area. Ironically the Arab in the area have more political freedom in Israel than in the surrounding countries. Further, modern Israel is secular - there are many Jews, but the political structure isn't religious unlike in most of the surrounding countries.

When Israel was formed it was the largest single group of Jews in the world and its creation was merely a matter of the British setting borders in the area to best represent the political/racial groups. Most of the Arab countries in the area have no more historical right than Israel does.

Then consider the tactics. The Palestinians intentionally target civilians. The israelis intentionally target known terrorists, often passing up a chance at assasinating them until they're not surrounded by civilians. The Muslims intentionally try to kill the innocent - the Israelis do so only by accident.

Israel has gone out of their way to be fair, even going so far as to give back land taken during a defensive war. Ask yourself what any other country would do if in the process of defending itself in a war it pushed the enemy back and captured land. Would they give it back later, or keep it as just spoils of war? There's very little historical precedent for giving territory back to the agressors, yet Israel did this. The countries surrounding them easily have enough territory to take in the Palestinians and this has been proposed by people looking for peaceful solutions for years, but the Palestinians are left where they are. It just goes to show that the Muslims in the area aren't united by the fight for Palestinian freedom, they're united by religious hatred for Jews and the Palestinians are being used as pawns.

One group is secular, democratic, multi-racial, and targets military targets. The other group is religious, a theocracy (in practice, not on paper), racist, homophobic, etc, and intentionally targets civilians. Who really is the bad guy in this scenario?

Better killers

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

This will most certainly be used in the ongoing struggle between Israel and Palestine. The last thing I want to see is either of those two groups become more efficient killers.

This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.

Re:Better killers

[GuyMannDude]

This is a spy plane, however. So maybe it will be used for intelligence to prevent violence. Or perhaps it will be used for intelligence to make waging war more effective.

The two tend to be linked at the hip. There is considerable interest in the military to develop means of preventing civilian casualties or collateral damage. And it's not just as simple as them not wanting to 'waste' ammunition on noncombatants, they really do want to avoid civilian casualties. First, military people aren't the psychotic, evil madman you see in the movies. Believe it or not, they have children too so they want to try to prevent the deaths of innocents in far away lands. Second, even if they didn't personally care about civilian deaths, the American people would and our allies most certainly would. The type of WWII war where massive civilian casualties are accepted so long as you kill lots of enemy combatants are long gone. Third, increased intelligence will help you refine a priori assumptions you made about the enemy's tactics. If you are planning on destroying a building you believe to be an enemy command center but then receive intelligence that it's actually a homeless shelter, that's more valuable than just noting that it's a non-target. It tells you that you really don't know where the hell the command center really is! And it also makes you pause and question the quality of the pre-battle intelligence that labeled it as enemy headquarters.

Spy planes are here to stay and they will play a more important role in the conflicts to come. And I don't think you can separate their capabilities into "prevent violence" and "enable violence" bins. Those two qualities tend to be one and the same.

GMD

I'd like to see...

[rthille]

the remote cockroach that they had here. Of course, it ended up squashed by a shoe, but before that it got critical intel out. Just imagine a battlefield where you can't trust that the spiders and snakes, or arctic hares aren't working for the other guys!

Re:72 Virgins

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

How is it "anti-Palestinian" to suggest there is something wrong with human bombs?

Re:72 Virgins

[CrankyFool]

There is, technically speaking, no moral or ethical reason why human bombs (AKA suicide bombers) are a Bad Thing[tm]. Remember, we saw an instance of this in WWII with the Japanese Kamikaze.

It is usually going to be easier to breach defenses one-way than to go in, hit the enemy, and leave. Arriving with the intent of blowing up frees you to focus on the task rather than be distracted by 'misguided' attempts to survive the execution of it.

Where it gets less great is when you do one of two things:
1. Not clearly identify yourself as a hostile target, causing the other side to naturally suspect EVEYRONE on your side and probably qualifying you as an unlawful combatant (the Law of Armed Conflict requires distinctive markings); or (much more seriously)
2. Target civilians, which is when you become not just a weapon, but a terrorist weapon.

There's no fundamental difference between a Palestinian wearing a uniform and a bomb blowing themselves up with a bunch of soldiers and, say, a US soldier storming a Japanese pillbox with a grenade knowing he's going to die. The issue is whether or not he's clearly marked and, more importantly, whether he's attacking soldiers on duty or civilians.

Fewer casualties?

[danharan]

It is odd to read people think this will reduce the number of casualties, especially "collateral damage".

This is not unlike some of the security discussions we've had here. Force people to have 4 passwords, and they'll write them on sticky-notes besides their screen, reducing security. Passwords are _supposed_ to make systems safer, but abuse them and they are counter-productive.

Drone technologies will completely change the strategy of conflict. One month before 9/11, a colleague and I predicted rc planes would be used against the White House. Ok, so we were off. But think about it: if the Israelis can use this, why couldn't the "terrorist" Palestinians? Imagine for a second what an rc plane/helicopter could do with non-conventional means...

Assymetrical warfare is used because one side has no chance at symmetrical -conventional- warfare. As this reinforces "full-spectrum dominance", it only increases the risk of terrorist attack.

I hope such drones are only used for reconnaissance, and not to carry out direct assassinations, causing another escalation.

In the long-term, we will need to make our conflict resolution systems more robust, so they don't degenerate so fast and with such bloody consequences. Another interesting thing to note is as war becomes more capital intensive, we can expect the rise of Conscientious Objection to Military Taxation