Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Firm Gave Libyan Rebels Surveillance Drone

Posted by Unknown on from the we're-watching-you dept.

Joining the posted submitter club, suasfan22 writes with a bit in Wired about the use of a drone by Libyan Rebels. From the article: "The Libyan revolutionaries are more of a band of enthusiastic amateurs than experienced soldiers. But it turns out the rebels have the kind of weaponry usually possessed by advanced militaries: their very own drone. Aeryon Labs, a Canadian defense firm, revealed on Tuesday that it had quietly provided the rebel forces with a teeny, tiny surveillance drone, called the Aeryon Scout. Small enough to fit into a backpack, the three-pound, four-rotor robot gave Libyan forces eyes in the sky independent of the Predators, Fire Scout surveillance copters and manned spy planes that NATO flew overhead. Don't worry, it's not armed."

4 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Of course by Riceballsan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ah it's not like we'd be dumb enough to put al-queda into power because we see them as the lesser evil... wait we did? oh right I keep forgetting apparently we are all idiots.

  2. anti-war protestors? by drnb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And where are the anti-war protestors?

    Waiting for a republican administration apparently.

    1. Re:anti-war protestors? by Gravatron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not all liberals are opposed to all wars, just the ones we find unjust. In this case, you had a bunch of rebels who asked for NATO's help, and got it, in a very controlled, un-escalated form. No boots on the ground, no skyrocketing costs, no casualties, etc. It's almost a police action. Only the most pacifistic of liberals have a problem with it. Now, the conservatives did, but that was because they hate any situation where Obama can get a foreign policy victory.

    2. Re:anti-war protestors? by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So as long as it is cheap it is okay?

      Call me callous, but yes, to an extent. If we can help some rebels overthrow a dictator with minimal loss of life and a relatively low cost, with substantial support from our allies, then that's fine. I'd prefer we be more open about our intentions, but I understand the need for realpolitik.

      If the war is going to cost a trillion dollars, kill thousands of our kids and hundreds of thousands of civilians, and be led by a joke of a "Coalition of the Willing" that consists of us, Great Britain, and five guys from East Bumblefuck, then we ought to be a bit more cautious. The fact that our allies aren't willing to get on board should be a warning sign, not a cause to deride them as cowards and rename potato products.

      If Bush had handled Iraq the way Obama handled Libya, I would have been fine with it.