Slashdot Mirror
Sanctions Or Not, Iranian Competition Yields Successful UAVs
garymortimer writes with word of the result from a high-tech student competition that doesn't come with sponsorship from DARPA or Mobil — far from it. Instead, the sponsors include "military and non-military organizations" within Iran. "In this competition, participants must provide a UAV equipped with a camera to search a 10 square kilometer area for at least 40 minutes to find 3 square meter marks on the ground with different English letters on them. Finding ground targets and reporting the geo location are criterion for choosing the contest winner." (This article updates another from last year, which gives some more details about the competition.)
I bet America's RQ-170 entry won.
From everything I've heard, Iran is a modern, very prosperous country. It's hard to cut through all the bullshit and propaganda on both sides anytime you're dealing with a country that's at odds with the U.S., but I've known two people who went there who said they were welcomed very warmly as Americans and that quality of life there was pretty much the same as any European country.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies. It does have a dubious government which oppresses the rights of the people as well. Oh, and so does Iran.
This is one of the things the Middle East is very good at. The Portuguese have a word for it: Desenrascanco, which basically means the quick and dirty solution that's thrown together at the last minute and/or from what's on hand.
We saw this innovation in Libya, including some humorous military innovations such as the Bread Helmet and some far less humorous things like technicals, anti-air turrets, etc. Iran saw how effective the US's drones were and they want some of their own. They saw how effective stuff like DARPA is, so they do the same thing. Of course, Iran has the advantage of coming late to market so they can get all of the component parts much, much easier.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Nice, the Iranian version of the Ansari X-Prize.
What people don't realize is that even with all the sanctions, hostility, and generally crazy behavior, Iran IS NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. Right now, American casualties are seen as unacceptable, which is leading our drive towards more drones. If we pick a fight with the Iranians, or let them pick a fight with the US, there will be American casualties. They have the ability to sink U.S. war ships. That have the support of Russia and China. Granted, they probably didn't ground that RQ-170, but that doesn't mean it isn't feasible in the near future.
We all know that quite a large chunk of the young adults in Iran don't like the current regime, but do you know what they like even less? The United States. Whether we start the fight or they do, it will cause Iran to solidify behind that common dislike of the U.S., and we will have a real fight on our hands.
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Iran hasn't invaded any nations causing a doubling of overall mortality and the deaths of a million people.
There is a HUGE difference. First of all, when I served in the military, I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading". No matter how hard I tried, I was not allowed to pay for anything. Even if I could convince the vendor to take my money, someone would always step up and pay for whatever I was trying to pay for. I didn't buy a whole lot, not wanting to take advantage of my hosts' hospitality and gratitude.
Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental. The US and her allies went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even if it sometimes meant letting the target go. You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
So, again, if you think it's the same thing, you are manipulating the facts in your own head to fit what already believe to be true.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental.
So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading".
Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
You do realize that civilians are still dying in Iraq and our armed forces are not there. Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom. You are very ignorant when it comes to talking about what our armed forces do in battle. I am an Iraq veteran and I can tell you that in 2005, 99% of all civilian deaths came from terrorists. Maybe you should enlist so that you can see what really happens in a war, or better yet move to Iran because it is such a free democracy and one that values human rights so much.
Stay negative.
You do realize that civilians are still dying in Iraq and our armed forces are not there.
Far far fewer now.
. I am an Iraq veteran and I can tell you that in 2005, 99% of all civilian deaths came from terrorists.
Anecdotal claims from a soldier in the conflict are not evidence. Please provide a citation for this "99%" figure. Back in 2004 the Iraqi Health Ministry stated that coalition forces were killing twice as many civilians than the insurgents were: More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows.
What you say is true, but there is always an unfair implication that the two invasions via Belgium happened the same way implicit in the summarized version of the story. War was a much slower moving affair in World War 1. The entire design of the Maginot Line was supposed to take into account invasion from Belgium or Switzerland. Yes, it was supposed to make invasion direct from Germany very difficult, but it was also supposed to make it much easier to hold the line on the German border with less manpower specifically to free up mobilized forces to respond to the presumably slower offensives that could take place from other borders.
Yes, obviously there was a large miscalculation on how quickly the Germans could advance through Belgium (and in hoping that they would respect Belgium's neutral status), but France's was not the only fighting force to be outmaneuvered by the German Blitzkrieg, and France was highly outnumbered to boot. The whole meme of France learning nothing from World War 1 is way overblown. If the Germans had moved the same way that they had in World War 1, France would have been in great shape. The real problem is that they spent too much effort responding to what they learned from World War 1, and war had changed (despite what Ron Perlman would have you believe).