Reapers - Ministers refuse to reveal target of new RAF killer drone missions
Thread Starter
Reapers - Ministers refuse to reveal target of new RAF killer drone missions
Article in The Guardian today.
Click the link for the full article.
Britain is running secret missions involving drones previously used to target and kill terrorist suspects in Iraq and Syria.
The Ministry of Defence is refusing to reveal the nature or location of the operation involving RAF Reapers, which can be armed with Hellfire missiles, leading to calls for greater parliamentary oversight of Britain’s drone programme.
The Ministry of Defence is refusing to reveal the nature or location of the operation involving RAF Reapers, which can be armed with Hellfire missiles, leading to calls for greater parliamentary oversight of Britain’s drone programme.
My God! I never knew........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in...ky_(2015_film)
LynehamLad, thanks for the link. Would you care to comment on what the MoD spokesman had to offer?
What's your take on that?
An MoD spokesman said: “The location and number of sorties flown outside of Operation Shader is withheld under FoI Exemptions Section 26 – Defence – and Section 27 – International Relations.
“If released, the information would provide the public with greater understanding of the operations of Reaper. However, it could put sensitive and protected individuals on operations at risk, providing the adversary with an advantage.”
“If released, the information would provide the public with greater understanding of the operations of Reaper. However, it could put sensitive and protected individuals on operations at risk, providing the adversary with an advantage.”
And of course you knew that.
FFS guys, stop asking dumb questions.
I am not sure why that fragment of the article is what he quoted. I know how I feel about all that - more or less on par with the MoD official - based on my own experience with Predator and a few Reaper missions when they were very new. (I wasn't flying them; they were supporting our ops). I've also posted (to the point of ad nauseum) how terrible our people (on this side of the pond, and the USAF in particular) are with casual attitudes towards OPSEC violations.
What's the problem of asking for a bit more clarity?
Thread Starter
I was hoping that the OP would respond.
I am not sure why that fragment of the article is what he quoted. I know how I feel about all that - more or less on par with the MoD official - based on my own experience with Predator and a few Reaper missions when they were very new. (I wasn't flying them; they were supporting our ops). I've also posted (to the point of ad nauseum) how terrible our people (on this side of the pond, and the USAF in particular) are with casual attitudes towards OPSEC violations.
What's the problem of asking for a bit more clarity?
I am not sure why that fragment of the article is what he quoted. I know how I feel about all that - more or less on par with the MoD official - based on my own experience with Predator and a few Reaper missions when they were very new. (I wasn't flying them; they were supporting our ops). I've also posted (to the point of ad nauseum) how terrible our people (on this side of the pond, and the USAF in particular) are with casual attitudes towards OPSEC violations.
What's the problem of asking for a bit more clarity?
The FOI request by was Drone Wars UK, I suspect the Observer correspondent is effectively recycling a press release, lazy journalism IMHO.
I neither blame Drone Wars UK for asking nor MoD for politely refusing to answer it, even if it is a deliberate "When did you stop beating your wife?' question. Our armed forces are after all defending a democracy in which opposing views are allowed.
To quote from their website (https://dronewars.net/role-and-aims/)
.
I neither blame Drone Wars UK for asking nor MoD for politely refusing to answer it, even if it is a deliberate "When did you stop beating your wife?' question. Our armed forces are after all defending a democracy in which opposing views are allowed.
To quote from their website (https://dronewars.net/role-and-aims/)
Drone Wars UK: Our Mission, Role and Strategic Aims
Drone Wars UK is a small, UK-based, NGO working towards a long-term goal of an international ban on the use of armed drones..
What happens when targeting is incorrect and innocent people are killed ? Does anybody expect Govt will admit to mistake or cover it up.
But if you do not have controls and oversight then what happens when there is an accident. Operators know they will always be subject to independent review.
When you allow zero review you empower people to do as they wish, without recourse, where anything wrong is always justified or washed over. History has shown giving people power and they abuse and it is not just people in uniform.
Proper Oversight
Nope
But if you do not have controls and oversight then what happens when there is an accident. Operators know they will always be subject to independent review.
When you allow zero review you empower people to do as they wish, without recourse, where anything wrong is always justified or washed over. History has shown giving people power and they abuse and it is not just people in uniform.
But if you do not have controls and oversight then what happens when there is an accident. Operators know they will always be subject to independent review.
When you allow zero review you empower people to do as they wish, without recourse, where anything wrong is always justified or washed over. History has shown giving people power and they abuse and it is not just people in uniform.
Personally, I have qualms about some uses of armed RPVs and even more so about autonomous AI. I do, however, accept that others will disagree - it is for democratic processes to settle on an agreed consensus. Preferably I think there should be an international convention on what constitute legitimate uses of RPVs and AI controlled military equipment. The current international laws are subject to wide and often conflicting interpretations. If the UK and US don't put their houses in order it is more difficult to justify condemnation of misuse by others. To quote Daniel Reisner, the former head of the IDF's international law division (ILD) in the Military Advocate General's Office, 'What we are seeing now is a revision of international law, if you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries. ... International law progresses through violations.' (full article regarding legal advice to the IDF regarding operations in Gaza 2009-10 at https://www.haaretz.com/1.5069101) We are now in the realms of how many collateral deaths make an attack legal or illegal - I am glad that I am not in a chain of command that has to take decision on that basis.
This is not an attack on the operators, some of whom are/have been members of this forum - they are acting in accordance with current domestic law, their own government's interpretation of international law, and the high standards of their respective services.
Clarification
Just to be clear when I said 'justify condemnation of misuse by others' I was thinking of certain governments unlikely to subject to the Western interpretation of the rule of law.
It is difficult to have faith in Democracy when billionaires (and business) buy the candidate they want and everything gets justified from there. Any attempt to allow true democracy hasn't a hope because people with money don't like it. OTOH other types of Govt don't feel you with hope either.
Governments setting strict limits and oversight is up to them NOT any other body but sadly few will do it.
I can see the day when AI used to take out people because of what they discussing because it is deemed contrary to the safety of the state as interpreted by AI. Give it 10 years.
Armed Drones
Just so I can get it straight in my head, what exactly do people have against armed drones?
Do they believe it is fine for a manned jet to drop a bomb but not fine for a drone with live uplinks and several people watching over the screens to drop a bomb?
Do they really understand what a Reaper is and can do or have they been watching too many Terminator movies?!
BV
Do they believe it is fine for a manned jet to drop a bomb but not fine for a drone with live uplinks and several people watching over the screens to drop a bomb?
Do they really understand what a Reaper is and can do or have they been watching too many Terminator movies?!
BV
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,807
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Well put, BV. I guess some people will only be happy if the target is interviewed face to face, deemed guilty, and then once the interviewer is at a safe distance a bomb is dropped on the guilty person[s].