Obama administration releases redacted version of drone policy | Hacker News Reader

Obama administration releases redacted version of drone policy

msn.com

22 pointsourmandave31 comments

When countries we don't like begin to carry out their own drone strikes, expect to hear something like, "Civilized nations don't carry out justice like that in the 21st century. This has to stop now."

What countries other than the US operate armed drones?

Russia kinda does. However, they are more like cruise missiles.

Care to point me to a Russian drone- strike report?

They do have UAVs for surveillance, but I've not seen any report of them using them for targeted killings.

I think only USA and Israel have such a program, that is, used atively for targeted killings.

Israel does perform targeted killings but not with drones, their air force doesn't want to arm them, and since the majority of their targets are in the Gaza strip these days the current legal framework in Israel forbids operating armed UAV's within Israel or the Palestinian Territories. For the most part the IAF was always "against" drones, in the 1970's drones were pushed heavily by the ground forces, from the early 90's to the early 2000's the drones were operated by the Intelligence Directorate, once the IAF figured out that drones are becoming a major thing they pretty much retroactively called dibs on them all, and now they are the ones that operating all drones (combat flight school washouts are retrained as drone pilots) other than infantry operated battlefield reconnaissance miniature UAV's.

Now I recall that Israel has operated and used drones to take out a suspected shipment of Iranian arms somewhere over North Africa or East Africa. I don't have the source, but goolging should help you, if you're interested.

Israel hasn't used drones in Sudan.

At least try googling before making a comment like that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sudan_airstrikes.

They have also used drones to kill militants in Egypt.

I don't need googling I was on active reserve duty during the 2009 strikes.

The strike earlier this year that were reported by an ISIS affiliated group in the Sinai which were attributed to Israel were executed using attack helicopters even ISIS's own media reported as such, drones were used as they are always are for intelligence, tracking and BDA and in many cases for closing the shooter loop.

Israeli AH-64 are also equipped with SPIKE NLOS which has a range of 25KM rather than the 8K (or well 4KM as far as the AGM-114 that Israel is allowed to buy) that the Hellfire can do, this allows Israel to engage targets at a distance sufficient for political cover including over the border when needed.

When longer ranges are required Delilah or potentially the SPICE 1000/ER (SPICE doesn't have terminal AAL capabilities which are currently mandated by the legal guidelines in Israel, but if the target is outside of the territories it can potentially be used) can be used to increasing the range to 100-250KM which allows Israel to engage from international airspace or from within a "friendly nation".

Please stop basing your entire worldview on Google and not to mention wikipedia, neither are particularly a reliable source.

Russia has loitering munitions, you can technically classify them as "drones" but they aren't really the same thing, mostly since if those are drones then any modern missile today is also a drone. China can has drones that can potentially be armed, but China hasn't really engaged anyone kinda well ever. Israel has operated drones for longer than the US has, and it's bigger drones like the Hermes 900 and the Heron TP (and probably some of the smaller ones) can be potentially be armed with munitions considerably bigger than the Hellfire missile, but there has never been a single confirmation of this, the IAF seems to be against it and the current legal framework in Israel doesn't allow for armed drones to operate within Israel or the "territories", and they are not allowed to be used for targeted assassinations either.

> but China hasn't really engaged anyone kinda well ever

Yes, they have. Zhenbao Island, Korea, Sino-Indian War, Paracel Islands, Sino-Vietnamese War, and more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Peo...

I think he was referring to engaging with armed drones.

Many countries including Italy, Turkey, China and UK.

Also as another commenter said, there is little different between a drone and a cruise missile (other than reuse).

None of those countries, with the exception of China operate armed drones. The UK's drone is the Skywatcher 450 which is a homebuilt version of the Israeli Hermes 450 and it is not armed. Italy's homegrown drones are still in development and are primarily for export and by default unarmed, it does operate a few Israeli Hermes UAV which are again unarmed. China has quite a bit of UAV's they seem to mirror the same form and function as the US ones, they also routinely buy UAV's from other countries primarily Israel but the only "armed" UAV that Israel has sold China is technically a loitering munition. And while China did showcase a few drones that were armed it doesn't actually operates them anywhere, not that it won't in the future but currently it's pretty much only the US which uses armed drones on well a daily basis.

Who said anything about homebuilt? You have just introduced that concept. It makes no difference who makes them. Few countries make subs, but plenty of countries field them.

Italy has, for example, an armed and an unarmed squadron of Predators. They have even used armed Predators against ISIS in Iraq.

The UK carried out a strike against one of its citizens in Syria, so they most certainly do use armed drones.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/uk-forces-ai...

It was a US-built drone, but it was a British mission with British pilots.

It appears that Saudi Arabia just purchased some.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/25/5652804/saudi-arabia-has-j...

China operates a number of armed drones, whether they've been used in any actions is unknown.

Nigeria operates armed CH-4 drones from China.

South Africa has armed versions of its Seeker 400 drone, though it's not clear if those acquired by Defence Intelligence are armed yet.

Iran's Shahed-129 drone is armed with the Sadid-1 air-to-surface missile and is in active service.

Israel has armed drones, even though present policy prevents them from being used in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

The UK and Italy both have armed Reapers.

Saudi Arabia has also acquired armed drones from China.

In short, nearly 25 countries either have or are actively developing armed drones. I expect that number to go up dramatically in the next ten years, as armed drones become as common exports as unarmed drones.

Maybe, or maybe it will just be a reason to build a wildly expensive, "National Drone Defense Network".

Haha... who needs roads, bridges, and sewers anyway?!

this resource is the best i have seen on the actions relating to drones:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/dron...

the site can be difficult to navigate, so here are some quick links the cleanest lists:

pakistan:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/01/11/obama-2016-...

yemen:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/01/18/yemen-repor...

somalia:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/01/07/get-the-dat...

afghanistan:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/01/07/get-the-dat...

and they also have the information in accessible datasets, here is pakistan's:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NAfjFonM-Tn7fziqiv33...

With all that is going on with the DNC and election, Obama has gotten a lot of great press recently; his approval numbers are sky high.

I'm not saying that I don't think Obama is a good president, but people seem to forget two big chunks of his lasting legacy -- drones and surveillance.

It is not hard too look like a giant when surrounded by midgets. I think the American people are looking at what they have a choice of next and wishing that the 22nd amendment had never been passed [1].

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_t...

> I think the American people are looking at what they have a choice of next and wishing that the 22nd amendment had never been passed [1].

Americans had a great candidate, who was sandbagged by the DNC. They deserve the president they get now.

The American people have some decent choices. They just refuse to look past the big two parties.

Well with the current voting system it is hard to make a change. A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all.

A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all.

That's not true at all. Want your non-Big-Two party at the presidential debates? Vote, because last I looked the invites are sent based on how much of the popular vote the party got last time (15%, I think?). Maybe I'm wrong on that, or the rules changed, but it still matters. You tell your neighbor you're voting Libertarian and suddenly the Libs look like normal folk, not a bunch of pot heads who don't like to pay taxes. You think pols didn't pay attention when Perot garnered 19% even after he went all tin-foil hat and withdrew from the race at one point?

No matter who you vote for, your vote makes a difference. It just probably doesn't make as much difference as you'd like it to.

Debate participation is based on the national polls.

Federal election funds are scaled to the results of previous elections.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General

It is actually a bit more complex provided you have an opinion as to which of the two major party candidates is worse. If you consider both equally bad then yes voting for a minor candidate has some small positive value, but if you consider one of the major candidates worse than the other then not voting for the other is a negative.

I don’t vote for a candidate - I vote against my least favorite candidate. I find it much easier to decide who I like least than who I like most.

> A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all.

That attitude is exactly why.

Not really - it is a function of using a first past the post voting system.

What would help is for people to campaign for a new voting system starting at the local level, progressing to the state level, and eventually national level. Fix the voting system and the candidates you have a choice of will change.

It happens every time. Internet demography has a "liberal/democrat" bias and, every election cycle they'll forget every criticism they might've had because "The others are worse"and "Would you rather have Sarah Palin ordering drone strikes?"

It's tribalism all the way down and it shows when the same group of people that condemned Bush's actions refuse to condemn them or rationalize them when it's Obama's doing.

I'm very skeptical of the whole system, to say the least.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com