backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Apr 8 at 11:34 AM

The Iranian government announced earlier in the year it has started UAV development

Iran remains a nation closely watched by the United States and the rest of the western world, especially now that the country is developing a more sophisticated unmanned drone program. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is concerned with the progress of Iranian drone development, and there is a growing concern the drone technology could be sold to terrorist groups.

"Countries like Iran are developing their own UAVs and already have a UAV capability," said Gates, speaking in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  "That is a concern, because it is one of these areas where -- if they chose to, in Iraq, in Afghanistan -- they could create difficulties for us."

The country began development in February, seeking to manufacture "advanced" UAVs able to conduct surveillance and coordinated strikes.  Furthermore, if the country is successful in developing nuclear weapons, there is a grave concern the drones could one day be used to attack major targets.  

Even so, the U.S. military has an advanced air fleet that should be capable of shooting down the drones according to military analysts.

The U.S. military continually uses UAVs in coordinated airstrikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, with the Pakistani military expected to receive UAV technology from the U.S.  Russia also is developing advanced UAVs for future use, with European news reports specifically mentioning their use to prevent attacks from terrorists based in Chechnya.

It's also possible UAVs will be used to patrol the Somali coast to help locate and identify pirates before they are able to hijack commercial vessels. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Fixed.
By retrospooty on 4/7/2010 10:15:20 AM , Rating: 1
"The answer should be simple and obvious: preemptive strike. "

LOL -that is one of the least educated things I have ever heard anyone say in my life. I seriously hope you were joking.

Striking at Iran would galvanize the entire Muslim world against us and suicide bombers would increase 10, perhaps 100x. It would truly be "Jihad".

OK for Iraq and Afganistan, there were obvious reasons to invade, but Iran - we would just be seen as the aggressor, trying snuff out Muslim states.

IF there is ANY solution, it is to get out of the middle east entirely and get off their oil. They just want us out, and they are right, we have no place there.


RE: Fixed.
By wiz220 on 4/7/2010 1:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
Actually by your logic it would make perfect sense to attack Iran. You stated that there were "obvious reasons" for invading Iraq. The primary "reason" for invading was the development of WMD, of which we had no clear evidence and the intelligence was poor.

In Iran on the other hand you have hard line religious zealots running a country and we KNOW that they have a nuclear program. Whether you think it is truly for peaceful purposes or weapons, I'll let you decide. But we definitely know the program exists as opposed to the evidence of "they have some aluminum tubes!"

Add that with evidence that Iran is training insurgents and helping the Taliban and you have all the justification necessary for attacking Iran. I'm honestly amazed that Bush never did it. Sorta makes me think that the reasons for going into Iraq were not what the administration said they were.


RE: Fixed.
By retrospooty on 4/7/2010 2:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
"Sorta makes me think that the reasons for going into Iraq were not what the administration said they were."

Absolutly true... But my point is that invading Iran would galvanize the whole Muslim world against us. Iraq didnt, primarily because the whole country hated Sadaam. The people were behind the US... Remember toppleing hte stture, cheering and parades in the streets.

If we invaded Iran, it would be very VERY different. They would see us an an agressor butting in where we dont below. Even the people protesting agains the govt would not be on our side. Other nations would jion in as well, against us. It would literally be an all out holy war insuring new generations of suicide bombers for decades to come.


RE: Fixed.
By retrospooty on 4/7/2010 2:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
damn keyboard. " toppleing hte stture," - toppling the Statue of Sadaam


RE: Fixed.
By gamerk2 on 4/7/2010 2:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Start an un-justified war in Iran, and the entire mid-east would likely get involved. [Oil Embargo anyone?]

Nevermind that we need Turkey and the Saudies to maintain our lines of supply...


RE: Fixed.
By therealnickdanger on 4/7/2010 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Striking at Iran would galvanize the entire Muslim world against us and suicide bombers would increase 10, perhaps 100x. It would truly be "Jihad".

People said the same thing about Afghanistan and Iraq, but it never materialized:
http://www.mediaglobal.org/article/2008-05-21/terr...

Iran is proving itself a greater threat every day. If the stockpiling of weapons, pursuit of WMDs, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's many threats to destroy Israel aren't enough, then what? How long did the world ignore Hitler before he started his campaign?


RE: Fixed.
By retrospooty on 4/7/2010 2:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
no, after 9/11 - going in after Al Qaeda and the people that harbored them was totally justified. It couldnt gain any traction, and Iraq hated Sadaam, and celebrated in the streets when we ousted him. Its not the same. Not at all the same


RE: Fixed.
By retrospooty on 4/7/2010 2:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Iran is proving itself a greater threat every day. If the stockpiling of weapons, pursuit of WMDs, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's many threats to destroy Israel aren't enough, then what? How long did the world ignore Hitler before he started his campaign? "

Uh... Hitler invaded alot of countries and was open and obvious with his intention to conquer the world. Iran hasn't done anything to anyone other than verbal.

If they do, then justification can be made, but they havent done a damn thing yet. Comparing them to Hitler is totally invalid and shows you know zero about Iran and hte middle east in general.


RE: Fixed.
By farbdogg on 4/7/2010 4:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
How is comparing Hitler to Ahmadinejad invalid? Hitler started by talking and blaming the jews. He then developed tanks and arms for war. Ahmadinejad made it clear he wants to wipe Israel off the map. He's now openly developing nuclear weapons. But I guess we know 0 about the middle east. You do have a point though, Ahmadinejad doesn't recognize there was a Holocaust, so comparing them is trivial...


RE: Fixed.
By retrospooty on 4/7/2010 6:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter what you think he MIGHT so. As a nation and the worlds superpower, we cant just invade a country becasue they MIGHT do something. Hitler did alot, a hell of a lot before the rest of the world got involved.

Ahmadinejad is not the true power in Iran. He is also alot like Biden with the verbal gaffs. Ther eis a huge difference between stating we should wipe Israel off the map and actually doing something about it as a national policy. that is a HUGER step. Iran hasn't taken it, you cant just invade.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki