Drone、遠隔 無線 操縦 殺人 兵器 飛行機 ロボット
REPORTAJE
La guerra teledirigida
Letales, sin tripulantes, dirigidos a distancia. Los drones no son el futuro. Ya son el presente en los conflictos bélicos.
Estas aeronaves, armas poderosas aunque también pueden tener uso civil, vulneran el derecho internacional cuando invaden el espacio aéreo en combate.
Jesús A. Núñez Villaverde 15 MAR 2013 - 00:00 CET
Archivado en:
- Aviones no tripulados
- Red espionaje Echelon
- Ataques militares
- Guerra
- Tecnología
- Acción militar
- Espionaje
- Transporte militar
- Conflictos
- Armamento
- Defensa
- Ciencia
ampliar foto
Los 'drones' se dirigen desde un centro de control, como este del Ejército alemán en Afganistán. / FABRIZIO BENSCH
FEATURE
Remote Control War
Lethal unmanned, remotely directed. Drones are not the future. Are already present in war.
These aircraft, although powerful weapons may also have civilian use, violate international law when they invade the airspace in combat.
Jesus A. Nunez Villaverde 15 MAR 2013 - 00:00 CET
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has just declared that the U.S. drones have killed at least 4,700 people in recent years. In his first term, President and Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama rose to a remarkable extent the use of these drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, the Sahel countries and the Philippines. Washington is precisely who, along with Israel, is betting on further development of instruments of killing that, in one fell swoop (or, better, joystick button), question the national sovereignty of the countries that develop their attacks, carried out extrajudicial executions and war dehumanize.
To its proponents, this is the best way to face a new battle in which the enemy is no longer a soldier in uniform and anonymous, but an individual fighter's name that can not be deterred or detained in classic before can act. Thus, they argue that the drones (literally, bumblebees) save many lives, as there are no drivers or crews, reduce collateral damage due to its high accuracy and save significant resources being apparently much cheaper than equivalent manned. They add even which free human task load dull, dirty and dangerous: nobody is excited ceaselessly patrolling a border or burn their eyes to a screen that relays what happens in the territorial waters of a country or enter a highly contaminated area by a nuclear accident, in the eye of a hurricane or in the core of a volcanic eruption. And let alone enough people willing to enter blindly into a house where an enemy willing to locate everything.
The fact is that the drones are already doing all that. Take for example the Black Hornet minihelicóptero Nano, only 10 inches long, weighing 16 kilos and equipped with a camera, which used British troops in Afghanistan in urban combat actions. From there, the imagination can fly the pace of which we speak, first, of machines the size of a hummingbird or a fly and adapted to environments where high pollution or insecurity could seamlessly move to record relevant data or to report what they see. And on the other, suspended platform about 11 meters long, as the MQ-9 Reaper U.S., up to 14 can be armed with air-to-ground missiles.
Advocates of 'drones' claim that save countless lives, reduce collateral damage and are cheaper than manned missions
Moving forward on the same line, point and combat scenarios where human casualties would just because the drones, operated remotely by operators safe from the immediate consequences of their actions, just destroy fully automated weapons systems. As a result of this approach, the US-based Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), formed by former military and industry people that promotes technological development of drones, estimated that more than 2,400 companies from 40 countries, with the U.S. and Israel in the lead, develop these products. Their forecasts suggest a turnover of at least EUR 70,000 million in ten years.
But it is in each of these alleged advantages where lie the main points of debate. First, the proliferation drónica, always presented as beneficial to our security, leads us to the absolute loss of privacy in a crowded environment of eyes watch us even more than they already are. Remember that not talking about science fiction, but of realities that are added to the controversial Echelon electronic spy network, operating at least since the seventies of the last century. An example is presented by U.S. arms company Raytheon: A software known as Riot, which can trace our activities and movements by the tracks we leave in social networks and predict our behavior and future locations.
To this are added other elements when it comes to the specific field of Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV), exclusively military use. These combat systems that integrate a flying platform controlled remotely, via satellite links, cameras for identification and tracking of targets and various weapons. They are designed to selectively kill people located in virtually every corner of the planet. In the U.S. case, the most sophisticated example, the UCAV have a complex: some operators trained in Holloman Air Force Base (New Mexico), air bases scattered across the globe-both on U.S. soil as in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles and probably soon in Niger, a few hundred drones and a range of missiles and bombs. All this in the hands of the Air Force, the Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA, an agency increasingly paramilitary.
The devices allow selectively kill a person anywhere. Their proliferation leads us to be even more guarded
While you can debate whether or not their task compared to fighter pilots, and there are also medals to reward their work-, military operators of these systems meet their working hours in a room full of cameras, displays and computers. Execute the plans decided by the appropriate authority, John Brennan. The imminent CIA director has developed protocols in force in Washington as a presidential adviser on terrorism and be identifiable as the brains, with Obama's approval, in this delicate matter. It may happen that an operator is making the morning a reconnaissance mission in Somalia operating a drone that has taken off in the Seychelles and the afternoon is devoted to delete an individual located in a Yemen hideout using a high on base UCAV Saudi. And all this without moving physically to those places, because it only needs to have a good satellite connection.
Acting thus implies not only invade the airspace of other States in contravention of international law and the Open Skies Treaty, in force since 2002 and which commits the 34 signatory states to open its airspace to the observation of others in a commendable exercise of transparency. It also involves activating a lethal machine that violates the foundations of the rule of law and that hardly fits with the habits and customs of war. In summary, these summary executions that break with the idea that in a war not sought the death of specific individuals, but the defeat of an army or armed group names. Instead of seeking the cooperation of the State where the alleged target identified by appealing to international police cooperation, and with the idea of stopping for submission to a subsequent trial, the option to liquidate surgically without thereby prevent death of innocent civilians. Also discarded the cumbersome need to deploy on the ground special operations unit that may err on the white into an ambush or getting caught while trying to reach safety after the action.
As made clear the elimination of terrorist Anwar Aulaki, a U.S. citizen killed by a drone on Yemeni soil in September 2011, Washington chose an act of punishment or revenge, not justice, against one of its own citizens without defense option or a fair trial. You can always be argued, as reflected in the arguments of the Obama Administration itself, that no legal basis for doing so in a war in which there is no opposition camp uniform and framed in military units. But that does not mean weakening the building to the extreme legal and ethical corresponding to a democratic society when jumping their own red lines and adopts the methods of hand which seeks to defeat.
The 'drones' are directed from a control center, as the German Army in Afghanistan. / Fabrizio Bensch
Moreover, for those who have to give the order to kill everything is simpler in so far as it does not threaten the lives of its people and wears much less in political terms, both to their own opinion as to rulers the country where the operation was performed. That was in December 2011, when an RQ-170 Sentinel fell into Iranian hands. The impact was very different from that which would have existed if a manned aircraft. That ease of pushing a button kill distance to clear a problem becomes much more tempting to resort to violence. Without adding any war epic confrontation, it is clear that killing is not the same face to face to do it from an office asepsis and hiding behind the anonymity, it also ensures no direct retaliation against the attacker.
Using the 'bumblebee', justified by Obama, undermines democratic principles of a society that adopts the method of opponent
As he settles the controversy generated by some apparatus which now seem prehistoric models, and were used in the two world wars of the last century, its development seems endless. Some want them and as a final weapon in the immediate future, with human intervention just remarkable, wars will be triggered and develop clean with high precision. In that line seems out of space remaining for science fiction, because all you can imagine in this area is already a reality today. An uncomfortable reality, because it leaves reduced to mere paper main victims of our own wits war in a high-tech automated, which would not escape.
Another element that encourages this process is the emphasis on the civilian use of drones, for example surveying, crop spraying, surveillance of land and sea traffic, recording television programs or environmental protection. As a very recent shows the strength of this industry, earlier this year the British Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has granted permission to 160 civilian users, from universities to the BBC, to fire, police and companies like Video Marketing Golf, National Grid or BAE Systems, to operate its drones in British skies. Just weighing less than 20 kilos, not exceeding 122 meters above sea level and have a range of less than a mile to ensure that it is cheap in view of its operator.
Militarily, the jump has been exponential in both the quantity and quality of the devices that are already operating. The wide variety of aircraft ranging from the Handled service, operating at less than 2,000 feet (609.6 meters) with low speed and a maximum range of two miles, until you can make trips to the moon at hypersonic speeds.
In the EU develop 400 projects of unmanned aircraft. The agency Frontex wants to use for border control
There are many types of drones, both military and civilian. In the EU alone, 19 states developed some 400 different models but until now it has been possible common regulation, originally scheduled for 2016. There are projects like the Franco-British Talarion Telemos or EADS, suspended in time. In Spain, the company has created the helicopter Indra Pelican, 200 kilos and intended for maritime surveillance, and monitoring small plane Mantis. They are not alone: Singular Aircraff company, for example, has made SA-03 model for border surveillance. Precisely the Borders Agency, Frontex, intends to use drones to develop "common intelligence cadres" in areas close to the boundaries. Evidence of the boom, too, is that South Korea plans to build unmanned helicopters to attack North Korean military bases. Israel gets to sell its French and German Heron, who use it in Afghanistan. U.S. plans to expand its fleet by 35% in a decade, with no announced budget cuts in other chapters. And in armaments fairs as UNVEX'13 America in Lima, and IDEX'13, Abu Dhabi, drones have undeniable prominence.
Faced with this unstoppable tide, Could it be that the so-called rogue states and international terrorist groups also are not going to try to catch them?
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿