Um, yea, cause Nukes in no way would be over kill for small remote controlled aircraft.
You didn't think they'd follow the Air Forces lead did you.
Um, yea, cause Nukes in no way would be over kill for small remote controlled aircraft.
He doesn't actually mean arming the UAVs with nuclear weapons in this case. What he's saying is that the increased presence of UAVs on the battlefield lowers the threshold at which field commanders and leaders back home will risk making provocative moves against other nations, because the threat of loss of human life on the part of the UAV operating nation is lessened or eliminated completely.
However, his concerns are still very premature and not entirely accurate. UAVs are still relatively expensive and in fairly limited use, so while they are sometimes placed in riskier situations than humans or human-piloted vehicles would be, they're not as expendible or ubiquitous as he suggests. Humans still have to do the bulk of the "heavy lifting" and carry out the majority of dangerous tasks, so no one is committing the UAVs to action without consideration of the humans that will have to eventually follow in most cases. Though that will change as UAVs become more inexpensive and simple, and thus easier to mass produce.
Additionally, his concerns about escalating to a nuclear war seem somewhat misplaced as that will place human lives in danger so the same considerations would hopefully apply to the involved nations as they do today. No one is going to assume that just because you carry out an attack or reconnaissance mission with a UAV that your enemy is not going to treat it the same way as they would a more conventional vehicle, so hopefully they would still hesitate to make any unecessarily provocative moves.
Um, yea, cause Nukes in no way would be over kill for small remote controlled aircraft.
He doesn't actually mean arming the UAVs with nuclear weapons in this case. What he's saying is that the increased presence of UAVs on the battlefield lowers the threshold at which field commanders and leaders back home will risk making provocative moves against other nations, because the threat of loss of human life on the part of the UAV operating nation is lessened or eliminated completely.
However, his concerns are still very premature and not entirely accurate. UAVs are still relatively expensive and in fairly limited use, so while they are sometimes placed in riskier situations than humans or human-piloted vehicles would be, they're not as expendible or ubiquitous as he suggests. Humans still have to do the bulk of the "heavy lifting" and carry out the majority of dangerous tasks, so no one is committing the UAVs to action without consideration of the humans that will have to eventually follow in most cases. Though that will change as UAVs become more inexpensive and simple, and thus easier to mass produce.
Additionally, his concerns about escalating to a nuclear war seem somewhat misplaced as that will place human lives in danger so the same considerations would hopefully apply to the involved nations as they do today. No one is going to assume that just because you carry out an attack or reconnaissance mission with a UAV that your enemy is not going to treat it the same way as they would a more conventional vehicle, so hopefully they would still hesitate to make any unecessarily provocative moves.
No, I ment that using a Nuke to take out UAV's would be overkill.
