Chinese Planned to Kill Drug Lord With Drone
Here is a story that may provide additional “ammunition” — no pun intended — to those who are concerned about the use of drones to target and take out human beings, whether terrorists or criminals.
The article also provides a glimpse into how China is rapidly improving both its “Beidu” global navigation system — a key part of any remotely controlled attack drone system — and its manufacture of unmanned aerial vehicles for aerial warfare.
According to the New York Times this morning, “China considered using a drone strike in a mountainous region of Southeast Asia to kill a Myanmar drug lord wanted in the murders of 13 Chinese sailors, but decided instead to capture him alive, according to an influential state-run newspaper,” says the New York Times this morning.
The Ministry of Public Security’s plan called for using a drone carrying explosives to bomb the outlaw’s hideout in the opium-growing area of Myanmar, in the jungles of the Golden Triangle at the intersection of Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, after an extensive manhunt by the Chinese police in that area produced no results.
Read more here, but also at the Global Times here.
Image: www.shutterstock.com
Share This
Related Posts
-
Breaking: Obama Administration Admits Four Americans Killed in Drone Attacks
Posted on May 22, 2013
-
Drones: Made in America, Sold to Militaries Everywhere
Posted on May 17, 2013
-
Let’s Take a Walk Down the Memory Hole
Posted on May 16, 2013
-
DIY Drones: Is It Legal to Fly Your Own?
Posted on May 10, 2013
Seems to me there is a big concern over drones specifically. Does it matter if the killing is done via drone, fighter airstrike, or a sniper working behind enemy lines? The acts being performed by the drones are not new, just the methods, which to me is immaterial.
Hi Slamfu,
Thanks for your comments.
Looking at the weapon system — in a “clinical” way –as a means to deliver accurate firepower at the right time and at the right place, while minimizing the risk to the human “pilot” or “operator” or other personnel, you are absolutely right, there is not much new in using drones . Fighter aircraft and other platforms (stand-off weapon systems)have been delivering precision guided munitions and missiles since the 90s very effectively — militarily.
One big (military) advantage of these “drones” is that they can loiter around the target area for a long time searching for the proper target and then strike quickly when the target presents itself and has been confirmed.
As you may have gathered from various threads here, the concerns have more to do with the legality, morality, due process and the “collateral damage’ (that has always been present and much worse with previous not-so-precisely-guided munitions and missiles) than with the effectiveness of these weapons, and I can understand, not necessarily agree, with most of those concerns –and with the so-called slippery slope.
But looking at these weapon systems strictly from a military capabilities standpoint, they are very effective, but as you say, basically not new.
Thanks
Considering the possibility of the Chinese, or anyone else, in the future using weaponized drones for their purposes, drone expert Dennis Gormley of the University of Pittsburgh said in the article Dorian linked,
“They surely will have America’s armed drone practice as a convenient cover for legitimating their own practice.”
For now the Chinese have chosen to obey international law by NOT violating the sovereignty of other nations by sending weaponized drones into them. They chose instead the riskier, but lawful and moral choice of taking the person alive. I never thought I’d live to see the day when I had to say that China was acting with greater moral conscience and respect for the law than the United States.
Dorian…thanks for this post, interesting…
Also here i am going to jackrabbit off topic… sorry for the big jump…Do you know about the new series that starts tonight on Animal Planet?
If not, it is called Glory Hounds…
Rebecca’s War Dog Film Review of Week: Glory Hounds
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/21/rebecca_s_war_dog_film_review_of_the_week_glory_hounds
Direct link to Animal Planet: http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/glory-hounds
ABOUT GLORY HOUNDS
Wow! Thank you so much ordinarysparrow.
I have the greatest respect, admiration and fondness for these brave military working dogs, and have written often about them.
I was totally unaware of this program tonight, and I’ll be glued to the TV.
Thanks again
Dorian
Ordinarysparrow,
I just finished watching “Glory Hounds.”
I am not ashamed to say that I shed a few tears,
What a bunch of brave young men — and dogs. Buts also what a tragedy, what a shame, what an unforgivable waste of so many young men’s, and women’s, lives — and for what?
Thank you for letting me know about it
Dorian
Bingo. That do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do business can really come back to haunt you.
“For now the Chinese have chosen to obey international law by NOT violating the sovereignty of other nations by sending weaponized drones into them. They chose instead the riskier, but lawful and moral choice of taking the person alive.”
Lol, ok this might be in violation of posting rules here, but that has to be the most naive thing I have seen in awhile. Remember who you are talking about here. CHINA. The nation that to this day brutally oppresses Tibet. That sent in its troops in Tiananmen square while the whole world was watching and didn’t care. That routinely as the course of national policy violates the human rights of its own people in the day to day workings of its govt. The people that run China do so with all the authority of a queen ant issuing orders to her drones, and with all the humanity.
I can assure you with all the certainty that a mere mortal can bring to an argument that if China did something, it had 100% to do with a practical or political reasons(Ruling party political not foreign relations political) and exactly 0% to do with some obligation to any “lawful and moral choice”.
And to be more on topic, I guess what strikes me about these issues is that the word “Drone” is the only unusual part of the sentence. If the article was titled “Chinese planned to kill drug lord with strike team” would it be any big surprise or concern? That China would kill someone they didn’t like? The Chinese govt routinely kills people at its convenience. That’s one of the perks of being a totalitarian regime, you don’t have to worry about public opinion or sticky legal issues. But no, you put the word “Drone” in it, and its weird all of a sudden. Drones merely allow govt’s to do stuff they were already doing is my point.
Hi Slamfu,
It so happens I am trying to determine what the Chinese real motives were/are for capturing the drug lord alive, which I just have the feeling — from knowing China’s abhorrent human rights record — are not humanitarian.
And, no, I don’t think you are violating any comments rules
Slamfu,
I agree with everything you say about China and human rights. But, on the particular issue of drones,and on that issue alone, China is more in line with international law than we are.
As for why drones are different, I’ve addressed it multiple times and do not care to rehash how sanitizing war makes it more palitable and advances the neocon goal that the US should remain in a state of perpetual war. I do not buy the neocon vision of perpetual war and will not support policies based upon that premise. …
I certainly don’t support a state of perpetual war nor think that I even implied that. .. What we have these days is a watered down version of war. There is always going to be some conflict in the world, its simply too big and most of it is poor, lacks infrastructure, and far too much of it is under the thumb of dictators. On top of nations, we have huge criminal and terrorist organizations within them up to no good that affect us. We will always be taking action against them. Whether its the Irish Mafia in Boston, or Al Queda in North Africa, we will have guys with guns looking out for our interests.
We can only ignore these guys for so long. 9/11 ensured that we would put cross hairs on terrorist leaders on the other side of the world, because they showed us we can be hit by them. And as bad as this may seem to you, the bombs we drop via drones is a pittance compared to what we would do in the event of an actual war. When this nation goes to war, entire continents are leveled. Just ask Europe and Japan. Cities are smashed to rubble, not just merely precision bombed and occupied. … Drones are no more sanitary than a laser guided bomb from a piloted F-18 or a CIA wetworks team you never hear about in the news. In fact, they get a lot more press and make it less sanitary from a PR standpoint.
And here’s the real kicker. They don’t really have to make it palatable. When was there a war they didn’t just go ahead and do if they really felt like it? …Drones are simply another way of doing that which they were already doing, and that which they will continue to do. No new legal issues have been generated with the advent of drone technology, just a review of pre-existing procedures and doctrine.
We disagree! OK?
… For now, I must get in my car and will be away from this computer the remainder of the business day. I will not be able to respond further. All I can say is We Disagree.
Have a good weekend.
Dorian did not get to see Glory Dogs, thought i could stream from the computer, but looks like i will have to wait till they put it on Neflix…
Really look forward to seeing it…
You must see it, OS