Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

triplepoint

(431 posts)
24. Drone Attack = Act of War
Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:56 PM
Feb 2013

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:34 AM - Edit history (4)

--The same result as when Germany sent V1 "Buzz Bombs" into England...except the V1 wasn't as accurate and didn't return from its mission. Our drones are teleoperated/actively guided (human-in-the-loop "radio controlled&quot while the V1 was autonomous, with a simple autopilot. That's the only control difference that I have noticed about them thus far. If one now realizes that the modern armed drone aircraft is actively human-controlled, then it is virtually human piloted, and achieves results similar or slightly worse than what a human-borne attack aircraft achieves.
.
.

V-1 Buzz Bomb (ancestor of the Cruise Missile)
.
.

Tomahawk Cruise Missile
.
.

Predator Drone
.
..

F-20 Tigershark
.
.
So, this is not much different than what organized crime engages in when it seeks to eliminate its enemies....except of course that the Mafia does it while on the ground. Under international Law, this is very likely illegal. The UN should and I hope it does conclude as much. So, what recourse do they have after that? Do UN member countries sign off on arrest warrants for those who ordered up these assassinations? What about the collateral damage these assassination missions cause? What an effective anti-American sentiment recruiting tool these drone attacks continue to be. Is this the new face of U.S. Hegemony in the World? Is this the "Big Stick" that the late President Teddy Roosevelt said we should carry while walking softly?


Some background info on The V-1 Buzz Bomb
The V-1 was developed at Peenemünde Airfield by the German Luftwaffe during the Second World War. During initial development it was known by the codename "Cherry Stone". The first of the so-called Vergeltungswaffen series designed for terror bombing of London, the V-1 was fired from "ski" launch sites along the French (Pas-de-Calais) and Dutch coasts. The first V-1 was launched at London on 13 June 1944, one week after (and prompted by) the successful Allied landing in Europe. At its peak, more than one hundred V-1s a day were fired at southeast England, 9,521 in total, decreasing in number as sites were overrun until October 1944, when the last V-1 site in range of Britain was overrun by Allied forces. This caused the remaining V-1s to be directed at the port of Antwerp and other targets in Belgium, with 2,448 V-1s being launched. The attacks stopped when the last site was overrun on 29 March 1945. In total, the V-1 attacks caused 22,892 casualties (almost entirely civilians).

V-1 missile or flying bomb or buzz bomb
German missile of World War II. The forerunner of modern cruise missiles, it was about 25 ft (8 m) long and had a wingspan of about 18 ft (5.5 m). It was launched from catapult ramps or sometimes from aircraft; it carried an explosive warhead of almost 1,900 lbs (850 kg) and had an average range of 150 mi (240 km). More than 8,000 V-1s were launched against London in 1944–45, and a smaller number against Belgium. The V-1 guidance system used a simple autopilot to regulate height and speed. A weighted pendulum system provided fore-and-aft attitude measurement to control pitch (damped by a gyrocompass, which it also stabilized). There was a more sophisticated interaction between yaw, roll, and other sensors: a gyrocompass (set by swinging in a hangar before launch) gave feedback to control each of pitch and roll, but it was angled away from the horizontal so that controlling these degrees of freedom interacted: the gyroscope stayed trued up by feedback from the magnetic field, and from the fore and aft pendulum. This interaction meant that rudder control was enough without a separate banking mechanism. A countdown timer driven by a vane anemometer on the nose determined when target range had been reached, accurately enough for area bombing. Before launch the counter was set to a value that would reach zero upon arrival at the target in the prevailing wind conditions. As the missile flew, the airflow turned the propeller and every 30 rotations of the propeller counted down one number on the counter. This counter triggered the arming of the warhead after about 60 km (38 miles). When the count reached zero, two detonating bolts were fired. Two spoilers on the elevator were released, the linkage between the elevator and servo was jammed and a guillotine device cut off the control hoses to the rudder servo, setting the rudder in neutral. These actions led the V-1 into a steep dive. While this was originally intended to be a power dive, in practice the dive caused the fuel flow to cease, which stopped the engine. The sudden silence after the buzzing alerted listeners that the V-1 would impact soon. The fuel problem was quickly fixed and by the time the last V-1 fell, the majority had impacted under full power. Almost 30,000 V-1s were made. Approximately 10,000 were fired at England; 2,419 reached London, killing about 6,184 people and injuring 17,981. The greatest density of hits were received by Croydon, on the SE fringe of London.
.
.





Reference Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
http://www.reference.com/browse/buzz-bomb

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

K&R Solly Mack Feb 2013 #1
Congress is going to take it up I believe, however, still_one Feb 2013 #2
Congress could cut off funding for it, just as it did for closing Gitmo Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #37
yes, just like they did for Gimo. Excellent analogy still_one Feb 2013 #38
There's really not much more to say. Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #3
If Obama does it it must be ok. Jump on board! n-t Logical Feb 2013 #4
I Don't Think That's the Prevailing Thought Here on DU dballance Feb 2013 #29
disgust kardonb Feb 2013 #30
oh dear. that's an awfully dangerous way of "thinking" cali Feb 2013 #35
Yes, We Must Use Every LEGAL Means of Protecting Our Contry dballance Feb 2013 #36
I was kidding! I think Obama messed up on this one! Logical Feb 2013 #47
No, you don't understand: accusations are evidence kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #5
Kicked... Agschmid Feb 2013 #6
"If a high-ranking administration official does it, it's not illegal." jsr Feb 2013 #7
Or, as Nixon stated it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." WinkyDink Feb 2013 #15
DURec leftstreet Feb 2013 #8
All the talk of "rights to retaliate against insurgents" and "insurrection" is just legalistic Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2013 #9
+1 leftstreet Feb 2013 #14
+2 daleanime Feb 2013 #18
Thank you. Please make this an OP. nt woo me with science Feb 2013 #19
Yes, Obama could say no. But he is quite un-used to doing so. truedelphi Feb 2013 #28
it's even on TVTropes MisterP Feb 2013 #39
It is NOT that he just isn't saying NO. bvar22 Feb 2013 #54
+5 Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #34
K&R please consider reporting this as OP idwiyo Feb 2013 #49
Very well said. n/t intheflow Feb 2013 #53
Who is indefensible? treestar Feb 2013 #59
As I said elsewhere.... FredStembottom Feb 2013 #10
There is if you consider the War on Terror to be an actual war. Well-meaning people kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #11
.... Fix The Stupid Feb 2013 #12
Absolutely mwrguy Feb 2013 #13
Excuse me, but that was a declared war among sovereign states, not an extra-judicial attack WinkyDink Feb 2013 #17
Yes, and the War on Terror is and always has been bogus Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2013 #20
Although I am with you in your statement, let's play truedelphi Feb 2013 #56
+1. n/t FSogol Feb 2013 #16
I suggest reading the memo cali Feb 2013 #22
"Thrown a monkey wrench into Al Qaeda's workings".. SomethingFishy Feb 2013 #31
Thanks cali locks Feb 2013 #21
Bush used the same excuse, "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #23
Drone Attack = Act of War triplepoint Feb 2013 #24
Actively guided and less indiscriminate. nt reACTIONary Feb 2013 #57
I agree 100% LostinRed Feb 2013 #25
K&R Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #26
Agreed...knr joeybee12 Feb 2013 #27
Totally Agree colsohlibgal Feb 2013 #32
Articles? We don't need no steenking articals!!! Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #33
Some defenses are posted ProSense Feb 2013 #40
No, it's not, but that still doesn't make this policy defensible. cali Feb 2013 #42
You're denying that statements? ProSense Feb 2013 #46
I'm sorry but you are just wrong. Have you read the entire memorandum? cali Feb 2013 #48
agreed. and if Bush was doing this... noiretextatique Feb 2013 #41
Most would not. cali Feb 2013 #43
so agree with you... loveandlight Feb 2013 #44
K&R G_j Feb 2013 #45
K&R woo me with science Feb 2013 #50
I've become a huge Obama supporter, but this is WRONG. liberalmuse Feb 2013 #51
K&R intheflow Feb 2013 #52
Sorry, Cali, but there ARE "defenses" posted all over DU. bvar22 Feb 2013 #55
That includes all people killed in Hiroshima right? treestar Feb 2013 #58
I have serious reservations about Hiroshima BUT... Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2013 #60
I think the term extrajudicial killing is too harsh. AngryAmish Feb 2013 #61
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There really is no defens...»Reply #24