Unmanned Technology Takes Off for the Weapons Industry

MILITARISM, 5 Dec 2011

Chris Woods, Emma Slater – The Independent

High-ranking military officers and their aides mingled with salesmen and potential customers at the 11th annual drones conference. Some had paid as much as £3,000 to attend Unmanned Aircraft Systems 2011, a two-day event that opened on 16 November in a plush hotel in Kensington, west London.

Outside the main hall, stalls promoting new technologies vied for attention. A Dutch company tried to interest delegates in a sound detection system for mini-drones. Another rep used a joystick to chase a speedboat around a screen (“My Miami Vice moment”) as he showed off a flight simulator.

There are more than 800 models of drone, ranging from tiny nano-spies to gigantic inflatables, and many were on sale. Away from the stalls, lectures were spattered with military jargon. A lieutenant-colonel gave an overview of Canada’s experiences with unarmed drones in Afghanistan. A Nato spokesman explained how 13 member nations are trying to run a joint surveillance-drone project. Even Nasa uses scientific research drones, delegates were told.

General Atomics has probably profited most from this first decade of armed drones, although the private firm’s annual turnover and profits remain a secret. Its agent, Stephen May, is less happy to learn a member of the press is present: “It’s in our contract,” he growls. “I can’t talk to you.” He is more forthcoming in his talk: “Every second of every day, over 58 of our Predator-series aircraft are airborne somewhere in the world.”

For the dozen or so protesters outside, armed drones represent runaway technology. Chris Cole, who runs the Drone Wars UK blog, accepts not all in the industry are involved with warfare. His quarrel is with those who are: “We don’t accept this idea of remote risk-free warfare as the drone industry likes to call it. It isn’t risk-free. There are hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties of drones.”

For a full report from the drones fair, go to: TheBureauInvestigates.com

Go to Original – independent.co.uk


Share this article:

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.