Iran puts captured RQ-170 on display

[Delta Starfire]

This. You don't bring your advanced technology into enemy territory without a way to destroy it before it gets in their hands. Even Crysis knew that.

As I understand it, it was an unarmed drone. In the language of international diplomacy (especially with countries you're not on good terms with) putting explosives on board, even for self-destruct purposes, would probably raise its status to an armed drone, which could be interpreted (deliberately, mind you) as an attack, not just as spying. After all, let's not forget that the V-1 "Buzz Bomb" was essentially a UAV with a warhead.

I'd imagine that the Americans arrogantly assumed that the Iranians would never so much as spot one of their state-of-the-art stealth drones, to say nothing of bringing it down, undamaged, through cyber warfare. America seems to have a bad habit of underestimating its enemies and just assuming they can plough over them all with better technology, and it's not just the military; I'm seeing it in this topic too. People immediately jump to the assumption that, because they obviously didn't shoot this thing down, they must have stolen it somehow, or it landed by mistake because of a software glitch; but nobody thinks that the Iranians might have hacked into the drone and taken control of it, because that's way too smart for these desert-dwelling towel heads, right?

I've got news for you, people. Iran may be a less advanced nation, with a lot less money and less impressive technology than we in the West enjoy, and it may also be a nation dominated by a particularly frightening brand of fundamentalist Islam; but they're not cavemen. Given the right tools, they're just as capable of doing anything we can do. And, given that they don't have the right tools, they're naturally driven to be much more resourceful than we have to be. America underestimates Iran and nations like it at its own risk.

Moreover, talking of American military technology, as advanced as it may be on paper, in practice, it often leaves a lot to be desired. Look at the V-22 Osprey and the F-22 Raptor. I'm surprised the amount of money America spends on these programs isn't a national embarrassment.

[Axl.EXE]

Who would interpret a drone unarmed (except for a self-destruct charge) as an attack? I mean besides Iran or North Korea.

Also, as for the Osprey and the Raptor, well, the Osprey's tilt-rotor is very complex, so gremlins are a given. And the F-22 hasn't been used in proper combat, and since it's such an advanced plane, that tends to make pilots cocky. Cocky pilot = Bad pilot, hence, crashes.

[Tornado]

I'd imagine that the Americans arrogantly assumed that the Iranians would never so much as spot one of their state-of-the-art stealth drones, to say nothing of bringing it down, undamaged, through cyber warfare.

Which is considerably easier to believe than the idea that Iran, a country whose most advanced military equipment is stuff that they took from America 35 years ago when they overthrew the puppet state America set up, is somehow at the forefront of counterintelligence technology and cyber warfare. There are countries that could probably jerry-rig something together to detect American spy equipment (if only by exploiting loopholes in it, like countries used to do against the F-117 to try to shoot it down) and try to down it. There are even countries in that region that don't particularly like America who could probably do it.

But I see no reason to believe that Iran is one of them, and this isn't even a case of "trying to shoot it down." This is a case that Iran is claiming that they somehow managed to take control of an American spy plane away from America mid flight and do what they wanted with it.

America seems to have a bad habit of underestimating its enemies and just assuming they can plough over them all with better technology, and it's not just the military; I'm seeing it in this topic too.

Because 9 times out of 10, that rings true. I perfectly understand what you are saying, but every incursion the U.S. military makes does not result in an early Vietnam-style scenario.

Furthermore, stuff like UAVs and stealth planes is basically purely a technology fight. That Iran somehow developed a system to down top of the line American stealth technology purely by "hacking" it is a bit like the "hacking into the alien mothership with a Powerbook" bits from Independence Day in believability.

People immediately jump to the assumption that, because they obviously didn't shoot this thing down, they must have stolen it somehow, or it landed by mistake because of a software glitch;

No one jumped to any assumption. That is what the U.S. government said was what happened.

but nobody thinks that the Iranians might have hacked into the drone and taken control of it, because that's way too smart for these desert-dwelling towel heads, right?

I really, really hate it when you do this. No one in this thread said anything remotely like that.

Given the right tools, they're just as capable of doing anything we can do.

And where are they going to get them? The countries that have the technology to do what Iran claimed they did have spent a quarter decade developing it, and they won't give it away.

For comparison, we wouldn't even give Japan the F-22 even though they are at such a technological level that they could have built the thing themselves if we would let them.

Russia has even more reason to be wary of technology sharing in the region than we do, so they wouldn't give it to them; and I'm doubtful that Russia even has the necessary tech.

China doesn't even share technology with its satellites as much as the U.S.S.R. did, and the U.S.S.R. didn't give any of its satellites stuff that wasn't already 15-20 years out of date (and Iran isn't even on friendly terms with China).

The only country that is relatively "free" with military technology is France, and there is no chance that they would sell such technology if they had built it.

And, given that they don't have the right tools, they're naturally driven to be much more resourceful than we have to be.

Iran has no capability to do the things that they said they did. Purely by logistics, Iran wouldn't have even been able to see the thing if it was working right unless they got lucky and figured something out to detect it; but detection (and even shooting it down) is on an entirely different level from taking control of and landing it.

Making things up as you go along and Macgyvering stuff together only gets you so far.

Look at the V-22 Osprey and the F-22 Raptor. I'm surprised the amount of money America spends on these programs isn't a national embarrassment.

They are. That's why they were both drastically cut back in scale (and in the F-22's case, basically cancelled with the option of continuing after a short run).

And since the F35 is turning into such a bloated mess of a disaster, it will probably go the same way.

Edited December 12, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[SuperStingray]

I'd imagine that the Americans arrogantly assumed that the Iranians would never so much as spot one of their state-of-the-art stealth drones, to say nothing of bringing it down, undamaged, through cyber warfare. America seems to have a bad habit of underestimating its enemies and just assuming they can plough over them all with better technology, and it's not just the military; I'm seeing it in this topic too. People immediately jump to the assumption that, because they obviously didn't shoot this thing down, they must have stolen it somehow, or it landed by mistake because of a software glitch; but nobody thinks that the Iranians might have hacked into the drone and taken control of it, because that's way too smart for these desert-dwelling towel heads, right?

Nobody said Iran wasn't advanced; if they weren't, they wouldn't be a threat. But the only reason anyone thought Iran shot down the drone is that military specifically used those words. It was only later that it was claimed hacking techniques were used.

America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. We do things our own way, and it's made us the most powerful nation on the planet. Haters gonna hate.

You would be a FANTASTIC diplomat. This kind of thought is exactly why other countries would hate us to begin with.

Edited December 12, 2011 by SuperStingray

[Tornado]

This kind of thought is what has made America so successful.

America hasn't been isolationist since the turn of last century.

Edited December 12, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[SuperStingray]

This kind of thought is what has made America so successful. Who CARES what other people think? That kind of thinking reeks of insecurity and blind conformity.

When trying to foster peaceful relations and beneficial covenants with other nations, what other people think matters. There would be a time where I'd say America is doing well enough on its own that it doesn't need to be concerned about the affairs of other nations, and that time was before World War II. But the Cold War was America's event horizon; we've had too much of an impact on the outside world to jump back into isolationist policies. Our money's in China, our men are in Iraq, our investment's in Israel, our workers are in Taiwan, our allies are in Europe and our drone is in Iran. We have too many dependencies to not give a shit. It's too bad George Washington is dead, because he has the chance to give the world's biggest "I told you so." Edited December 12, 2011 by SuperStingray

[Delta Starfire]

You know, the more I see SpikySprinter say, the more this image pops into my head.

If the United States didn't care what other nations thought, it wouldn't have diplomatic relations or embassies with them. Instead, it would just bomb the fuck out of every nation that didn't do as it commanded. Granted, there are conservative Americans who seem to want the United States to do just that, but thankfully, they're nowhere near a majority.

Also I find it hilarious that the supposedly "financially responsible" fiscal conservative doesn't object to runaway spending on unnecessary military ventures. Financial responsibility my empty wallet.

[Delta Starfire]

Oh, just noticed a reply I missed. Well, I'm not prepared to drag this out into an armchair tech shouting match that will just end up dissolving into a comparison and sourcing war. I will, however, say one thing.

I really, really hate it when you do this. No one in this thread said anything remotely like that.

Um, actually, you did.

I'm more liable to believe that they threw stones at it.

Of course, now you're going to come back telling me that this was a joke or just your way of expressing your doubts about Iran's capabilities. But if that's the case (and we'll never know if it really is or not), maybe you should consider that before saying something like this in future, because, whether you meant it that way or not, it sounded to me a lot like you were calling the Iranians primitive savages.

[pooshoes]

We do things our own way, and it's made us the most powerful nation on the planet. Haters gonna hate.

You are not the first, and most certainly won't be the last, to say this. Enjoy your empire while it still exists.

[Tenordream]

Who would interpret a drone unarmed (except for a self-destruct charge) as an attack? I mean besides Iran or North Korea.

Also, as for the Osprey and the Raptor, well, the Osprey's tilt-rotor is very complex, so gremlins are a given. And the F-22 hasn't been used in proper combat, and since it's such an advanced plane, that tends to make pilots cocky. Cocky pilot = Bad pilot, hence, crashes.

Just as a quick aside to here, a drone with a self destruct is still a drone with an explosive on board. Controllable large object (and yes, UAV's are larger than many people actually think) that can avoid radar and is filled with a ton of kerosine aviation fuel plus an explosive device? That's effectively a pilotable cruise missile. Especially as America has not been beyond claiming that in worst case scenarios it would use explosive triggered UAVs in suicide attacks should their armament become malfunctional or expended.

Look up information on the USAF Dominator UAV fleet concept if you want more information on that. Just avoid the Future Weapons info-blurb on it, mostly due to that show being atrocious. (However it does actually restate the suicide detonation concept as well)

To cut back to the normal direction, an explosive containing drone is, diplomatically, armed given the nature of how it might be used. When it comes to military hardware, saying "Oh, no we wouldn't use it like that" simply is not good enough.

[Delta Starfire]

See? He called America an empire. This is another reason why we don't care what other countries think of us.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, et cetera.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Eon

[Flyboy Fox]

Guys, just a warning... posts consisting of nothing more than an image macro are against the rules. I've removed a couple, and if I see them again after this warning, there will be consequences. It's been stated quite clearly numerous times that macro-only posts will be treated as spam. So don't do it.

[Delta Starfire]

It doesn't just apply to America. Why should, say, Canada care what Americans want them to believe. It's their own country, not ours, so my opinion really has no relevance in that respect.

Maybe it's difficult for you to understand, given the strength of your country's military and the financial clout America wields on the global stage, but for other countries, it matters a great deal what your neighbours think of you. If I lived nextdoor to the most powerful country in the world, I'd do my best to get along with them. If Canada started acting in ways that the United States strongly disapproved of, the Canadians would soon feel that disapproval, whether it was through souring of trade relations, to an outright boycott of Canadian goods, or to bombs falling on their cities from American jets. Moreover, I seem to recall a certain Iraqi dictator who didn't much care what the world thought of him, and that didn't end too well, thanks to the United States. So, your argument there is utter bullshit.

The rest of the world has to care what America or other powerful nations think of them, because those powerful nations can do things that will have dramatic effects on them; everything from crippling them through economics to devastating them with nuclear weapons. And America is not free of this, given its trade and diplomatic relations with nations around the world. America is far from self-sufficient and, while it can afford to thumb its nose at the global community on occasion, it is not a practical long term approach to international relations, especially when it is entirely possible that another country may one day end up being more powerful.

[Delta Starfire]

If we did something drastic enough for other countries to boycott us, then the citizens would elect a new leader.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

See? He called America an empire. This is another reason why we don't care what other countries think of us.

Edited December 13, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Badnik Mechanic]

It isn't a national embarassment because:

[Kevin]

But... America decided to accidentally land it's super top secret drone in Iran and now because some people in America have right wings which are so large they probably wouldn't be able to fly much better than this drone did, they wanna try and cover up this embarassment by more or less threttening to bomb Iran for it's own stupid mistake.

This right here. I'd like to know why the drone was in Iran's airspace to begin with. I have a hard time buying our excuse of "We don't know how it got there." This is supposed to be a top secret spy drone, and it would take a serious fuck up or someone who was incompetent at keeping track of the thing to not know it entered Iran's airspace.

[Tornado]

You know how Kennedy prevented Cuba from shitting nukes all over America? He THREATENED Castro that we would bomb the shit out of his country.

What the fuck? No he didn't.

In fact, he did the exact opposite of that (he went straight to Khrushchev and talked it out with him, completely bypassing Castro entirely, and got Russia to remove their missiles in Cuba so long as the U.S. removed the ones they had in Turkey); to the extent that members of his cabinet were actually putting plans in place to get him out of the way so they could bomb the shit out of Cuba. In other words, the American military was planning to stage a coup on Kennedy because he was against the thing that you said that he did.

Edited December 13, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm kinda wondering how bloated the troll is after being stuffed with this stuff. I don't believe for a second SpikySprinter is being serious. He really sounds like he's pulling our legs here, and we keep buying it.

[SuperStingray]

As I understand it, it was an unarmed drone. In the language of international diplomacy (especially with countries you're not on good terms with) putting explosives on board, even for self-destruct purposes, would probably raise its status to an armed drone, which could be interpreted (deliberately, mind you) as an attack, not just as spying. After all, let's not forget that the V-1 "Buzz Bomb" was essentially a UAV with a warhead.

[Patticus]

Oh yeah, and just because it "self destructs" doesn't mean it has to explode. It could just mean remotely frying the circuits something so it or the information it contains can't be studied.

But that would still allow the technologies it houses, the materials it uses to be so stealthy, to be studied, reverse engineered and sold off to the highest bidders. Even if they don't know what it saw, or what kind of software it used, they can still use it on a basic level to advance their and their allies' technical abilities. Lord knows Russia and China are going to want in on this.

[pooshoes]

Turns out that those pesky Iranians might have hacked the drone after all, using GPS spoofing.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/16/iranian-engineer-claims-simple-gps-hack-took-u-s-drone-down/

[Patticus]

Turns out that those pesky Iranians might have hacked the drone after all, using GPS spoofing.

http://www.rawstory....u-s-drone-down/

But I thought they were still using kit from the 1980s and hadn't the first clue about any of this modern "hacking" business?

I think that Iran is actually a lot more capable and technologically inclined than people give them credit for.

[Tornado]

But I thought they were still using kit from the 1980s and hadn't the first clue about any of this modern "hacking" business?

I think that Iran is actually a lot more capable and technologically inclined than people give them credit for.

This would be a lot more clever if anyone in this thread had actually given justification for that opinion before this broke. Or had Iran not initially claimed that they shot it down and then changed their story when people didn't believe it.

Edited December 18, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[Patticus]

This would be a lot more clever if anyone in this thread had actually given justification for that opinion before this broke.

So, what, it's just somehow better to assume that American stealth technology is indestructible? That secondary and tertiary powers cannot possibly ever overcome the weapons of the primary powers? That there's no way that the drone could have been brought down by towel-head cave-men? Arrogance in the face of a wily and resourceful opponent has lain many a great power low, and defied the conventional wisdoms of many ages, and America would do well to heed those numerous historical lessons.

I think that it's wrong to assume that, just because the country still uses certain weapons from the 1980s and earlier, which don't compare to the equivalents of today's great powers, that it's entirely stuck in that age, and that it is unable to combat any modern weapon sent its way. It's watching the technological advances of the west and east carefully (just like Turkey, China and Russia are), and at least in certain areas it is striving to match those advances with its own.

And consider this: If Iran can successfully hack a US spy drone, what else could it do that the west and east thinks it incapable of?

Or had Iran not initially claimed that they shot it down and then changed their story when people didn't believe it.

They probably thought that the PR coup for shooting down America's supposedly undetectable spy in the sky would be greater than that for hacking it.