ORIGINAL LETTER TO THE TIVYSIDE ON UAV'S AT ABERPORTH
The following is the letter sent into the Tivyside from a local resident of Aberporth. Of course the paper edited it slightly so here is the original Welsh text.
Gwaed ar ein dwylo
Tybed, faint ohonoch chi ddarllenwyr sy¹n dilyn hanes Parc Aberporth - y datblygiad hynod gostus (tua £21 miliwn), ym Mlaenannerch? ŒR wy¹n siwr fod pawb yn yr ardal yn hapus i glywed am y gwaith fydd ar gael yno, cyn bo hir. Ond pe baech yn gwybod taw arbrofi a datblygu peiriannau milwrol, wedi eu creu i ladd a dinistrio, fyddai¹r diwydiant mewn golwg - a fyddech yr un mor frwdfrydig am yr anturiaeth?
Mae llu awyr yr Unol Daleithiau yn defnyddio Maes Awyr Prestwick, i hwyluso¹r cludiant o arfau i Israel. Oes yn rhaid i¹r Cymry dderbyn yr anrhydedd amheus o gyfrannu Œmhellach at gynllun Bush a Blair, wrth ddatblygu¹r Œwenynen ormes (drone)¹/UAV ym Mharc Aberporth? Y rhain yw rhai o¹r peiriannu dieflig a ddefnydir gan Israel i ddifetha Libanus - ei phlant diniwed, a¹i fframwaith.
Teitl y Parc, yn ol Andrew Davies (Gweinidog o¹r Cynulliad), yw ŒCanolfan Rhagoriaeth UAVs¹. Well inni fod yn wyliadwrus, rhag ofn i¹r fenter frwnt yma droi¹n darget ardderchog i derfysgwyr!
posted by Harriboy @ 12:09 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Dear Mr Rogers
I see you have not responded to my previous comment, could I ask why?
Also I am having trouble finding a copy of that letter in English. Could you provide one?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't have a copy of the letter in English but I am sure that I can get a translation easily enough later. As for your previous comment I have a reponse ready for you which in essence can be summed up thus. There will inevitably be some beneficial use of UAVs for civilian purposes but the major thrust for this new technology has been for military purposes as part and parcel of the US and British government approach to transforming the way in which it conducts war in the future. Any person with any sense will recognise that there is bound to be some horizontal technology transfer within the ASTRAEA project across the different divisions within the multiplicity of weaponry producers engaged within it. This debate revolves around a number of issues including the ethics of modern warfare, human rights considerations vis a vis the use of unmanned machines to deliver ordnance such as cluster bombe etc to civilian areas, and the financial implications of this kind of expenditure in our diminishing economy. That is my view and that of many others on this issue and this blog is my attempt at trying to ensure that people are aware of ALL the issues in this area and not just the sanitised views of those who support the project. And in any case, the idea of hundreds of unmanned vehicles flying about in British Airspace is not one that fills me with any great confidence given the current capabilities of hackers to interrogate computerised systems on a world wide basis, not to mention the objections of many civilian pilots to this kind of development.
Thanks for the reply.
As I said before the reason the military has been the predominant user of and driver for unmanned systems is precisely because the civilian area is blocked by the CAA which will not allow them to be used. ASTRAEA is meant to directly address this.
While I agree that there will be areas where ASTRAEA crosses over into the military domain that can be said of almost anything from the development of jet airliners to cars to solar power; the very system you’re using now has its origin within the military. All have there uses within the armed forces and will naturally migrate to those areas. That should be no reason to block the development of the base technology. As I said before hampering ParcAberporth will only serve to hurt the civilian side of UAVs not the military.
You’re view of UAVs over civilian areas is also incorrect although understandable. Unmanned aircraft use a number of methods of control and a number of safety measures, here’s a short summary.
Direct control, the simplest method of control is direct control via line of site or beyond line of sight data links; at its most basic this is just an operator with a remote control. By virtue of the methods used to communicate with the UAV the control signals are very difficult to intercept but should it happen the UAV will not respond if a specific code is not received, somewhat like a password confirming that it’s the real operator that is telling the UAV to do something. In the event that this happens UAVs would return to base along a series of pre-programmed waypoints or simply shut down, deploy a parachute and land safely. It will do the same if the signal is lost. There is simply no reason to believe that there is any more risk of a hacker taking over control of a UAV than there is of a hacker giving incorrect information to an airliner and causing a crash.
Autonomous flight via waypoints, this method is a point and click method. The operator pre-programmes a series of waypoints which the UAV will follow once in flight, the aircraft is then monitored throughout the flight and if necessary waypoints can be changed. As with direct control it is no more possible for a hacker to get access and control the UAV than it is for one to bring down an airliner.
Autonomous flight, similar to above but the UAV is capable of making some of its own decisions. There is little to no direct communication with the UAV in regard to its control (save for modifying its task) so there is absolutely no way of gaining control.
In regards to the military application of UAVs can I ask exactly what your objection is? In my first comment I said “As with any technology UAVs are not inherently evil, what matters is how they are used. Even in terms of military use UAVs this is nevertheless the case, I have as much concern as you when such systems are used to harm civilians and such but I would hope that you would see the need for military force in some circumstances and as such the need for armed forces. Given this I would also hope that you would agree that in these circumstances the armed forces must be equipped with whatever they require. I mean would you have denied the British armed forces any advantage over Argentina during the Falklands war potentially resulting in the loss of more lives and perhaps the population of the islands being forced to either leave there homes and businesses or live under constant and indefinite occupation?” Do you have a response to this?
Surely it should be the uses to which UAVs are put that you should be monitoring and objecting to not there development itself?
Thanks again for the reply.
In responding to this reply I have to say that Mike A appears not to understand that my position is that of total pacifism. In other words I would like to see all military developments stopped. There are plenty of other ways in which economic development can be encouraged leading to the creation of jobs which do not involve the creation of technologies designed to kill humans and destroy property and the environment, such as has happened in the obscenity that is the War in Iraq for example. As for the jingoistic war waged by Margaret Thatcher and her government, and that of Galtieri and the Junta in Argentina, in the Falklands I would have to say that there were many diplomatic alternatives to the unsatisfactory way that the dispute was resolved with the needless deaths and maimings on all sides, and there were years of diplomatic dealings wherein the issues of sovereignity could have been resolved without war. At the time it suited both governments not to do so for their own political ends, as the war itself amply demonstrated. It suits our current form of so called "democracy" to have some kind of dispute going on somewhere in the world in order to take peoples minds off of the central issue of corporate globalised exploitation of people and resources for the benefit of a relatively small number of people. An army solely for defensive purposes such as a peoples militia, could be justified when there are real threats of invasion, as with Adolf Hitler, however encouraging the massive development of armaments industries, driven onwards to make more profits in order to maintain jobs through the misery of millions of innocent people worldwide is just obscene, in my view. Perhaps you begin to see where I am coming from now and can understand that, as far as I am concerned, I am not content with the way in which my taxes are currently being spent, I would far rather see the billions spent worldwide on the arms trade used to seriously address the issues of world poverty, environmental catastophiies and education (particularly in the area of peace and justice). Of course there will always be those out there who are uncomfortable with the idea of letting people know that there are diffent ways of resolving conflict in the world without the use of force (shareholders and stakeholders in the arms industry for example), and also those who do not like the idea of others putting forward such alternatives, and protesting about current government political strategies including putting information relating to those strategies before the general public, but, to paraphrase George Orwell in 1984, in an era defined by spin and deceit to get at the truth is a revolutionary act, one that in my view is now imperative. Therefore you will understand that whilst I concede that there may be some advantages in UAV technology for civilian ends this is far outweighed by the other uses which this technology is developed. I thank you for the information on control of of UAVs but I remain unconvinced about the efficay of unmanned flight , as do many others.
During the Falklands war the Galtieri government blocked any attempt at negotiations, contradicting itself at every turn. Any settlement would also have ended with Argentina having at least partial control over British territory; in effect it would be rewarding aggressive actions. That would certainly not have been a great example in the long run. But moving away from the Falklands war, what about the first Gulf War, or the Second World War, or the war of 1812? Or in the future what happens if civil war in some African nation flares up again and peacekeepers have to be put in place, if you had your way surely the war would just have to go on with no international intervention. The problem with total pacifism is that it ignores the fact that history is littered with evidence that shows that portions of the human race will always turn to aggressive force and as long as that is the case defence will always be a necessity. The fact that these elements are always constantly getting better means that we must do the same, while the economic benefits of the defence industry plays a part it certainly isn’t the main factor. Limiting the use of force is a far more realistic goal than eliminating it altogether in my opinion.
I can respect your views, though I disagree, I do however have a very big problem with you painting the UAV industry out as being an industry devoted to finding better ways of killing people. As I said before you could very easily place your focus on stopping the defence aspects of Parc Aberporth but you are not doing that, you are presenting an unbalanced version of the truth which ignores all of the civilian benefits of Aberporth (and UAVs in general) and are trying to convince others that if they support Aberporth they are supporting the deaths of Lebanese children which is not true. The use of emotive language like “unmanned war machines” is irresponsible in my opinion and will only serve to make you look like you haven’t made yourself as aware of the issue as you should.
The potential military benefit of unmanned aircraft is great but it does not outweigh the civilian benefit. Again the only reason UAVs are so associated with the military is because the civil market is closed, once that is opened up it will becoming a huge part of the UAV industry’s revenue and as such the focus on unmanned technology will move to suite the market (as it is already doing).
Wyt ti wedi cael dy roi yn dy le ddwedwn ni y scidrych. Da iawn mike_a
Post a Comment
<< Home