Chinese UAV/UCAV development

latenlazy · May 27, 2013

AssassinsMace said:
I know some people seem to respect this guy. I don't know why. Erickson acts as if he'll know how China will carry out UAV policy. The fact is this is typical tactic of displacing guilt. These are questions brought about in criticism of US policy on drones. Erickson already acts as if China is guilty of carrying out this policy he made up. Just bringing up the idea of using a drone strike on a drug dealer is far from a act of aggression like Erickson makes it. Should China sees how the US considered nuking China several times in the past as an actual nuclear attack? I doubt China will so abuse UAVs just as China doesn't fly drones over other people's countries and kill people with them or kill unarmed fisherman or wage wars based on fabricated evidence. Who's more irresponsible when those acts have already been committed and none have to do with China?

As with every article by Erickson, there's some good analysis and some overreach. For example, the balancing act China will have to consider on the use of drones is a real one, and his conclusions on that point are largely correct (he in fact actually leans towards the idea that China will not use drone strikes extensively or at all on foreign soil given the complications those involve for China's foreign policy stance).

I don't think he's simply projecting the debate on US drone policy onto China either. There's a bit of that, but also real considerations that China will have to figure out tied to the technology itself, which is where the US's policy struggles come from. What I have problem with is his assertion that China would use drone strikes domestically, which seems like a stretch when we consider how well funded and trained the PAP is, and how that is a much more surgical instrument with less risk of splash damage than using missiles on your infrastructure.

Blitzo · May 27, 2013

AssassinsMace said:
I know some people seem to respect this guy. I don't know why. Erickson acts as if he'll know how China will carry out UAV policy. The fact is this is typical tactic of displacing guilt. These are questions brought about in criticism of US policy on drones. Erickson already acts as if China is guilty of carrying out this policy he made up. Just bringing up the idea of using a drone strike on a drug dealer is far from a act of aggression like Erickson makes it. Should China sees how the US considered nuking China several times in the past as an actual nuclear attack? I doubt China will so abuse UAVs just as China doesn't fly drones over other people's countries and kill people with them or kill unarmed fisherman or wage wars based on fabricated evidence. Who's more irresponsible when those acts have already been committed and none have to do with China?

I think he is respected for his knowledge of various PLA military developments, i.e.: specifics on the various projects

His political alignment is still obviously american and western

Preux · May 28, 2013

AssassinsMace said:
I know some people seem to respect this guy. I don't know why. Erickson acts as if he'll know how China will carry out UAV policy. The fact is this is typical tactic of displacing guilt. These are questions brought about in criticism of US policy on drones. Erickson already acts as if China is guilty of carrying out this policy he made up. Just bringing up the idea of using a drone strike on a drug dealer is far from a act of aggression like Erickson makes it. Should China sees how the US considered nuking China several times in the past as an actual nuclear attack? I doubt China will so abuse UAVs just as China doesn't fly drones over other people's countries and kill people with them or kill unarmed fisherman or wage wars based on fabricated evidence. Who's more irresponsible when those acts have already been committed and none have to do with China?

I don't see that - he stated that there are certain alarmist elements, and he gave as his opinion that China won't use its capabilities lightly and has a very nuanced understanding of the political implications. Further more, he stated the fact that China has traditionally placed emphasis on state sovereignty, and how that must inevitably impact on how China chooses its options - which is right and proper.

Erickson then went on to state that in his perusal of literature in the topic, foreign strike had seldom been brought up - and while I can't claim to have read it as extensively as he, what I do read suggests that to be so, and in any case it is his summary of Chinese academic thought and hardly constitutes China-bashing.

Nowhere in that paragraph do I see Erickson giving as his opinion that a drone strike on Kham would be an act of aggression.

Only in the penultimate paragraph could the article be criticised on those grounds, though it is pretty much a statement of fact that a domestic drone strike in Xinjiang, much less Tibet, will generate adverse publicity overseas. It's a bit of a snipe but it's fairly mild.

Really, Andrew Erickson's works are about as unbiased as it gets. He's no flag-waving Chinese patriot but why should he be? Trying not to take anybody's side but the truth is what being a good academic is about.

.. if you want some real unabashed commie-hatin', flag-wearin', cold-war throwback China-bashing, go read Foreign Policy.

latenlazy · May 28, 2013

Preux said:
I don't see that - he stated that there are certain alarmist elements, and he gave as his opinion that China won't use its capabilities lightly and has a very nuanced understanding of the political implications. Further more, he stated the fact that China has traditionally placed emphasis on state sovereignty, and how that must inevitably impact on how China chooses its options - which is right and proper.

Erickson then went on to state that in his perusal of literature in the topic, foreign strike had seldom been brought up - and while I can't claim to have read it as extensively as he, what I do read suggests that to be so, and in any case it is his summary of Chinese academic thought and hardly constitutes China-bashing.

Nowhere in that paragraph do I see Erickson giving as his opinion that a drone strike on Kham would be an act of aggression.

Only in the penultimate paragraph could the article be criticised on those grounds, though it is pretty much a statement of fact that a domestic drone strike in Xinjiang, much less Tibet, will generate adverse publicity overseas. It's a bit of a snipe but it's fairly mild.

Really, Andrew Erickson's works are about as unbiased as it gets. He's no flag-waving Chinese patriot but why should he be? Trying not to take anybody's side but the truth is what being a good academic is about.

.. if you want some real unabashed commie-hatin', flag-wearin', cold-war throwback China-bashing, go read Foreign Policy.

I wouldn't say it's unbiased, but he doesn't let it get in the way of good analysis, which the piece was until the last point on domestic situations.

AssassinsMace · May 28, 2013

Erickson is totally bias. Wrong for China for a fictional future scenario while the US has already committed those acts? These are the very questions brought up on Obama's drone policy. His attempt is to label China a worse offender to lessen the criticism on the US. That's like the tactic of Americans thinking Chinese are more racist than they are yet no Chinese has ever owned a African slave nor occupied African soil nor have the history the West does in Africa. When Westerners make Chinese out to be racist, it's only to make themselves feel less guilty of their crimes. Erickson says China's drone fleet is larger than the US? And they're mostly UAVs not UCAVs. UAVs do not represent a threat. Who's the one that has used them to kill in someone else's country and without permission. All the alarm over what China will do with UAVs... the US has already used them in that manner. Pretty hypocritical.

Erickson is obviously reacting to some more intellectual writers recently who pointed out Obama's drone policy has set the bar for the rest of the world on when it's okay to use them.

latenlazy · May 28, 2013

AssassinsMace said:
Erickson is totally bias. Wrong for China for a fictional future scenario while the US has already committed those acts? These are the very questions brought up on Obama's drone policy. His attempt is to label China a worse offender to lessen the criticism on the US. That's like the tactic of Americans thinking Chinese are more racist than they are yet no Chinese has ever owned a African slave nor occupied African soil nor have the history the West does in Africa. When Westerners make Chinese out to be racist, it's only to make themselves feel less guilty of their crimes. Erickson says China's drone fleet is larger than the US? And they're mostly UAVs not UCAVs. UAVs do not represent a threat. Who's the one that has used them to kill in someone else's country and without permission. All the alarm over what China will do with UAVs... the US has already used them in that manner. Pretty hypocritical.

Erickson is obviously reacting to some more intellectual writers recently who pointed out Obama's drone policy has set the bar for the rest of the world on when it's okay to use them.

Well...if you actually read the article his analysis actually argues against the possibility that China will use drones the same way the US does...He hasn't labeled China as an offender at all either.

AssassinsMace · May 28, 2013

latenlazy said:
Well...if you actually read the article his analysis actually argues against the possibility that China will use drones the same way the US does...He hasn't labeled China as an offender at all either.

In others words a hypocrite like I said. You can't label someone guilty for a crime that hasn't been committed let alone fault someone else for supposedly using drones the same way the US does. He's worried about what China will do with drones. Shouldn't he be concerned over what the US has done already since he admits it will be the same policy as the US? Why? Again to take the emphasis off of criticism over US drone policy. That article is alarmist over what China will do with drones not the US. If he has no problem with US policy then he should not have written this article at all if he compares China's policy to be similar.

latenlazy · May 28, 2013

AssassinsMace said:
In others words a hypocrite like I said. You can't label someone guilty for a crime that hasn't been committed let alone fault someone else for supposedly using drones the same way the US does. He's worried about what China will do with drones. Shouldn't he be concerned over what the US has done already since he admits it will be the same policy as the US? Why? Again to take the emphasis off of criticism over US drone policy. That article is alarmist over what China will do with drones not the US. If he has no problem with US policy then he should not have written this article at all if he compares China's policy to be similar.

Oh...kay.

Blitzo · May 28, 2013

latenlazy said:
Well...if you actually read the article his analysis actually argues against the possibility that China will use drones the same way the US does...He hasn't labeled China as an offender at all either.

Well Erikson concludes that while China probably won't use drones like the US in the near future, the possibility of china doing so is enough for concern for western governments...

That's where the hypocrisy lies.

Personally I think pointing out the hypocrisy is preaching to the choir in this case -- no one would leap to claim Erikson (or any other commentator) is completely unbiased, and it should be expected that he would argue in favour of the potential worries his government and "side" would elicit.

Preux · May 28, 2013

AssassinsMace said:
Erickson is totally bias. Wrong for China for a fictional future scenario while the US has already committed those acts? These are the very questions brought up on Obama's drone policy. His attempt is to label China a worse offender to lessen the criticism on the US. That's like the tactic of Americans thinking Chinese are more racist than they are yet no Chinese has ever owned a African slave nor occupied African soil nor have the history the West does in Africa. When Westerners make Chinese out to be racist, it's only to make themselves feel less guilty of their crimes. Erickson says China's drone fleet is larger than the US? And they're mostly UAVs not UCAVs. UAVs do not represent a threat. Who's the one that has used them to kill in someone else's country and without permission. All the alarm over what China will do with UAVs... the US has already used them in that manner. Pretty hypocritical.

Erickson is obviously reacting to some more intellectual writers recently who pointed out Obama's drone policy has set the bar for the rest of the world on when it's okay to use them.

Are we even reading the same article? Erickson said if China were to do it it'd raise alarm - which it would - and that it would give the US an opening - which it would - and that it would be roundly decried by certain segments of the media.. guess what? It would and did!

Nor do I see any attempt on his part to say that the US' use of drones is perfectly fine. The closest he got is when he said Obama outlined some constraints on the use of drones after it has made people uncomfortable, and that is far and away not the same thing.

And here's what he actually said re UAV fleet size:

[q]In other words, its fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles is already bigger and more sophisticated than all but the United States[/q]

That means the US has a larger fleet.

Seems to me you need to read what articles more carefully and note what they actually say rather than what you think they say.

Also, fun historical fact, the Chinese did own African slaves - it was a bit of a fad in the early Ming dynasty, usually through Arab intermediaries and later on Portuguese ones.

Chinese UAV/UCAV development

latenlazy

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Preux

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

latenlazy

Brigadier

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

latenlazy

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Preux

Junior Member