Chinese UAV/UCAV development

Preux said:

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.

Click to expand...

And I can make up a fictional scenario where someone attacks China based on fabricated evidence. I bet the West wouldn't look at that as a legitimate excuse to advance China's defenses nor have a foreign policy that addresses that concern.

My error on the size of China's drone fleet but it doesn't change the point that China's drones aren't used for offense. Erickson was still trying to paint the number as a threat. And I'd suggest you'd take your own advice about reading carefully.

An even more alarming prospect is that unmanned aircraft will be acquired and deployed by authoritarian regimes, with fewer checks on their use of lethal force.

Click to expand...

Beijing, however, is unlikely to use its drones lightly.

Click to expand...

Your quote...

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?

Click to expand...

It doesn't say if but when. Has China or any entities within China fabricated evidence to go to war? Has China used any of its military hardware less "lightly" than the US? The whole article points to fictional scenarios based on stereotypes not historical fact.

All you're doing is spinning what the article is about. The article is about China and their still in R&D drone technology. If China is going to use UAVs in the same manner as the US, what's there to be alarmed about? That is the retreat for being unable to defend the hypocrisy. Maybe because Naw Kham even though he murdered Chinese citizens, he wasn't a threat to the US so it was deemed illegal just for considering it? As usual it's seen as much more criminal than certain players who have actually done the deed.

Also a fun fact... I've argued with plenty of people who claim China held African slaves. None have actually given any evidence and most point to Westerners who wrote it in some paper as their evidence. Then there are others who use how the Portuguese and others who brought their slaves with them to China as saying China had slaves. They seem to leave out that important information.

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's hypocritical at all. Erickson is an analyst, and the possibility that China has the ability to use drones the way the US does SHOULD be a concern for Western governments, just as much as it's a concern for China and the rest of the world that the US DOES use its drones in the middle east. Pointing that out isn't hypocritical, at least not of Erikson (as far as we know, since his views regarding the US's use of drones aren't discussed in the article) or those in the US who oppose the US's own policies on drone strikes (it's helpful to point out that it's unfair to regard an entire country and its people as synonymous to its government), though it may be hypocritical for the Obama Administration to express such worries. Erickson is making an observation about the reaction to China's drones, and it's an accurate one.

I think we can all agree that Erickson can present tonal and even substantive bias at times, but bias has objective parameters. Being able to identify where the bias is from a source and still take seriously accurate and valuable information is important to an intelligent discussion, and it's not okay to simply treat everything someone says as biased just because they say biased things. That type of behavior is just putting far too much emphasis on being holier than thou and winning moral high ground and not enough on the actual content of a discussion, which I do not think optimizes the point and benefits of said discussion.

Erickson is hiding his hypocrisy in another. He says it in the beginning of the article. He's hiding what truly bothers him which is China having drones with what he thinks China will do with them. Is it hard to believe when you see the same reaction with China's one refurbish used carrier?

AssassinsMace said:

Erickson is hiding his hypocrisy in another. He says it in the beginning of the article. He's hiding what truly bothers him which is China having drones with what he thinks China will do with them. Is it hard to believe when you see the same reaction with China's one refurbish used carrier?

Click to expand...

*Rollseyes* If his analysis and assertions are sound, it shouldn't matter whether it bothers him or not that China has drones. That said, imputing motive and meaning behind the words of someone you've never even met is just being silly.

latenlazy said:

*Rollseyes* If his analysis and assertions are sound, it shouldn't matter whether it bothers him or not that China has drones. That said, imputing motive and meaning behind the words of someone you've never even met is just being silly.

Click to expand...

The issue is the discourse he's using. It's a china/potential-competitor-has-drones-now-oh-god, not a drone-proliferation-in-general-is-detrimental-to-security.

And as you mentioned in a last post, I disagree. I think moral high ground is the issue entirely. Or rather, an audience/reader's view of the who has the moral high ground.



Personally I think Erikson could have been a lot more biased in this article and it's relatively well balanced and not as flawed as A Mace attributes it. There is bias but there's bias everywhere, the difference is whether the people in power are taking in his message.
It's still a good article and as you said there is much we can take from it. But the framing is a traditional (if slightly subdued) "china + new weapon which the west already has = ermahgerd they're gonna abuse it!!!!11!! "

It's bound to rub some people the wrong way.

Bltizo said:

The issue is the discourse he's using. It's a china/potential-competitor-has-drones-now-oh-god, not a drone-proliferation-in-general-is-detrimental-to-security.

And as you mentioned in a last post, I disagree. I think moral high ground is the issue entirely. Or rather, an audience/reader's view of the who has the moral high ground.



Personally I think Erikson could have been a lot more biased in this article and it's relatively well balanced and not as flawed as A Mace attributes it. There is bias but there's bias everywhere, the difference is whether the people in power are taking in his message.
It's still a good article and as you said there is much we can take from it. But the framing is a traditional (if slightly subdued) "china + new weapon which the west already has = ermahgerd they're gonna abuse it!!!!11!! "

It's bound to rub some people the wrong way.

Click to expand...

If this were a thread that oriented around discourse (like a god forsaken China vs US thread), I'd agree with your points, but it isn't. It's a thread about UAVs, which is why I find this fixation on moral high ground stupefying. We probably disagree less than you might think, but I am trying to point out that the points made in Erikson's article are relevant and good, but the attitudes that are being projected and asserted in the discussion is not.

latenlazy said:

If this were a thread that oriented around discourse (like a god forsaken China vs US thread), I'd agree with your points, but it isn't. It's a thread about UAVs, which is why I find this fixation on moral high ground stupefying. We probably disagree less than you might think, but I am trying to point out that the points made in Erikson's article are relevant and good, but the attitudes that are being projected and asserted in the discussion is not.

Click to expand...

I also think we do not disagree very much. I agree, the points he makes are good, and should be considered by both sides of the divide.

But I think it's perfectly within the realm of this thread to point out biases or critical evaluations of any articles presented here which relate to the topic of chinese uavs.

Point out perceived biases (in full knowledge that everyone has biases and their own bound alleigances), shake a fist once or twice, move on.

latenlazy said:

*Rollseyes* If his analysis and assertions are sound, it shouldn't matter whether it bothers him or not that China has drones. That said, imputing motive and meaning behind the words of someone you've never even met is just being silly.

Click to expand...

And the same can be said of Erickson and how can he be so sure how China will conduct itself with drones. And the same can be said of yourself too given our past debates telling me what an author meant to say and not by what he wrote.

latenlazy said:

It's a thread about UAVs, which is why I find this fixation on moral high ground stupefying.

Click to expand...

I didn't bring up the high moral ground. Erickson did with the hypocrisy of charging something of China that is already being employed by the US. Did Erickson talk about the use of drones in general and moral or ethical questions? No. The article is about China only and the abuse that hasn't happened.


On another note how do drones make China more irresponsible? Erickson mentions with drones China will more likely fire on a Filipino ship. Like China can't do that with an attack fighter now? Like somehow such an attack by a drone would make China less responsible thus the danger in China having drones? Oh yeah Erickson is completely unbiased and brings up legitimate points...

AssassinsMace said:

And the same can be said of Erickson and how can he be so sure how China will conduct itself with drones. And the same can be said of yourself too given our past debates telling me what an author meant to say and not by what he wrote.



I didn't bring up the high moral ground. Erickson did with the hypocrisy of charging something of China that is already being employed by the US. Did Erickson talk about the use of drones in general and moral or ethical questions? No. The article is about China only and the abuse that hasn't happened.


On another note how do drones make China more irresponsible? Erickson mentions with drones China will more likely fire on a Filipino ship. Like China can't do that with an attack fighter now? Like somehow such an attack by a drone would make China less responsible thus the danger in China having drones? Oh yeah Erickson is completely unbiased and brings up legitimate points...

Click to expand...

Last I checked, Erikson doesn't comment in this thread. You brought in his article, which had some pretty thoughtful content despite his tone, to beat up a straw man.

Also, imputing motive and meaning behind a country is very different from doing so to a person. False equivalency much?

Bltizo said:

I also think we do not disagree very much. I agree, the points he makes are good, and should be considered by both sides of the divide.

But I think it's perfectly within the realm of this thread to point out biases or critical evaluations of any articles presented here which relate to the topic of chinese uavs.

Point out perceived biases (in full knowledge that everyone has biases and their own bound alleigances), shake a fist once or twice, move on.

Click to expand...

It is, but it's also within the realm of this thread to point out where critical evaluations and accusations of bias overreach. Generally put, overreach is undesirable, especially when it derails the topic, and should be limited. That said, I suppose I am guilty for feeding the trolls.

latenlazy said:

Last I checked, Erikson doesn't comment in this thread. You brought in his article, which had some pretty thoughtful content despite his tone, to beat up a straw man.

Also, imputing motive and meaning behind a country is very different from doing so to a person. False equivalency much?

Click to expand...

Defending false equivalency by accusing false equivalency? Classic!

Yeah I brought in this article about Chinese UAVs. How is that off topic?

Didn't you say this?

That said, imputing motive and meaning behind the words of someone you've never even met is just being silly.

Click to expand...

Erickson spells out what China will do in its UAV policy. Does he know someone in policy making in China that says they will attack an Filipino fishing trawler with a drone? So how does he come up with these conclusions. It ain't historical. It isn't because like I pointed out earlier where he can note an incident where China has attacked a fishing trawler with an attack fighter at its disposal now. So how does he draw this conclusion?

An even more alarming prospect is that unmanned aircraft will be acquired and deployed by authoritarian regimes, with fewer checks on their use of lethal force.

Click to expand...

A general stereotype of what an authoritarian regime will do not what China has done itself. If it's so easy for China to abuse drones and attack others, why wouldn't they do it with what they have now? It's not like the Philippines can defend itself from everything but drones.

Talk about fallacious arguments... Just like Erickson's article is filled with fallacious points. Or presuming I said Erickson commented in this thread. The hypocrisy is thick.