|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
137890
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Taranis, a top secret unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which is considered to be the most advanced aircraft ever built by British engineers, successfully carried out its first flight tests in August 2013. The information, however was released to the media only in February 2014 by the UK ministry of defence (MoD) and the manufacturer BAE systems. “The UK has developed a significant lead in understanding unmanned aircraft which could strike with precision over a long range whilst remaining undetected,” said a statement from BAE systems. “The technological advances made through Taranis will also help the UK MoD and Royal Air Force (RAF) make decisions on the future mix of manned and unmanned fast jet aircraft and how they will operate together in a safe and effective manner for the UK’s defence”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
130556
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
173811
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Drones are considered poor coercion tools: They cannot operate in contested airspace and they offer low-cost fights instead of more credible, costly signals. However, this article finds that technological advances will soon enable drones to function in hostile environments. Moreover, drones offer three unique coercion advantages that theorists did not foresee: sustainability in long duration conflicts, certainty of precision punishment which can change the psychology of adversaries, and changes in the relative costs of war. A unique survey of 259 foreign military officers finds that costly signals are less credible than assumed and that drones demonstrate resolve in new ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
170274
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While the drone has become synonymous with the War on Terror, the asymmetric iconography of the battlefield is shifting. Commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) drones are increasingly prevalent features of global battlefields, employed by non-state actors in both visualising such spaces, and the directing and inflicting of harm. As such usage increases, so too do concerns around their evolving adoption, adaptation, and potential portability into homeland spheres. While cognizant of the range of positive drone applications, it is asserted that drones nonetheless remain simultaneously bound to an inverse potential for exploitation. In examining drone risk, this article approaches the consumer drone through a series of sites and spaces through which it is technically and socially constructed. Reflecting upon industry innovation, community-driven experimentation, and evolving airspace – it calls for greater attention to the drone’s malleability, arguing that understandings of COTS drones must remain attentive to both drone potential and potential drone threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
167409
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article proposes a political prehistory of drone theory that traces its juridico-political evolution from the 17th century to the present day. To outline my argument, I construct a constellation between Hobbes’s theory of sovereign punishment in Leviathan and Chamayou’s critique of drone warfare in Drone Theory to illuminate the political origins of drone violence. First, I argue that Hobbes’s social contract theory lays the conceptual groundwork for Chamayou’s drone theory. Second, I contend that Hobbes’s theory of the sovereign punishment of domestic citizens preempts Chamayou’s critique of drone warfare against foreign enemies. Finally, I speculate that Hobbes’s theory of punishment is founded upon a sacrificial paradigm that returns in the phenomenon of domestic drone strikes. In summary, I argue that Hobbes might be something close to the first drone theorist insofar as his political theory systematically produces the state of exception between citizen and enemy in which the drone operates today. What, then, are the theoretical origins of drone warfare? How does the punishment of citizens prefigure drone warfare against foreign enemies? To what extent might even citizens themselves be a species of drone who may be activated by the sovereign at any point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
095764
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
137562
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the beginning, drones were almost exclusively the province of militaries. At first little more than remote-controlled model planes used in the World War I era, military drones advanced steadily over the decades, eventually becoming sophisticated tools that could surveil battlefield enemies from the sky. Today, the terms “drone” and “unmanned aircraft system” denote a vehicle that navigates through the air from point A to point B and is either remotely controlled or flies autonomously. While they vary in size and shape, such vehicles all feature a communications link, intelligent software, sensors or cameras, a power source, and a method of mobility (usually propellers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
131319
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As New Zealand's role in Afghanistan comes to a close, the War on Terror has been relegated to the backseat of the New Zealand public's consciousness, albeit prematurely so. With the first New Zealander killed in a drone strike in Yemen, it is timely that New Zealand reconsider its support for a tactic that opponents argue is itself an act of terrorism. As yet no consensus has been reached as to whether drone strikes constitute a breach of international law. We must, therefore, base our assessment on whether the tactic is ethically and strategically flawed. With every hell-fire missile that Nobel Peace Prize winning Barack Obama rains down on al-Qaeda and any civilians unfortunate enough to be in the way, a New Zealand decision on this question becomes more urgent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
144309
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Noida, HarperCollins Publishers India, 2012.
|
| Description |
ix, 241p.pbk
|
| Standard Number |
9789350299913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 058611 | 358.4/BEN 058611 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
187097
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, Bombardier Books, 2021.
|
| Description |
xx, 267p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9781642936759
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 060232 | 623.7469/FRA 060232 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
122402
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012-13.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The drone debate continues hot and heavy. Critical issues range
from the morality of targeting choices and concerns about unintended casualties and anti-Americanism to matters of legal and
bureaucratic oversight.1
These are pressing questions; the United States'
use of drones as a weapon of war is on the rise, and other countries are
interested in acquiring them.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
190876
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
193574
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The drone is the latest entrant in the ever-volatile India-Pakistan cross-border terrorism imbroglio. According to media reports, the use of the drones to send payloads, weapons, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) has substantially increased in the last two years. This technology has been a boon for the terrorist outfits based in Pakistan which are using Chinese drones to drop payloads and plan terrorist attacks in Indian cities. This article discusses how the drone is emerging as a new frontier of warfare; drone development in India and Pakistan; emerging instances of cross-border terrorism via drones; security implications therein and also possible solutions which lie ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
181219
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Drones have been affecting many areas since their advent, including conflicts between states. Used as a coercive measure, how they are flown by measured or limited revisionists can be understood in terms of the gray zone strategy. The concept of the gray zone is somewhere between peace and war, and the gray zone strategy enables revisionists to gradually alter the status quo without triggering war or overt conflict. Both theoretically and empirically, drones could be a useful tool in gray zone conflicts. This paper attempts to specify and organise such operations according to the question: “How are drones being flown over the gray zone?” Revisionist states fly drones based on the salami tactic, or feigned innocence, or by putting them in the hands of proxy forces to expand gradually their interests and destabilise troubled regions; therefore, understanding drone strategy and considering counter-measures are indispensable for securing stability in such regions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
129372
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The face of warfare has changed. Kilometers long tank columns and thousands of troops marching forward are scenery from the past. Today's battlefield is an urban terrain swarming with small groups of irregular forces that rapidly switch positions from hindouts to tunnels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
122253
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The use of drones has increased exponentially in recent years, causing a mounting wave of concern amongst the media and public about the implications of using unmanned systems - often misunderstood in their nature - above all in terms of accountability, legitimacy and 'fairness'. David Whetham explores the many facets of this question, delving into the often-overlooked nuances of the use of remote-controlled systems and its practical as well as moral implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
137983
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
2014 could be remembered as the year when drone usage, both for military and civilian purposes, decisively took off throughout Latin America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
150411
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
157456
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
186519
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
U.S. criticism of its client/ally Saudi Arabia regarding the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi immediately diminished the kingdom’s ability to secure funds for its latest mega development project, the Neom convention center. U.S. intelligence pinned the crime on aides to Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS). At the same time, a seemingly unauthorized operation, later attributed to former president Donald Trump, killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Suleimani, by a drone strike. Congress was not involved and the UN protested this as a violation of Article 51 of its Charter, emphasizing that this was justified in a case of imminent threat, undertaken only by a state. Encouraged by drone technology, the U.S. found it easy to locate the target and minimize collateral damage. International lawyers and military experts are still debating the legitimacy of such action. The U.S. is persisting in claiming that it upholds the standards of international humanitarian law which sometimes sanctions targeted killing. A number of international law professors continue to deride U.S. action as illegal, while the latter continues to describe its actions as defensive in nature. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch lament the reluctance of previous U.S. presidents to define targeted killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|