All Discussions Tagged 'Drone' - 12160 Social Network2024-03-19T06:13:09Zhttps://12160.info/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=Drone&feed=yes&xn_auth=noWatch: Autonomous Chinese Drone Swarm Flies Through Forest While Hunting For Humanstag:12160.info,2022-05-07:2649739:Topic:22002562022-05-07T23:02:14.139ZParrhesiahttps://12160.info/profile/DianaLovell
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10471633060?profile=original" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10471633060?profile=RESIZE_710x"></img></a></p>
<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rPul9WKQ6oQ?wmode=opaque" width="560"></iframe>
</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/watch-autonomous-chinese-drone-swarm-can-fly-through-forest-while-hunting-humans">Watch: Autonomous Chinese Drone Swarm Flies Through Forest While Hunting For…</a></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10471633060?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10471633060?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rPul9WKQ6oQ?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/watch-autonomous-chinese-drone-swarm-can-fly-through-forest-while-hunting-humans">Watch: Autonomous Chinese Drone Swarm Flies Through Forest While Hunting For Humans | ZeroHedge</a></p> US Army bans Chinese drones over ‘operational risks & cyber vulnerabilities’tag:12160.info,2017-08-07:2649739:Topic:17063222017-08-07T09:01:30.335ZRagnarokhttps://12160.info/profile/OldDenmark
<p><strong><span class="font-size-6">US Army bans Chinese drones over ‘operational risks & cyber vulnerabilities’</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>Published time: 5 Aug, 2017 04:37</strong><br></br> <strong>Edited time: 5 Aug, 2017 16:01</strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The Pentagon has ordered an Army-wide ban on all consumer drones made by Chinese manufacturer DJI, citing “cyber vulnerabilities associated with DJI products.”</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The US Army has been…</span></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-6">US Army bans Chinese drones over ‘operational risks & cyber vulnerabilities’</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>Published time: 5 Aug, 2017 04:37</strong><br/> <strong>Edited time: 5 Aug, 2017 16:01</strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The Pentagon has ordered an Army-wide ban on all consumer drones made by Chinese manufacturer DJI, citing “cyber vulnerabilities associated with DJI products.”</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The US Army has been ordered to “halt use of all DJI products,” according to an August 2 memo from Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">Additionally, the Army was ordered to “cease all use, uninstall all DJI applications, remove all batteries/storage media from devices, and secure equipment for follow on direction,” Anderson wrote in the memo.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-6"><a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/398698-army-bans-dji-drones/" target="_blank">https://www.rt.com/usa/398698-army-bans-dji-drones/</a></span></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-6"><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/04/report-army-bans-dji-drones-because-concerns-cyber-vulnerabilities/540720001/" target="_blank">https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/04/report-army-bans-dji-drones-because-concerns-cyber-vulnerabilities/540720001/</a></span></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-6"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-army-drones-idUSKBN1AK2C0" target="_blank">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-army-drones-idUSKBN1AK2C0</a></span></strong></p> US starts deploying drones in South Korea capable of striking North Korean targetstag:12160.info,2017-03-13:2649739:Topic:16680132017-03-13T12:13:08.476ZRagnarokhttps://12160.info/profile/OldDenmark
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h1 class="article__heading"><span class="font-size-6">US starts deploying drones in South Korea capable of striking North Korean targets</span></h1>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date">Published time: 13 Mar, 2017 09:26</div>
<div class="article__date">Edited time: 13 Mar, 2017 10:16</div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"><div class="article__summary summary"><span class="font-size-4">The US…</span></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h1 class="article__heading"><span class="font-size-6">US starts deploying drones in South Korea capable of striking North Korean targets</span></h1>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date">Published time: 13 Mar, 2017 09:26</div>
<div class="article__date">Edited time: 13 Mar, 2017 10:16</div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"><div class="article__summary summary"><span class="font-size-4">The US military will permanently deploy armed Gray Eagle drones at Kunsan air base outside Seoul, South Korea, which could hit North Korean military targets and destroy its command-and-control infrastructure.</span></div>
<div class="article__summary summary"></div>
<div class="article__text text js-mediator-article"><p><span class="font-size-4">The deployment of drones, which will be assigned to the 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, is part of a broader plan to reinforce each Army division with one Gray Eagle company, US Forces Korea (USFK) said in a <a href="http://www.usfk.mil/Media/Press-Releases/Article/1110588/gray-eagle-unmanned-aerial-system-company-comes-to-the-korean-peninsula/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">statement</a>. </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4"><em>“The [unmanned aerial system] adds significant intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability to US Forces Korea and our [South Korean] partners,”</em> spokesman Christopher Bush said in a statement. </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">He did not specify when the drones will arrive in South Korea.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">Earlier on Monday, an unnamed South Korean military official told Yonhap news agency that <em>“the US Army has begun the process to dispatch a squadron, which will operate the Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft, to a US unit in Kunsan (274 kilometers south of Seoul).”</em></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The source did not provide exact details, but noted that the reinforcement of the US air base at Gunsan, home to the Air Force’s 8th Fighter Wing, is being discussed </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The official noted that the Gray Eagle system could obliterate Pyongyang’s critical military infrastructure north of the demarcation line between the two Koreas, including North Korea’s operational command, if all-out war was to break out on the Peninsula.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-6"><a href="https://www.rt.com/news/380468-grey-eagle-aircraft-deployment-south-korea/" target="_blank">https://www.rt.com/news/380468-grey-eagle-aircraft-deployment-south-korea/</a></span></p>
</div>
</div> DARPA aims for simple way to control swarm of attack dronestag:12160.info,2016-12-12:2649739:Topic:16520182016-12-12T11:01:28.181ZRagnarokhttps://12160.info/profile/OldDenmark
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h1 class="article__heading"></h1>
<h1 class="article__heading"><span class="font-size-6">DARPA aims for simple way to control swarm of attack drones</span></h1>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date">Published time: 11 Dec, 2016 05:26</div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"><span class="font-size-4">The US military’s research agency has announced a program to devise elaborate technology which…</span></div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h1 class="article__heading"></h1>
<h1 class="article__heading"><span class="font-size-6">DARPA aims for simple way to control swarm of attack drones</span></h1>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date">Published time: 11 Dec, 2016 05:26</div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"><span class="font-size-4">The US military’s research agency has announced a program to devise elaborate technology which could allow easy control over a swarm of attack drones, which should help urban warfighters to achieve supremacy on future battlefields.</span></div>
<div class="article__date"></div>
<div class="article__date"><p><span class="font-size-4">Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) aims to devise <em>“an advanced human-swarm interface to enable users to monitor and direct potentially hundreds of unmanned platforms simultaneously in real time,”</em> which is believed to be a key to supremacy at an urban battlefield, according to a <a href="http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-12-07">statement</a> US’s military tech designing agency published on Wednesday.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">Swarms of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) can be controlled through computer programs, such as the Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST) or Micro-Autonomous Systems Technology (MAST), but they do not provide an easy way of communication with drones for soldiers on a battlefield.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The brand new Offensive Swarm Enabled Tactics Program (OFFSET) is supposed to be a solution to human-drone swarm communication.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-7"><a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/369916-darpa-swarm-attack-drones/" target="_blank">RT</a></span></p>
</div> Drones will hunt in packs, as US Navy unveils LOCUST prototype launchertag:12160.info,2015-04-16:2649739:Topic:15524412015-04-16T23:38:32.287ZRagnarokhttps://12160.info/profile/OldDenmark
<p></p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 2em;">Drones will hunt in packs, as US Navy unveils LOCUST prototype launcher</strong></p>
<p></p>
<div class="cont-wp-mid max_width"><div class="acticle_clock"><strong><span class="time">Published time: April 16, 2015 13:04 <br></br>Edited time: April 16, 2015 15:47</span></strong></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"><p><span class="font-size-4">Drone technology is getting ever more deadly. The US…</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 2em;">Drones will hunt in packs, as US Navy unveils LOCUST prototype launcher</strong></p>
<p></p>
<div class="cont-wp-mid max_width"><div class="acticle_clock"><strong><span class="time">Published time: April 16, 2015 13:04 <br/>Edited time: April 16, 2015 15:47</span></strong></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"><p><span class="font-size-4">Drone technology is getting ever more deadly. The US Navy has released a video detailing LOCUST – the new tool allowing multiple drones to coordinate and swarm the enemy autonomously. It’s designed to protect large US vessels nearby.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The concept was detailed by the Navy last year, which only this month allowed the Office of Naval Research (ONR) to demonstrate what LOCUST – or the Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Swarming Technology program – can do. They’re touting the tool as a new era in autonomous warfare.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">LOCUST is essentially a system that can launch swarming UAVs to overwhelm the enemy and provide the marines and sailors operating them with a massive tactical advantage, ONR explains in the press release.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-7"><a href="http://rt.com/usa/250233-us-drones-navy-locust/" target="_blank">RT</a></span></strong></p>
</div>
</div> DARPA to test 'submarine' drone that takes off from the oceantag:12160.info,2015-04-01:2649739:Topic:15487422015-04-01T11:57:09.914ZRagnarokhttps://12160.info/profile/OldDenmark
<h1><span class="font-size-6">DARPA to test 'submarine' drone that takes off from the ocean</span></h1>
<div class="cont-wp-mid max_width"><div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"><strong><span class="time">Published time: April 01, 2015 03:54</span></strong></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"><p><span class="font-size-4">This year, the Pentagon’s advanced research projects department will start testing their…</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<h1><span class="font-size-6">DARPA to test 'submarine' drone that takes off from the ocean</span></h1>
<div class="cont-wp-mid max_width"><div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"><strong><span class="time">Published time: April 01, 2015 03:54</span></strong></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"></div>
<div class="acticle_clock"><p><span class="font-size-4">This year, the Pentagon’s advanced research projects department will start testing their new “submarine” drone, which can lie in wait on the ocean floor for years before ever being launched into the skies.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">The new drones, being developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), are part of a new focus by the US military in developing and improving technology for emerging threats.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">These deployable, unmanned systems and sensors can theoretically lie on the deep-ocean floor for years at time in anticipation of the US Navy’s need for non-lethal assistance. When needed, the deep-sea nodes can be activated remotely and recalled to the surface.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-7"><a href="http://rt.com/usa/245781-darpa-submarine-drone-ocean/" target="_blank">RT</a></span></p>
</div>
</div> Mistletoe drone designed to snap Xmas kisses cuts woman’s facetag:12160.info,2014-12-10:2649739:Topic:15220652014-12-10T16:53:29.016ZRagnarokhttps://12160.info/profile/OldDenmark
<p></p>
<h1><span class="font-size-6">Mistletoe drone designed to snap Xmas kisses cuts woman’s face</span></h1>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Published time: December 09, 2014 23:58</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">A drone equipped with a sprig of mistletoe and a cam for taking pictures of kissing couples accidentally flew into a woman’s face and cut her nose in a New York restaurant.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">TGI Friday’s chain introduced Mobile…</span></p>
<p></p>
<h1><span class="font-size-6">Mistletoe drone designed to snap Xmas kisses cuts woman’s face</span></h1>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Published time: December 09, 2014 23:58</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">A drone equipped with a sprig of mistletoe and a cam for taking pictures of kissing couples accidentally flew into a woman’s face and cut her nose in a New York restaurant.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">TGI Friday’s chain introduced Mobile Mistletoes in some of its locations in the US and the UK in December. They are manually operated drones of different sizes – from 25.1 cm to 58.42cm – complete with mistletoe and a camera. The holiday idea was launched to <em>“help inspire more guests to come together underneath the mistletoe and experience #Togethermas this Christmas,”</em> says the promotional video.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">However, New York photojournalist, Georgine Benvenuto, ended up with a bloody nose at the chain’s Sheepshead Bay restaurant last Thursday evening, when she went to take pictures of people kissing under the mistletoe.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-7"><a href="http://rt.com/usa/212851-mistletoe-drone-injure-nyc/" target="_blank">RT</a></span></p> Mapping Drone Proliferation: UAVs in 76 Countriestag:12160.info,2014-01-01:2649739:Topic:13866382014-01-01T16:25:50.553ZRagnarokhttps://12160.info/profile/OldDenmark
<h2><span class="font-size-5">Mapping Drone Proliferation: UAVs in 76 Countries</span></h2>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-2">Global Research, September 18, 2012</span></strong></p>
<h3 class="subtitle">The main international agreement that controls the transfer of drones is the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)</h3>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><em>A new US Congress report on the proliferation of drones has confirmed a huge rise in the number of countries that now have…</em></span></p>
<h2><span class="font-size-5">Mapping Drone Proliferation: UAVs in 76 Countries</span></h2>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-2">Global Research, September 18, 2012</span></strong></p>
<h3 class="subtitle">The main international agreement that controls the transfer of drones is the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)</h3>
<p></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><em>A new US Congress report on the proliferation of drones has confirmed a huge rise in the number of countries that now have military unmanned aerial systems. The US <a href="http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/us-gao-_-noproliferation-of-uavs.pdf" target="_blank">Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published an unclassified version of its February 2012 report on the proliferation of UAVs</a>. The report examines both the proliferation of UAVs, commonly known as drones, and examines US and multilateral controls on the export of drone technology. </em></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">The report states that between 2005 and December 2011, the number of countries that posses drones rose from 41 to 76 (see <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/mapping-drone-proliferation-uavs-in-76-countries/5305191#GAOlist">here for full list</a>).</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><a href="http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/world-drone-map2.jpg" rel="lightbox[5305191]" title="world-drone-map2" class="cboxElement"><img title="world-drone-map2" src="http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/world-drone-map2.jpg?w=497&h=322" alt="" width="570" height="412"/></a></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><em>(Countries that have drones according to GAO report)</em></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">According to the report:</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span class="font-size-3">“The majority of foreign UAVs that countries have acquired fall within the tactical category. Tactical UAVs primarily conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions and typically have a limited operational range of at most 300 kilometres. However, some more advanced varieties are capable of performing intelligence collection, targeting, or attack missions. Mini UAVs were also frequently acquired across the globe during this period.”</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="font-size-3">It should be noted that currently only the US, UK and Israel are known to have used armed UAVs.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">The report goes on: “Currently, there are over 50 countries developing more than 900 different UAV systems. This growth is attributed to countries seeing the success of the United States with UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan and deciding to invest resources into UAV development to compete economically and militarily in this emerging area.”</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">While the report fails to highlight the danger of growing drone proliferation to global peace and security it does emphasize the danger of drone proliferation to “US interests”. The report states that “the use of UAVs by foreign parties to gather information on U.S. military activities has already taken place” and “the significant growth in the number of countries that have acquired UAVs, including key countries of concern, has increased the threat to the United States.”</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Despite this, the report states “the U.S. government has determined that selected transfers of UAV technology support its national security interests”, thus highlighting the contradiction at the heart of current arms control measures. ‘Private sector representatives’ told the reports authors that “UAVs are one of the most important growth sectors in the defense industry and provide significant opportunities for economic benefits if U.S. companies can remain competitive in the global UAV market.”</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><a href="http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/fytable.jpg" rel="lightbox[5305191]" title="FYtable" class="cboxElement"><img title="FYtable" src="http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/fytable.jpg?w=497" alt=""/></a></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Table 1: US drone sales Fiscal Year 2005-2010</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">The report reveals that between 2005 – 2010, the US approved over $380m of drone exports (Table 1). In total, the U.S. government approved transfers of complete UAV systems in 15 cases over the period. Eight of the 15 countries were names in the report: Denmark, Italy, Lithuania, United Kingdom, Australia, Colombia, Israel, and Singapore. Additionally, 1,278 UAV-related licenses were identified over the period.</span></p>
<h3><span class="font-size-3"><strong>The US and the MTCR</strong></span></h3>
<p><span class="font-size-3">The main international agreement that controls the transfer of drones is the <a href="http://www.mtcr.info/english/index.html" target="_blank">Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)</a>. Although not primarily focused on drones, the MTCR controls UAVs by dividing them into two categories. Category One systems are capable of delivering a 500 kilogram warhead further than 300 kilometres, while Category II covers systems that carry a lighter warhead or have a range of less than 300km. Although all decisions are taken on a national basis (and there is no sanction by other countries if the MTCR is broken) there is a “strong presumption of denial” underpinning Category One – that is, an assumption that MTCR signatory states will not export such systems. Countries have greater discretion about exporting Category Two systems.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Drone Wars UK has <a href="http://dronewarsuk.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/industry-lobbying-to-change-drone-export-control-rules/">previously highlighted efforts by US corporation to “relax” controls on the export of drones</a>. However the GAO report details for the first time “six US-sponsored UAV-related proposals” to amend the MTCR over the 2005-2011 period, five of which “would have resulted in moving some UAVs currently categorized under MTCR Category I to Category II” and thus making them more easier to export. The five proposals were rejected by other members of the MTCR.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">While the GAO report goes on to detail the need to improve internal US controls on the export of drones and related technology (recommending improving information databases and communication between licensing departments and intelligence agencies), it shies away from advocating the need to improve international controls.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Two weeks ago it was reported that <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_06_2012_p0-492835.xml">the Pentagon has identified 66 countries that would be eligible to buy US drones</a> under new guidelines yet to be approved by Congress. Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.uasvision.com/2012/09/03/german-air-force-wants-armed-uas/">Germany wants to buy armed drones</a>; while neighbouring <a href="http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=472&ArticleID=1605">Poland plans to scrap its manned fighters for armed drones</a>, just as <a href="http://thechronicleherald.ca/thenovascotian/132190-defence-headquarters-sets-its-sights-on-billion-dollar-fleet-of-armed-drones">Canada wants to spend $1 billion on armed drones</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-04/australia-moves-to-buy-spy-drones/4236544">Australia too plans to spend $3 billion on drones</a>.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">The time for global controls to stop the spread of drones has never been more urgent or important. Next month the 26th annual plenary meeting of the MTCR takes place in Berlin behind closed doors. No public agenda or details of the meeting are available. We urge all those involved to see the growing dangers of drone proliferation and to resist the siren calls by those with vested interests to relax the controls that currently exist.</span><br/> <span class="font-size-3"><a name="GAOlist" id="GAOlist"></a></span></p>
<h5><span class="font-size-3">Table 2: List of Countries reported by US GAO to posses drones.</span></h5>
<table width="549" border="1" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Algeria</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Egypt</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Lebanon</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Singapore</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Angola</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Estonia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Libya</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Slovakia</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Argentina</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Ethiopia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Lithuania</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Slovenia</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Australia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Finland</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Malaysia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">South Africa</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Austria</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">France</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Mexico</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Spain</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Azerbaijan</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Georgia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Morocco</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Sri Lanaka</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Belarus</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Germany</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Netherlands</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Sweden</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Belgium</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Greece</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">New Zealand</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Switzerland</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Botswana</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Hungary</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Nigeria</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Syria</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Brazil</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">India</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Norway</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Taiwan</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Bulgaria</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Indonesia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Pakistan</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Thailand</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Burundi</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Iran</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Panama</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Trinidad & Tobago</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Canada</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Israel</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Peru</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Tunisia</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Chile</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Italy</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Philippines</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Turkey</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">China</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Ivory Coast</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Poland</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Uganda</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Colombia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Japan</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Republic of Korea</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">Ukraine</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Croatia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Jordan</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Romania</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">UAE</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Czech Republic</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Kazakhstan</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Russia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">United Kingdom</span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top" width="111"><span class="font-size-3">Denmark</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="94"><span class="font-size-3">Latvia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="123"><span class="font-size-3">Serbia</span></td>
<td valign="top" width="142"><span class="font-size-3">United States</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/mapping-drone-proliferation-uavs-in-76-countries/5305191">http://www.globalresearch.ca/mapping-drone-proliferation-uavs-in-76-countries/5305191</a></p> Iran Unveils Attack Drone With ’2,000-Kilometer’ Rangetag:12160.info,2013-11-19:2649739:Topic:13612122013-11-19T05:51:08.291ZCryptocurrencyhttps://12160.info/profile/KRYPKE32
<p><strong><a href="http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131118/DEFREG/311180005/Iran-Unveils-Attack-Drone-2-000-Kilometer-Range" target="_blank">Defense News</a></strong><br></br> November 18, 2013</p>
<p>Iran on Monday unveiled a missile-equipped drone with a range of 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers), the official IRNA news agency reported.</p>
<p>“The Fotros drone has an operational range of 2,000 kilometres and can fly at an altitude of 25,000 feet, with a flight time of 16 to 30 hours,” Defence…</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131118/DEFREG/311180005/Iran-Unveils-Attack-Drone-2-000-Kilometer-Range" target="_blank">Defense News</a></strong><br/> November 18, 2013</p>
<p>Iran on Monday unveiled a missile-equipped drone with a range of 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers), the official IRNA news agency reported.</p>
<p>“The Fotros drone has an operational range of 2,000 kilometres and can fly at an altitude of 25,000 feet, with a flight time of 16 to 30 hours,” Defence Minister Mohammad Dehgan was quoted as saying.</p>
<p>Dehgan said the new drone could carry out reconnaissance missions or launch air-to-surface missile strikes.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131118/DEFREG/311180005/Iran-Unveils-Attack-Drone-2-000-Kilometer-Range" target="_blank">Read more</a></p> Remote Control Warfaretag:12160.info,2013-04-09:2649739:Topic:11709932013-04-09T00:43:47.415ZRiahttps://12160.info/profile/Ria
<div class="PrimaryContent" id="div_PrimaryContent"><div class="PrimaryContent" id="div_PrimaryContent"><div class="postThumbnail"></div>
<div><p style="text-align: center;"><strong><em><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800324343?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800324343?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"></img></a></em></strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><em>Facts about the new weapon of choice for the U.S. war machine–and the deadly impact of drones in conflicts…</em></strong></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="PrimaryContent" id="div_PrimaryContent"><div class="PrimaryContent" id="div_PrimaryContent"><div class="postThumbnail"></div>
<div><p style="text-align: center;"><strong><em><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800324343?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800324343?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-center"/></a></em></strong></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><em>Facts about the new weapon of choice for the U.S. war machine–and the deadly impact of drones in conflicts around the globe.</em></strong></span></p>
</div>
<div><p>ANTIWAR ACTIVISTS are planning actions in April to focus attention on a dark and deadly corner of U.S. military operations: <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>The Pentagon’s and the CIA’s massively scaled-up use of drone aircraft around the world.</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>In 2000, the Pentagon had less than 50 drones</strong></span>. <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>Ten years later, that number is 7,500–an increase of 15,000 percent.</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>In 2003, the U.S. Air Force was flying a handful of round-the-clock drone patrols every day. By 2010, that number had reached 40.</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>“By 2011, the Air Force was training more remote pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined,”</strong></span> explains <em><strong>Medea Benjamin</strong></em> in her book <span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><em>Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control</em></strong></span>. Benjamin cites <span style="color: #0000ff;"><em><strong>Mark Maybury</strong></em></span>, chief scientist for the Air Force, who said in 2011, <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>“Our number one manning problem in the Air Force is manning our unmanned platform.”</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><img class="alignright align-center" title="An unmanned Predator drone prepares to lift off" src="http://socialistworker.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/330/images/drone%20liftoffa.jpg" alt="An unmanned Predator drone prepares to lift off" width="546" height="399"/></p>
<p></p>
<p>The reasons for the explosion in the use of drones to wage wars around the world are obvious enough. Training drone pilots is <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>faster</strong><strong>, less grueling and cheaper</strong></span> compared to traditional pilots. It takes <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>two years</strong></span> to prepare an Air Force recruit for deployment as a pilot, but only <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>nine months</strong></span> to train a drone operator. And, of course, <strong>the consequences of drone operator error are no more than the price of the drone itself.</strong> As Benjamin writes:</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><em>[T]here’s no pilot at risk of being killed or maimed in a crash. No pilot to be taken captive by enemy forces. No pilot to cause a diplomatic crisis if shot down in a “friendly country” while bombing or spying without official permission. If a drone crashes or is shot down, the pilot back home can simply get up and take a coffee break.</em></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>But more important is that the use of drones to carry out missions in far-flung countries has enabled the Obama administration to <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>avoid any formal declaration of war while raining down lethal force</strong></span> from the skies–a clear <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>attempt to skirt both U.S. and international law</strong></span> regarding war. As <em><strong>Nick Turse</strong></em> writes in <span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><em>The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Spies, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases and Cyberwarfare</em>:</strong></span></p>
<blockquote><p><em><span style="color: #0000ff;">Take the American war in Pakistan–a poster child for what might now be called the Obama formula, if not doctrine. Beginning as a highly circumscribed drone assassination campaign backed by limited cross-border commando raids under the Bush administration, U.S. operations in Pakistan into something close to a full-scale robotic air war, complemented by cross-border helicopter attacks, CIA-funded “kill teams” of Afghan proxy forces, as well as boots-on-the-ground missions by elite special operations forces.</span></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>The U.S. has now deployed drones armed with lethal force in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya.</strong></span> Some <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong>60 bases throughout the world are directly connected to the drone program–from Florida to Nevada in the U.S., from Ethiopia and Djibouti in Africa, to Qatar in the Middle East and the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean.</strong></span></span></p>
<p>According to Turse, for the last three years, <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>Xe Services</strong></span>, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">the company formerly known as Blackwater</span></strong>, <span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><strong>has been in charge of arming the fleet of Predator drones</strong></span> at CIA clandestine sites in Pakistan and Afghanistan.</p>
<p>THE OBAMA administration’s aggressive use of drone warfare is yet further confirmation that Barack Obama’s policies represent the <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>continuation</strong></span> rather than the repudiation of the <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>U.S. government’s militaristic foreign policy</strong></span> of the Bush years.</p>
<p>The withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq–after failing to renegotiate the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government–occurred on Obama’s watch, but <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>the U.S. still plans to keep thousands of “non-combat” personnel in Iraq.</strong></span> Meanwhile, Obama carried out a <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>troop surge into Afghanistan</strong></span> that doubled the number of U.S. soldiers in that country.</p>
<p>All along the way, the use of drones has accelerated–especially during Obama’s presidency, <span style="color: #ff00ff;"><strong><a href="http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">as this infographic effectively illustrates</span></a></strong></span>. They are seen as the <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>ideal solution</strong></span> for a military that is <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>overextended</strong></span> after 10 years of occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq–<span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">without achieving a decisive victory</span></strong></span>, but at enormous economic, political and diplomatic cost. Drones, by contrast, have a <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>“lightweight footprint,”</strong></span> allowing them to operate behind a <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>veil of secrecy</strong></span>. They provide <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>intelligence, lethal force and global reach</strong></span> on the cheap, while simultaneously giving U.S. military strategists plausible deniability to avoid accountability for their actions.</p>
<p>So when <strong><span style="color: #ff0000;"><em>Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)</em></span></strong> recently <span style="color: #ff00ff;"><strong><a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/graham-drones/"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">blurted out in late February that U.S. drone strikes had killed 4,700 people</span></a>,</strong></span> the military establishment no doubt shuddered.</p>
<p>Graham was speaking to the Rotary Club in Easley, S.C., and was the <strong>first government official to provide a figure for the number of casualties</strong> in the drone wars–his number was around <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>one-and-a-half times greater than unofficial estimates</strong></span> based on press accounts and other eyewitness reports.</p>
<p>Of course, Graham wasn’t bemoaning the high death toll–he was <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">enthusiastic</span></strong></span> about it. Graham went on to say that he <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">approved of the U.S. targeting of American citizens abroad</span></strong></span> and even the use of drones on the U.S.-Mexico border. Of <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>Anwar al-Awlaki,</strong></span> the U.S. citizen killed in a drone strike in Pakistan in 2011, Graham said: </p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">“He’s been actively involved in recruiting and prosecuting the war for al-Qaeda. He was found in Yemen, and we blew him up with a drone. Good.</span><span style="color: #0000ff;"> I didn’t want him to have a trial,” he continued. “We’re not fighting a crime, we’re fighting a war. I support the president’s ability to make a determination as to who an enemy combatant is.”</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Opinion polls show that many Americans aren't as enthusiastic as Graham about drones. <span style="color: #ff00ff;"><strong><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/targeted_killings_ok_if_obama_does_it/"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">According to an article by Joan Walsh at Salon.com:</span></a></strong></span></p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">[W]hile 56 percent of respondents support using drones against “high-level terrorist leaders,” only 13 percent think they should be used against “anyone suspected of being associated with a terrorist group.” And only 27 percent supported using drones “if there was a possibility of killing innocent people.” Another 13 percent opposed the drone program entirely.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Given that only a minority of those killed by drones to date are “high-level leaders”–the New American Foundation estimates it’s as low as 2 percent–Americans may be more skeptical of the policy the more they learn about it.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Still, the military establishment has a secret weapon in the public relations battle to preserve support for its favorite secret weapon–<span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><em><strong>Barack Obama himself</strong></em></span>.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><span class="font-size-4">Polling done by political scientist Michael Tesler found that significantly more whites “racial liberals” (a pollster category for liberals who are liberal on questions of race) supported the policy of targeted killings once they were told that the Obama administration had carried out this policy.</span></strong></span></p>
<p>As Walsh writes:</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Only 27 percent of white “racial liberals” in a control group supported the targeted killing policy, but that jumped to 48 percent among such voters who were told Obama had conducted such targeted killings. White “racial conservatives” were more likely than white racial liberals to support the targeted killing policy overall, and Obama’s support for it didn’t affect their opinion.</span></p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>THE OBAMA administration is thus the <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>perfect mouthpiece</strong></span> for reestablishing the military’s prestige among a war-weary public–and drones are the perfect vehicle.</p>
<p>In this respect, <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Obama is bringing U.S. military strategy full-circle</span></strong></span>, as Turse explains:</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">In 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld began his “revolution in military affairs,” steering the Pentagon toward a military-lite model of high-tech, agile forces. The concept came to a grim end in Iraq’s embattled cities. A decade later, the last vestiges of its many failures continue to play out in a stalemated war in Afghanistan…In the years since, two secretaries of defense and a new president have presided over another transformation–this one geared toward avoiding ruinous, large-scale land wars, which the U.S. has consistently proven unable to win.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Benjamin’s book sometimes implies that the problem with drones is that they make for <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>“bad foreign policy”</strong></span>–because they make immediate recourse to the use of force less costly and therefore more likely. While this is no doubt true, Turse helps to explain how the use of drones is situated within a larger framework.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>Drones are really a symptom, not a cause, of the reorientation of U.S. foreign policy away from the cowboy imperialism of the Bush years.</strong></span></p>
<p>The U.S. has by far <span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><strong>the most lethal and technologically advanced military force</strong></span> on the planet, but with its treasury drained and the rapid rise of global competitors, especially China, the <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>“Obama doctrine</strong></span>” employs different strategies to achieve the same goals: fewer tanks, more spies and special forces; fewer invasions, more secret bases and drones; and whenever possible, <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">offloading direct responsibility for fighting onto proxy forces and friendly (to U.S. interests) well-armed dictators.</span></strong></span></p>
<p>The goals of these policies aren't even the choice of presidents. They are <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>obligations imposed</strong></span> on all nations in a world system built around economic competition. <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">This competition compels nation states to arm themselves for military conflict–or be overrun.</span></strong></span> And it’s the U.S.–which spends as much as the other countries in the <span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong>top 20 military spenders</strong></span><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"> <em>combined</em>–</span></strong></span>that does the lion’s share of overrunning.</p>
<p>So while it’s essential to oppose drones and the various imperial adventures <span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><strong>they enable, the economic system that gives rise to military conflict</strong></span> must also be challenged.</p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="color: #0000ff;" class="font-size-4"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">SOME FACTS & FIGURES</span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><span class="font-size-4"><strong>Totals (Pakistan and Yemen)</strong></span></span></p>
<p>Strikes: 422 [of which, 49 occurred under President Bush]<br/>Total killed: 2,426 to 3,969 [of which, 395-562 occurred under President Bush]<br/>Militants killed: 1,969 - 3,238 [of which, 211-356 occurred under President Bush]<br/>Unknown Killed: 200-330 [of which, 65-72 occurred under President Bush]<br/>Civilians Killed: 276-368 [of which, 118-135 occurred under President Bush]<br/>Non-militant fatality rate under President Bush: 46%<br/>Non-militant fatality rate under President Obama: 14%</p>
<h2 dir="ltr"></h2>
<h2 dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><strong>Pakistan</strong></span></h2>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al1Cy1H3n8gpdEJwenB5QUVvaVFFTkIwR3R2eks1T3c"><img alt="Pakistan strikes" src="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Pakistan-strikes.jpg" width="600" height="371"/></a><br/><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #0000ff;"><span class="font-size-2"><strong>Under President Bush the CIA launched 52 drone strikes. Since then the Agency has launched 306 attacks under President Obama.</strong></span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><strong><span class="font-size-3">All CIA strikes in Pakistan 2012</span></strong></span></p>
<p>Total strikes: 48<br/>Total reported killed: 246-397<br/>Civilians reported killed: 7-54<br/>Children reported killed: 2<br/>Total reported injured: 107-167</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Pakistan: December 2012 actions</strong></span></p>
<p>Total CIA strikes in December: 5<br/>Total killed in strikes in December: 17-28, of whom 1-4 were reportedly civilians</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>All Pakistan actions 2004 – 2012</strong></span></p>
<p>Total Obama strikes: 304<br/>Total US strikes since 2004: 356<br/>Total reported killed: 2,604-3,407<br/>Civilians reported killed: 473-889<br/>Children reported killed: 176<br/>Total reported injured: 1,259-1,417</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff00ff;" class="font-size-3"><strong><a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/01/11/obama-2012-strikes/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">For the Bureau’s full Pakistan databases click here.</span></a></strong></span></p>
<h2 dir="ltr"></h2>
<h2><span style="color: #ff0000;" class="font-size-4"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Yemen</span></strong></span></h2>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al1Cy1H3n8gpdDNhVEtBbWM0YWY1SDNfYUkyYTFOd0E"><img alt="Yemen strikes" src="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Yemen-strikes.png" width="600" height="371"/></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">US operations have escalated over Yemen in the last 12 months. However the Bureau cannot yet confirm responsibility for 127 strikes since 2010 which may have been the work of US aircraft.</span></strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al1Cy1H3n8gpdDlrdTZ6MEFMT3VWV0pSZ3hpRlpYUFE"><img alt="Minimum Yemen deaths" src="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Minimum-Yemen-deaths.png" width="600" height="371"/></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">As reported US air strikes have increased in Yemen so too have reported casualties.</span></strong></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><br/><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><span class="font-size-3">All Yemen actions in 2012</span></span></strong></p>
<div><p dir="ltr">Total confirmed US operations: <strong>32-39</strong><br/>Total confirmed US drone strikes: <strong>29-36</strong><br/>Possible additional US operations: <strong>127-149</strong><br/>Of which possible additional US drone strikes: <strong>55-69</strong><br/>Total reported killed: <strong>185-705</strong><br/>Total civilians killed: <strong>18-58<br/></strong>Children killed: <strong>3-9<br/></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Yemen: December 2012 actions</strong></span></p>
<div>Confirmed US drone strikes: <strong>0</strong><br/>Further reported/possible US strike events: <strong>4-7</strong><br/>Total reported killed in US operations: <strong>10-14<br/></strong>Civilians reported killed in US strikes: <strong>0</strong></div>
</div>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><br/><span style="text-decoration: underline;">All Yemen actions 2002 – 2012*</span></strong></p>
<div><p dir="ltr">Total confirmed US operations: <strong>53-63</strong><br/>Total confirmed US drone strikes: <strong>42-52</strong><br/>Possible additional US operations: <strong>124-143</strong><br/>Of which possible additional US drone strikes: <strong>66-79</strong><br/>Total reported killed: <strong>362-1,059</strong><br/>Total civilians killed: <strong>60-170</strong><br/>Children killed: <strong>24-35</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="color: #ff00ff;" class="font-size-3"><strong><a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Strikes-Per-Year-Dash10.jpg" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">For Bureau's full Yemen data, click here.</span></a></strong></span></p>
</div>
<p></p>
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span class="font-size-4">Somalia</span></span></strong></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;" class="font-size-3"><strong>All Somalia actions in 2012</strong></span></p>
<div>Total US operations: <strong>4</strong><br/>Total US drone strikes: <strong>2</strong> <strong><br/></strong>Total reported killed: <strong>11-14<br/></strong>Civilians reported killed: <strong>0</strong><br/>Children reported killed: <strong>0</strong></div>
<div><p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Somalia December 2012 actions</strong></span></p>
<div><p dir="ltr">Total reported US operations: <strong>0</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
</div>
</div>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>All Somalia actions 2007 – 2012</strong></span></p>
<div>Total US operations: <strong>10-23</strong><br/>Total US drone strikes: <strong>3-9<br/></strong>Total reported killed: <strong>58-170<br/></strong>Civilians reported killed: <strong>11-57</strong><br/>Children reported killed: <strong>1-3</strong></div>
<div><span style="color: #ff00ff;" class="font-size-3"><strong><a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/22/get-the-data-somalias-hidden-war/" target="_self"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">For Bureau's full Somalia data, click here.</span></a></strong></span></div>
<p></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;"><strong>Document Attached:</strong></span> <strong>Current and future US military drone bases Google Earth</strong> (KML) OR <strong>Click</strong> <span style="color: #ff00ff;"><strong><a href="https://batchgeo.com/map/kml/edd545ae9b6397f6cedd4fedadcd14a9" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">HERE</span></a> </strong></span><strong>to download</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;">COMPILED FROM:</span> <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/remote-control-warfare-some-sixty-us-drone-bases-around-the-world/5330325" target="_blank">GLOBAL RESEARCH</a><span style="color: #ff00ff;"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">,</span></span> <a href="http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones" target="_blank">COUNTER TERRORISM</a><span style="color: #ff00ff;"><span style="color: #ff00ff;"> and </span></span><a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/emerging-from-the-shadows-us-covert-drone-strikes-in-2012-2/" target="_blank">THE BUREAU INVESTIGATES</a></strong></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>