Can we have our drone back please?

[Lord Jim]

They knew it was in Iran because that's where they sent it. That doesn't mean they knew its precise location after it came down.

Well Scooter, if they didn't know the precise location, then how would a discussion of the options to send in commandos or blow it up even make sense?

[Scooter]

They might have been aware of its general location based on where it was when they lost contact with it, which might have made a commando raid possible. There is no mention in the article cited about considering using missiles to blow it up. And it states:

The malfunction that severed whatever signal ground-based operators were using to track the Sentinel might also have disabled the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle's self-destruct.

If the signal was severed, then what could they have used to determine its precise location?

[rubato]

What if it didn't break, and it didn't fall down? What if it was designed to crash-land and be scooped up by Iranian forces to gather intelligence and report back?

Why are we asking for it back when we don't even have any diplomatic relations with Iran and zero chance that such a request will be successful? Is that just for verisimilitude?

Pretty cool trojan horse, if you ask me.

A strategy positively Asiatic in its subtlety.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/13/143595594 ... t-for-iran

Here's another take:

text size AAA
December 13, 2011
Iranian officials have crowed they are mining "priceless technological information" from a CIA spy drone that went down days ago inside Iran's borders, broadcasting triumphant images of what they said was the craft on state TV.

But many experts say the loss of the RQ-170 Sentinel drone — like the U-2 spy plane shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960 — may have more value as propaganda than as a treasure trove of technological secrets.

"Even if the Iranians have possession of a drone, that doesn't mean they will be able to exploit its technology," says Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based military and security think tank.

(click URL for rest of the story)

[Sean]

Okay, well I guess what we have to assume is that the self destruct mechanism on this thing (which it surely must have been equipped with) could not be triggered, (though some of the systems must still have been working or we wouldn't have even known where it was) in which case the question would be whether or not to destroy it by sending in a cruise missile, or with an armed drone...(A manned bombing mission would have been unnecessary)

We certainly have the ordnance to do this kind of job with pin point accuracy; we've got missiles with guidance systems so sophisticated that they can fly through a city and be targeted to enter a specific window in a building...



But even so, there would be collateral damage in the immediate vicinity of the target. So, the key question in terms of whether or not to do this would be where the drone went down....

If it was in the mountains, or the dessert, or a cornfield, then absolutely, you take it out....

If it landed in the yard at an orphanage, on the other hand, then unless there was something really ultra secret that would do severe damage to our national security if it fell into enemy hands, (and if it were that important than the commando raid would be worth it too.) then probably not.

There are a lot of missing pieces here, and because of the security issues involved, I suspect they will remain missing for some time to come.

I don't think that capability is the question here Jim. I think that firing a cruise missile at Iran could just possibly be construed as a tad 'act of warrish'...

[loCAtek]

They knew it was in Iran because that's where they sent it. That doesn't mean they knew its precise location after it came down.

Well Scooter, if they didn't know the precise location, then how would a discussion of the options to send in commandos or blow it up even make sense?

Google Maps?

[BoSoxGal]

What if we said, 'pretty please with 72 infidels on top?'?

Alright I'm pissed this was pretty durn funny and nobody



Piss on all youse!!

[Gob]

What if we said, 'pretty please with 72 infidels on top?'?

Alright I'm pissed this was pretty durn funny and nobody



Piss on all youse!!

72 virgins BSG, Virgins!!!

[BoSoxGal]

Yeah, I shoulda said that - but I thought we'd get farther trading them some infidels to torture.

Hey, how about 72 infidel virgins?!?



Could we find that many to send?

[Sean]

What if we said, 'pretty please with 72 infidels on top?'?

Alright I'm pissed this was pretty durn funny and nobody



Piss on all youse!!

72 virgins BSG, Virgins!!!

See? Now it's funny.

[Lord Jim]

I think that firing a cruise missile at Iran could just possibly be construed as a tad 'act of warrish'...

I don't believe that, in and of itself, would even have entered into the calculus of the decision, Sean, (nor should it have)

The rogue regime in Iran has engaged in multiple acts of war against the US for decades, (beginning at it's inception with the storming of our embassy and holding our diplomatic personnel hostage for over a year, right through a couple of months ago when they were caught plotting the murder of an Ambassador on US soil)

[Sean]

It's different if the country acted upon is looking for an excuse for a fight though...

[dales]

My dear friend Jim prefers to think small--- cruise missle, indeed.

A full array of nuclear-armed ICBM's targeted directly at Tehran would get their attention.

Right, Jim?