zlacker

Predator drones can carry multiple air to ground missiles and guided bombs. This is the same model of drone which is used for drone strikes in the Middle East. There is no reasonable reason for a domestic civilian agency to own or use these drones over US soil vs models which are incapable of carrying armament.

>>kec+(OP)
I'm aware of that, but it's extremely, extremely unlikely that this drone is carrying any sort of missiles. I can't prove that for certain, but let's be realistic here. The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?

>>king_m+x
That’s a false equivalence. The difference with your truck argument is that this air vehicle is specifically designed to monitor and shoot missiles at targets (“extrajudicial killings” is the phrase used). A truck carrying a missile launcher is different because trucks weren’t created will the express purpose of carrying missile launchers.

>>king_m+x
> should we not allow trucks on the road?

Perhaps not ones designed for carrying ballistic missiles.

Though this still isn't a perfect comparison because it ignores the fact that drone usage can be targeted to individuals, which is a factor that makes it more dangerous in our context of homeland operations.

>>colejo+p1
Except there's simply no way (short of the US falling into a total dystopian future) that someone is going to launch a missile on the Mall of America this week from this drone. Again - let's be realistic here.

>>king_m+x
Pointing a gun at someone is a threat even if you say it's unloaded. The US government should not be threatening its citizens.

> The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?

This is a straw man, the Predator is a weapons platform, nothing is being hidden here.

>>kec+62
A police helicopter manned with police officers with long guns is a weapons platform too. What's the difference?

>>kec+(OP)
I think the capability of carrying armament is irrelevant as long as it isn't actually carrying weapons. Anything can be retrofitted, and even without modifications any aircraft is a weapon in and of itself.

From CBP's standpoint, it makes sense. What other unmanned aircraft could carry the same sensor package, while also being incapable of being armed? There's the Global Hawk, which costs about 10x more than a Reaper.

There's a reason that a civilian agency like NASA owns so many fighter jets (F-15/16s). R&D is expensive and there's no need to reinvent the wheel. (Also worth noting-- NASA also owns some Predator drones)

>>king_m+K2
Police helicopters don’t regularly kill dozens of people. The helicopter is more akin to a cop walking around with a sidearm. Still not great, but less overtly threatening.

>>kec+b9
Drones don't regularly kill dozens of people in the US either.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

>>kec+(OP)
> There is no reasonable reason for a domestic civilian agency to own or use these drones over US soil vs models which are incapable of carrying armament.

This is a model which is incapable of carrying armament.

>>kec+(OP)
CBP drones do not carry missiles. There are definitely reasons to use the predator drone vs non-armament capable drones. One such reason is cost. The predator drone Is lower cost and has much better performance to cost ratio compared to other options, such as Northrop Grumman global hawk.