Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On May 10, 1:03 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:35:04 GMT, wrote in
:



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
:

In a war theater there is no
need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.

So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
war Humvees...

No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
war theaters being used domestically.

And what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
and a "war theater" UAV?

One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..

I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges established
for that purpose.

I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped with
two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.

Whether there is a reg or not, tanks and humvees do not conduct
training missions on public highways. Same with aerial combat
training. So Larry does have a point about military UAV training over
neighborhoods.

Wrong.

The military trys to avoid paved roads with heavy tracked vehicles
as they have a tendancy to tear up the road, even with road tracks,
but they do on occasion run them on public roads.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.