[Skybird]

Like it or not, drones are the future, and they become increasingly omnipresent - not only in warzone, but our public sphere in our home countries, too. Media, police, everybody - try to stop it. You will fail. Heck, even for private use, toy-drones are being sold. That is a door-opener - to make them being taken for normal, and raise acceptance by that. The F-35 is most likely the last manned combat fighter build by the US. And it is not just the sky. Drones for naval operations are being build, too. And drones for landwarfare.

Militarily, drones obviously are vulnerable to one main concern: the vulnerability of the control signal link. Iran claimed to have successfully interfered with the radio signals remote-controlling one US drone, and by that triggering the automatic emergency landing protocols of that drone that enabled Iran to get it in its hand and gain access to the video memory.

What that means, is a logical step that many of you will like even less: the shifting from remote-controlled to autonomous combat drones. I do not like it, you do not like it, most people will not like it, and legislation will be made to prevent or at least limit that. But autonomous drones are the logical next step. And it will become real.

And not in just 30 years or so.

There is another concern. Drones are made of components manufactured by a variety of nations. You cannot conclude by the built drone you captured who really has send it. With more and more nations, and the technically interested public enthusiasts, organised crime and the academic international community anyway having access to cheap and unsuspicious electronic components and the knowledge how to assemble a drone (a pipe bomb, a nuclear bomb etc) thanks to the internet, not only nations can soon send a combat drone into action without allowing to be identified and thus being held responsible for it: especially organised crime, terrorists wil be doing it also.

Mr. Redline alias Mr. Buticannot has by now collected an impressive record of empty speeches that arouse emotions and are rhetorically brilliant more or less, its just that his words tend to mean nothing but hot air. And even if there will be treaties and laws (and I strictly doubt the American and any state's interest in such laws since state governments are about control and power, not freedom): is anyone really naive enough to think that that will mean anything?