It's underscored by one of the quotes used to end the piece off:
Less impressed, Sharkey said the U.S. still has time to
rethink its drone future. “Don’t go to the next step.
Don’t make them fully autonomous. That will proliferate
just as quickly and then you are really going to be sunk.”
And the opening premise of the article is not only that armed UAV technology is spreading, but that the reader should somehow be concerned that the US is unable to stop it. It speaks about what options are available to US policy makers to govern the spread of the technology, correctly answering 'none' but not once mentioning that the US never had any ability to govern the spread of UAV technology. Especially because it was not the originator of it.
The rest of the article is ok, particularly the quotes attributed to Singer (an excellent writer on the subject), Sam Brennan and Mary Commings and the maps showing which countries are using or developing armed and unarmed UAVs. I just feel it's let down by the editorial slant and US-centric focus.
The rest of the article is ok, particularly the quotes attributed to Singer (an excellent writer on the subject), Sam Brennan and Mary Commings and the maps showing which countries are using or developing armed and unarmed UAVs. I just feel it's let down by the editorial slant and US-centric focus.