@ISIDEWITHPreguntesPolítica exteriorfa 12 anys

En cas que els militars volar avions no tripulats sobre països estrangers per obtenir intel·ligència i matar els sospitosos de terrorisme?

Els drons són vehicles aeris no tripulats desplegats per les agències de defensa i intel·ligència dels EUA per recollir dades i atacar objectius enemics sospitosos. El primer atac nord-americà conegut va ser l’assassinat el 2002 de l’agent d’Al-Qaeda Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi al Iemen. Entre el 2022 i el 2020, els EUA van matar entre 9.000 i 18.000 combatents enemics i 900-2200 civils amb atacs de drons. Els opositors als atacs amb drons han defensat des de fa temps que els atacs que maten civils serveixen essencialment com a cartell…  

Llegeix més
+
expandir
+ Ajustos x  State Senate District 43 (Washington)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 16k Districte del Senat de l’Estat 43 voters.

60%
Sí
40%
Sense
48%
Sí
24%
Sense
10%
Sí, però només amb el permís del país en qüestió
10%
No, només per reunir informació d’intel·ligència, no matar els sospitosos de terrorisme
2%
Sí, els EUA ha d’utilitzar tots els mitjans necessaris per combatre el terrorisme
6%
No, els militars no tenen dret a fer-ho sense una declaració de guerra del Congrés

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 16k Districte del Senat de l’Estat 43 voters.

Carregant dades...

S’està carregant el gràfic... 

Importància Històrica

Trend of how important this issue is for 16k Districte del Senat de l’Estat 43 voters.

Carregant dades...

S’està carregant el gràfic... 

Altres Respostes Populars

Unique answers from Districte del Senat de l’Estat 43 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

Últimes Notícies

Estigueu al dia dels articles de notícies més recents “Drons” , actualitzats amb freqüència.

 @78LFWD6 de Nebraska enviat…2mos2MO

America Demands $368B from Australia for 'Rental' Submarines

The US Congressional Research Service admits that the country's industrial base is very far from achieving the target of building 2.33 submarines per year needed to build replacement submarines for those sold to Australia: in fact the rate is currently only "1.2 to 1.4".Given this, they actually propose to just forgo the sale of submarines entirely (!) and go for an alternative approach where the US deploys US submarines manned by the US Navy to Australia instead: "up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs would be built, and instead of three to five of them being sold to Australia, these additional boats would instead be retained in U.S. Navy service and operated out of Australia."But since they don't want to miss out on the Australian money meant for the subs, they conveniently propose that Australia instead spends it on other US military products: "Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities—such as, for example, long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft".All this for the purpose of "performing military missions for both Australia and the United States".So essentially, from Australia's standpoint, the new deal would mean:- Zero control over the submarines operated on its territory since it'd all be manned by the U.S. Navy- Australia still spends a similar eyewatering amount of money ($368 billion) on US military equipment that is mostly "long-range": "long-range anti-ship missiles", "B-21 long-range bombers", "long-range strike aircraft". Meaning by definition not used for the defense of Australia but undoubtedly to attack China. Which is pretty clear: China is mentioned 44 times in the document...- This US military equipment is to be used, as per the document, to "perform military missions for both Australia and the United States" which is extremely unusual: militaries normally don't perform missions FOR another military. Allied countries might perform missions alongside each other or in support of each other, but not explicitly "for" each other.How could Australia possibly justify such a deal to its public? AUKUS was already, according to former Australian PM Paul Keating the “worst deal in all history” because it'd "turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States", but this new proposal would strip away even the illusion of Australian sovereignty.

 @ISIDEWITH enviat…1mo1MO

Ukraine Under Fire: Russia Breaks 73-Day Pause with Devastating Missile Barrage

Russia ramped up its deep strikes into Ukraine on Wednesday with a volley of missiles aimed at Kyiv and a northeastern border area, ending a more than two-month pause in such attacks on the capital, the Ukrainian air force said.The missile bombardment came as Russian forces sought to press their advantage in both soldiers and firepower across the eastern front. Ukraine’s military on Wednesday reported a wave of aerial bombing targeting its troops holding a pocket of Russian territory near the northern border that was captured last summer.As air raid alerts wailed in Kyiv around 6 a.m. and civilians headed for hallways or basements for safety, the Ukrainian air force said it was tracking 96 aerial targets entering the country’s airspace. That included missiles, ending an unusual 73-day pause in Russia’s use of the weapons to strike civilian and military targets in the capital.The air force said four missiles were aimed at Kyiv and two were short-range missiles fired into the northeastern border area.In Kyiv, explosions rang out early Wednesday and the authorities said air defense systems were firing at incoming missiles and drones.In the attack, Russia synchronized the arrival in the capital of fast-flying ballistic missiles and slower-moving cruise missiles, a common tactic. The Kyiv city military administration initially said North Korean-made Hwasong ballistic missiles, which Pyongyang has provided to Russia, may have been used. But Ukraine’s air force later reported that two Russian-made Iskander-M ballistic missiles were shot down.