Hacker News Reader

Comment by streetnigga | Hacker News Reader

Pretty shitty. Can't think of a theater of operation where the consensus for deployment is done with the support of the host nation's public. That is excluding the secret laws often shrouding the justification for the programs themselves.

View on HN

All places where the US deploys drones has the support of the host nation's gov't at least. Drones are extremely easy to shoot down currently, and would not be effective in any hostile environment.

Not sure if that's what you meant, but it's an interesting point to consider.

So the governments of Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya all support US drones being deployed. Where would I go to verify this? Seems a reconnaissance drone was downed over Iran, who have demanded an apology[0]. Perhaps you only mean drones capable of attack.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

I know Yemen does (or did) support the US drones being deployed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/when-us-dron...

Here's one place to start for Pakistan: http://tribune.com.pk/story/84402/wikileaks-gilani-open-to-d...

As you point out, this is for drones capable of attack, not reconnaissance drones.

"Acquiescence" or "compliance" may be more appropriate terms than "support" given the power imbalance in the relationships.

"Living next to [the USA] is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." -- Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1969

> All places where the US deploys drones has the support of the host nation's gov't at least.

The GP specifically said "host nation's public".

It's almost as if I meant something making that distinction, thanks for noticing. :)

I think 'relatively' easier would be more precise than 'extremely' extremely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com