http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...sing-us-drone/


U.S. Military Sources: Iran Has Missing U.S. Drone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...Q-170_Sentinel

It's likely to be completely intact

I bet russia or china would trade them a few working nukes for it straight up.

lol secret flying technology without a self-destruct button. do these people not watch tv?

Riiiiiiiight.... Just like those U2 pilots who kept accidentally wandering into Soviet airspace. You'd think the USAF would be better at navigating.

How would it be completely intact if it was shot down or was lost control of and crashed after running out of fuel?

it's prolly like a flying black box as far as the tech goes. tech intact...wings...not so much

maybe it lost contact with controllers and defaulted into autoland mode?

It's designed to land rather than freefall when it loses communication signal. That says nothing about any self destruction technology obviously.

From the wiki article:

I've said this plenty of times... might as well say it again. You're not the first who's popped in these types of threads and asked those questions. These guys will answer any question you have thoughtfully. I'm not saying you have to buy it. I think you realize that your past posts are antagonistic. I'm not gonna call you a racist/anti semite or anything. You can be any old Joe and watch some documentry on USS Liberty and you can identify the high proportion of financially successfull Jews and scratch your head and ponder all you want. Just ask yourself what makes a racist? Is it voluntary ("I chose to be racist")? or is what happens to people who have their heads in the gutter. It's not racist in itself to point out black people are shooting black people in large numbers but if you spend all day watching the first 48 and talking all day about how cold blooded killers black people are,what do you think results?

Saw more information was released concerning the US air drone that fell into Iranian hands. Seems it was being used along the Iran/Afghan border.

"Drone Lost in Iran Was Joint CIA-Military Reconnaissance Plane"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...issance-plane/

This thought occurred to me today:

Let's assume a nuclear Iran reduces the United States' ability to act unilaterally in its own self-interest; in other words, all things being equal, US interests are best served by a non-nuclear Iran.

Let's also assume that the cost of a US-led strike on Iran outweighs the benefits (an assumption made by many, and I don't know if I agree with, but we're going to assume it for the purposes of this argument).

To all those that argue that a unilateral Israeli strike - without notice to the US - would be detrimental to US interests: Doesn't a lack of notice provide the US deniability and insulation from accusations.

Iran is a Persian.

This is the first use of the word Persian on this page. What does it have to do with everything else.

They aren't Arab

Um....just a minor correction in facts used by another poster?

Oops. My bad.

[URL="http://www.persiansarenotarabs.com/"]http://www.persiansarenotarabs.com/[/URL

Also, Persians are not Japanese, for those that were about to make that mistake.

What's your point? Israel has (allegedly) had nukes for 30+ years and is a US intelligence and economic ally, relies on the US for diplomatic support, and has failed to deploy nukes despite the US doing business with - including selling arms to - sworn enemies of Israel (Saudi as an obvious example). An armed Israel is, by all evidence, not a threat to US unilateral action.

Iran is a self-declared theocracy whose elected President regularly threatens UN member states with violence (Israel and the US as a matter of course, and Turkey this past week), and has an awful internal human rights record that betrays how Iran would act toward foreign actors if it had nothing to fear from the allied nuclear-armed countries.

That you found those two worthy of comparison betrays serious logical flaws in your view of this matter.

More importantly, this has nothing to do with the question I posed so please take your hijack elsewhere.

I don't think there are many people who argue that specifically, and if there are, it wouldnt be rooted in fears of a further tarnished US image. It would be based more on a lack of confidence in an airstrikes succees.

Your question was rather nonsensical in having the underlying assumption that the U.S. being able to act unilaterally is, inherently, a good thing.

A post like this shows nothing more than a complete lack of logic on your part: what's "a good thing"?

Given that I posed the question specifically to people who believe Israel should notify the US of its intentions (ostensibly Americans), are you suggesting that the USA (or by extension any representative political entity) acting for the benefit of its own interests is not "good" for it?

A government acting unilaterally, in what it thinks are its own interests, is not by any means necessarily actually doing so. It seemed like a good idea at the time...

I take it that you might be hinting at Israeli notifying the U.S. that it's about to attack Iran. If so, then, yes, I am very skeptical that such an attack would inherently be in America's (or Israel's for that matter) long-term best interest.

I don't know about Barak's intentions any more than you do.

And the question wasn't about whether or not a strike was in Israel or the US's best interests. That's far too complicated a question, there are far too many variables and issues, and far too much information is not publically available for 2+2 to even comprehend an answer.

My question, before you inserted all sorts of assumptions about my "intentions" and tried to shift the conversation towards the general morality of a strike, was whether (on the assumption that a strike from one party or the other is inevitable and that a non-nuclear Iran is, in a vacuum, better for the US than a nuclear Iran) Israel would actually be doing the US a favour by not informing it of her intentions (on the basis of deniability).

My question was really addressed to people who believe that Israel has a strict duty to get tacit US approval for any foreign policy or military action effecting such policy. If Israel doesn't inform the US, the US doesn't have to give that "approval" and therefore doesn't drag the US into any diplomatic or military snafus.

Israel is well aware that they do not need any tacit approval from anyone, including the United States. American fundamentalists built Israel to manufacture the 'book of Revelations' contemporary interpretation into one global self-fullfilling-prophecy. Israel, Iceland, Honduras, or any other country in the world could attack Iran and the western world would defend them and spin the truth as they pleased.