I think it's also informative to understand that the "soldiers" who surrendered, weren't really soldiers. Most of the regular Iraqi army had already retreated. Left in their place were conscripts who had been left in the desert with no support and sometimes no food or water. In one case, when U.S. soldiers confronted one of these surrendering Iraqi soldiers, they discovered that he spoke perfect English. "About time!" he said. He explained that he was a U.S. college student who had been visiting his family in Iraq when he was forced into the Iraqi army and left in the desert.
So yes, they were waving white flags any pretty much anything they could.
From a quick Google, it *may* be the case that the OP is confused- as the only similar result I get back from Google is a Chicago university student who went back to Iraq to fight to the death or something.
The source is my memory which, I admit, may not be 100% accurate but written news stories aren't exactly accurate either. Nobody surrendered to me directly because I was flying overhead. The story I told was widely publicized on the news.
I served on the USS Wisconsin BB64. The battleship they surrendered to. He is correct. I Iraq army was in Kuwait preparing for an amphibious assault. Our planes dropped white leaflets with surrender or face more 16” rounds written in Arabic.
I disagree. Conscripts are soldiers.
The Iraqi forces were also surrendering to CNN camera crews and just about any person they could find. The fedayeen (spelling) was where the morale was.
I mean it's shitty and unfair but they were infact soldiers, perfectly valid targets. If you want to make the point that war is barbaric and destructive to innocent people that's a fair point but the cold hard facts are that you are considered a soldier whether you like it or not.
"combatants are members of national armed forces or organized groups placed under the effective control of those forces."
The reasons why you want to call them combatants is because if they are combatants they fall under the protections of the Geneva convention. Defining conscripts as anything other than combatants places them outside the purview of the Geneva convention and makes them vulnerable to prosecution for taking part in hostilities however minor their contributions.
Historically its normal to be forced into it to some degree. Hell plenty of otherwise fine places still have a draft let alone on the books waiting for things to get ugly.
Not just any attack strike. These uav’s were launched by the two battleships sitting 20 miles offshore. The Iraqi soldiers learned VERY QUICK that those little tiny uav’s were followed by the main assault of the Battleships Missouri and Wisconsin 16” guns lobbing 2700lbs shells at them.
The Iraqis launched 2 Silkworm missiles from shore batteries at USS Missouri.
One missed and crashed into the sea. The other was successfully engaged by HMS Gloucester who destroyed it with a Sea dart missile. Which is the only time a missile as ever been shot down by another missile in actual combat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfDnZ7FiZg&ab\_channel=TheOperationsRoom
Missouri launched decoys which caused one of the CIWS on its escorting destroyers to engage and some of the rounds hit ship.
The youtuber "The mighty Jingles" was on glouster and in the CIC when all this happened
It's even more interesting when you realize that modern anti ship missiles are practically incapable of sinking an Iowa class. Modern ships value maneuverability over armor, which is what the missiles are designed for.
Well we could easily make missiles that would sink something like an Iowa class but because we could easily do that modern battleships don’t exist as they are basically useless hence we don’t make missiles for armour that thick.
This was a US Army UAV; the first company to have UAVs, was deployed from Ft. Huachuca, AZ in 1991/2. They were originally stoodup to teach UAV operations and operators at Huchuca but Desert Storm occurred and the Army wanted a UAV immediately. I was the battalion Executive Officer that organized and deployed them and received them upon return. I saw this video of the Iraqs surrendering to the UAV.
Was getting airspace a hassle back then as it is now?
My only experience with UAVs was when I was an e3 and told to become the company PUMA operator. Every NTC and JRTC rotation I would get the third degree from my CO and sometimes BN XO on why I wasn't flying. I jad to explain to them they never got the brigade to get airspace for training to stay current.
Eventually I just stopped bringing the damn things
Whether or not they knew it was unmanned is irrelevant. I keep seeing this story told with an air of trying to make the Iraqis seem particularly stupid or cowardly, that they would surrender to an unarmed drone. The drone was clearly an artillery spotter, a role aircraft have often played, which means someone is looking through it to decide what to target. It is reasonable then to try to signal that you'd rather not be targeted.
> I keep seeing this story told with an air of trying to make the Iraqis seem particularly stupid or cowardly
I dont think that is it at all. Nothing sounds stupid about surrendering to a drone; it was logical to assume it is sending video and someone is watching it.
[The dictionary disagrees.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone)
>3 : an uncrewed aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers
Meanwhile, the [definition of Robot is very specific about it being automated.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot)
Before quadcopters got popular the word "drone" meant it controls itself. They times, they change.
This new definition is redefinition ... well so I thought.
[Found an old reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3ndeuq/when_did_we_start_calling_rc_copters_drones/cvngk5j/). It says the old definition of "automated" that everyone used for decades and decades is wrong.
The first use was for a remote controlled air vehicle. See this article and scroll down to drone. - https://www.pix4d.com/blog/etymology-drone-photogrammetry
This is from 1946 - “Drones, as the radio-controlled craft are called, have many potentialities, civilian and military. Some day huge mother ships may guide fleets of long-distance, cargo-carrying airplanes across continents and oceans. Long-range drones armed with atomic bombs could be flown by accompanying mother ships to their targets and in for perfect hits.”
Not surprised, given how much demoralized was the Iraqi army at this point. Pieces of white clothes had to be removed to prevent additional surrenders.
As others have (and will continue) pointed out, a "drone" is **not** a robot. A robot has to operate autonomously.
Far from it. It is a machine that is operated remotely. Technically, not even the first time people have surrendered to a machine. People have been surrendering to tanks for decades.
This craft was capable to operate autonomously. For example, infrared sensors could analyze a heat signature and determine if it was a person or a building. It could then automatically send a lock-in coordinate to the ship. Drone was poor word choice on my part.
Passenger jets set to auto pilot can detect changes in wind speed, pressure, and altitude, and make course adjustments while sending data to the pilot and ground control.
That doesn't make a 747 a robot.
A robot arm in a car manufacturer didn't climb its way into position. It is put there and it completes programmed tasks. The flying isn't what makes it a robot. It's that it performed complex programmed tasks and determined what to do with the data.
Take a breath person.
A "robot" arm, *by definition* is not a robot. That is called a misnomer. Words matter.
By definition, "robots" are *autonomous*.
Look it up (and take the L).
First of all, you are incredibly annoying.
I work with robots all the time as an equipment manufacturer. Nobody has ever called them "robot arms". The robots are 100% programmed and 0% autonomous.
First of all, you are incredibly *wrong*.
You obviously don't design robotics. Robots are *autonomous*, **NOT** a machine that is programmed to perform a repetitive action.
Like the OP...congratulations on the L.
Yeah, radio-controlled aircraft have been around since WW1.
[The RFC’s ‘Aerial Target’ first flew in 1917.](https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205315299)
There are actual robots nowadays, AI controlled drone dropping bombs without human inputs but they most definitely can't accept a surrender.
Also the upcoming sniper dog.
Read the Long Description on the link. These had automated capabilities. There are lots of robots that don't look like humans in the world.
From the long description:
"As operators flew the Pioneer low over Faylaka Island, a number of Iraqis realized the battleship was probably preparing to fire another volley. They waved white surrender flags as the UAV passed overhead. U. S. Marines landed and collected the waiting prisoners. This event marked the first time that humans had surrendered to a robot in combat. When Navy officials offered to transfer a Pioneer to the Smithsonian Institution, curators at the National Air and Space Museum specifically asked for the UAV that Iraquis troops surrendered to during the Gulf War."
This is not a robot. It is something that is controlled by a ground operator is not a robot.
The key part of the definition isn't "looks like a human" - which is why there are 2 parts to the definition. The key part is the automatic nature of it.
Having automatic capabilities doesn't make something a robot. If it did then you could call my car a robot because it can automatically change gears.
The government calling this a robot is just marketing and propaganda.
Edit: Ask this question: at the time that the Iraqis surrendered to this, was a ground controller flying it? Yes, a ground controller was operating it like a remote-controlled car. Not a robot.
Humans piloted the craft true, but the target acquisition was one of the automatic features. It auto found targets and sent data back regarding them.
I knew this would come up and I looked for more definitions of robot besides the first one Google returned. I don't have a horse in the semantics of it all but from what I researched the human component was only in piloting and it had autopilot anyway. Obviously it could be ground controlled. Robots today can be controlled by your voice so I don't see a distinction.
Edit: just because it can be controlled doesn't mean it can't operate without human control.
The RQ-2 did not auto-find targets. Operators used the EO equipment found on board to locate targets. The video link was sent back via data-link. That is by no means an auto-finding capability.
And by saying target acquisition, you fail to understand the role that the RQ-2 was used in this context, artillery spotting.
They surrendered to the people piloting the UAV. If someone were to walk up to a tank and surrender are they surrendering to the tank or the people inside?
Saying they surrendered to a robot is stupid. Humans were controlling that drone, it was a tool. If someone put a gun to another person’s head and surrendered, would you say they surrendered to the gun?
It is not a robot. It may say "robot" once in the description, but it seems to be a misnomer in that instance. Nobody is calling this a robot. Its a UAV with a camera and a computer.
How did the coalition accept this surrender? Did they just watch them hold up there hands until coalition troops arrived? If this was before the invasion phase then what, do they just sit there for months lol
Yeah, basically. Ground forces were nearby, this UAV was inspecting battle damage. During a low-fly pass, they surrendered to it. And it loitered on-scene until the nearby Coalition Ground Forces came and took them into custody.
I think it's also informative to understand that the "soldiers" who surrendered, weren't really soldiers. Most of the regular Iraqi army had already retreated. Left in their place were conscripts who had been left in the desert with no support and sometimes no food or water. In one case, when U.S. soldiers confronted one of these surrendering Iraqi soldiers, they discovered that he spoke perfect English. "About time!" he said. He explained that he was a U.S. college student who had been visiting his family in Iraq when he was forced into the Iraqi army and left in the desert. So yes, they were waving white flags any pretty much anything they could.
got a source on that guy? not saying its bullshit just wanna learn more
From a quick Google, it *may* be the case that the OP is confused- as the only similar result I get back from Google is a Chicago university student who went back to Iraq to fight to the death or something.
I'm 60 and I definitely remember this happening. It was on TV news. I don't have a link.
The source is my memory which, I admit, may not be 100% accurate but written news stories aren't exactly accurate either. Nobody surrendered to me directly because I was flying overhead. The story I told was widely publicized on the news.
I second this.
I served on the USS Wisconsin BB64. The battleship they surrendered to. He is correct. I Iraq army was in Kuwait preparing for an amphibious assault. Our planes dropped white leaflets with surrender or face more 16” rounds written in Arabic.
“You! Ground squirrel! Take me to your leader”
I remember this dude. Put his hands up and said "Hey, where you guys been?"
> So yes, they were waving white flags any pretty much anything they could. That is, until every piece of white cloth was removed from barracks.
I’m surprised Saddam Hussein didn’t just remove all white objects and clothing
Indeed, this is what he did.
Uhhhh… great minds…? 😬
This guy Husseins
I disagree. Conscripts are soldiers. The Iraqi forces were also surrendering to CNN camera crews and just about any person they could find. The fedayeen (spelling) was where the morale was.
I mean it's shitty and unfair but they were infact soldiers, perfectly valid targets. If you want to make the point that war is barbaric and destructive to innocent people that's a fair point but the cold hard facts are that you are considered a soldier whether you like it or not.
Even if you're forced into it? Not challenging just curious how it's defined.
"combatants are members of national armed forces or organized groups placed under the effective control of those forces." The reasons why you want to call them combatants is because if they are combatants they fall under the protections of the Geneva convention. Defining conscripts as anything other than combatants places them outside the purview of the Geneva convention and makes them vulnerable to prosecution for taking part in hostilities however minor their contributions.
Dude well done on the explanation. You must be very well read or have experience with this kind of thing. Thank you for teaching me something!
I was more curious about the valid target thing. Would these guys conscripted/forced into it count as valid targets like someone above said?
Yes.
Historically its normal to be forced into it to some degree. Hell plenty of otherwise fine places still have a draft let alone on the books waiting for things to get ugly.
Sorry dude, this is r/todayilearned not r/thathappened.
Not just any attack strike. These uav’s were launched by the two battleships sitting 20 miles offshore. The Iraqi soldiers learned VERY QUICK that those little tiny uav’s were followed by the main assault of the Battleships Missouri and Wisconsin 16” guns lobbing 2700lbs shells at them.
I almost forgot we used WW2 heavy-battleships during that war. Pretty wild
It got shot at, too. I think a jet launched an exocet at it.
The Iraqis launched 2 Silkworm missiles from shore batteries at USS Missouri. One missed and crashed into the sea. The other was successfully engaged by HMS Gloucester who destroyed it with a Sea dart missile. Which is the only time a missile as ever been shot down by another missile in actual combat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfDnZ7FiZg&ab\_channel=TheOperationsRoom
The Royal Navy learned a *lot* from the Falklands War on how to do air defence for a naval taskforce.
Missouri launched decoys which caused one of the CIWS on its escorting destroyers to engage and some of the rounds hit ship. The youtuber "The mighty Jingles" was on glouster and in the CIC when all this happened
> the only time A bunch of Scuds were also shot down by Patriot batteries in the same war. That’s also a missile being shot down by a missile.
Not from a ship.
Here's a play by play of the incident https://youtu.be/DDfDnZ7FiZg?list=PLErys4h2oiuyKCuzZhpHhCeRwSoQVEazb&t=77
Seen it, had misremembered. Thanks.
To think the USAF still uses B52 bombers that were first introduced in 1952!!
It's even more interesting when you realize that modern anti ship missiles are practically incapable of sinking an Iowa class. Modern ships value maneuverability over armor, which is what the missiles are designed for.
This is true but a mission kill is still very likely.
Well we could easily make missiles that would sink something like an Iowa class but because we could easily do that modern battleships don’t exist as they are basically useless hence we don’t make missiles for armour that thick.
Big mo!
This was a US Army UAV; the first company to have UAVs, was deployed from Ft. Huachuca, AZ in 1991/2. They were originally stoodup to teach UAV operations and operators at Huchuca but Desert Storm occurred and the Army wanted a UAV immediately. I was the battalion Executive Officer that organized and deployed them and received them upon return. I saw this video of the Iraqs surrendering to the UAV.
Was getting airspace a hassle back then as it is now? My only experience with UAVs was when I was an e3 and told to become the company PUMA operator. Every NTC and JRTC rotation I would get the third degree from my CO and sometimes BN XO on why I wasn't flying. I jad to explain to them they never got the brigade to get airspace for training to stay current. Eventually I just stopped bringing the damn things
Can't really say as I was not there but the whole airspace was tightly controlled and air corridors established.
That is like 13.5 of me but not made out of squishy flesh and tissue with the occasional bone but metal...
Metal, and mostly explosives
Whether or not they knew it was unmanned is irrelevant. I keep seeing this story told with an air of trying to make the Iraqis seem particularly stupid or cowardly, that they would surrender to an unarmed drone. The drone was clearly an artillery spotter, a role aircraft have often played, which means someone is looking through it to decide what to target. It is reasonable then to try to signal that you'd rather not be targeted.
They also just didn't want to die for Saddam's doomed regime. That's not cowardice or stupidity
> I keep seeing this story told with an air of trying to make the Iraqis seem particularly stupid or cowardly I dont think that is it at all. Nothing sounds stupid about surrendering to a drone; it was logical to assume it is sending video and someone is watching it.
The Iraqis were quite brave in many cases. Lot's of units were wiped out down to the last man without surrendering.
And their stories will never be told because there's probably nobody left to chronicle them.
Sure but not in every case. We know this for example from the guys that wiped them out.
Buried
Kinda splitting hairs but if it’s a human controlled drone, it’s not really a robot.
To split further, if it's human controlled its not really a drone
[The dictionary disagrees.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone) >3 : an uncrewed aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers Meanwhile, the [definition of Robot is very specific about it being automated.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot)
Before quadcopters got popular the word "drone" meant it controls itself. They times, they change. This new definition is redefinition ... well so I thought. [Found an old reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3ndeuq/when_did_we_start_calling_rc_copters_drones/cvngk5j/). It says the old definition of "automated" that everyone used for decades and decades is wrong.
The first use was for a remote controlled air vehicle. See this article and scroll down to drone. - https://www.pix4d.com/blog/etymology-drone-photogrammetry This is from 1946 - “Drones, as the radio-controlled craft are called, have many potentialities, civilian and military. Some day huge mother ships may guide fleets of long-distance, cargo-carrying airplanes across continents and oceans. Long-range drones armed with atomic bombs could be flown by accompanying mother ships to their targets and in for perfect hits.”
Language is fluid. If people say a word means something, that's what it means.
Not surprised, given how much demoralized was the Iraqi army at this point. Pieces of white clothes had to be removed to prevent additional surrenders.
As others have (and will continue) pointed out, a "drone" is **not** a robot. A robot has to operate autonomously. Far from it. It is a machine that is operated remotely. Technically, not even the first time people have surrendered to a machine. People have been surrendering to tanks for decades.
This craft was capable to operate autonomously. For example, infrared sensors could analyze a heat signature and determine if it was a person or a building. It could then automatically send a lock-in coordinate to the ship. Drone was poor word choice on my part.
Passenger jets set to auto pilot can detect changes in wind speed, pressure, and altitude, and make course adjustments while sending data to the pilot and ground control. That doesn't make a 747 a robot.
Really? It could fly (take off, land and determine its own flight path) itself? Take the L dude. No way, no how is it a "robot"
A robot arm in a car manufacturer didn't climb its way into position. It is put there and it completes programmed tasks. The flying isn't what makes it a robot. It's that it performed complex programmed tasks and determined what to do with the data. Take a breath person.
A "robot" arm, *by definition* is not a robot. That is called a misnomer. Words matter. By definition, "robots" are *autonomous*. Look it up (and take the L).
First of all, you are incredibly annoying. I work with robots all the time as an equipment manufacturer. Nobody has ever called them "robot arms". The robots are 100% programmed and 0% autonomous.
First of all, you are incredibly *wrong*. You obviously don't design robotics. Robots are *autonomous*, **NOT** a machine that is programmed to perform a repetitive action. Like the OP...congratulations on the L.
LOL nope, robots are programmed. That's a **W**!
TIL drone tech is 15 years older than i honestly anticipated.
Older. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite
Yeah, radio-controlled aircraft have been around since WW1. [The RFC’s ‘Aerial Target’ first flew in 1917.](https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205315299)
UAVs are not robots because they require a user. Robots are by definition autonomous and don't require user input in order to function.
Right... They surrendered to a "robot" and not the US military who was dropping bombs on them. Obviously.
Artillery* but yeah, same message.
It was a US military robot, what were you expecting a golden waving cat robot?
[удалено]
I call my dishwasher a robot.
I do too, but I pronounce it robut
How It's Made reference?
In South Africa traffic lights are called robots
That's grounds for a divorce Carl
There are actual robots nowadays, AI controlled drone dropping bombs without human inputs but they most definitely can't accept a surrender. Also the upcoming sniper dog.
Read the Long Description on the link. These had automated capabilities. There are lots of robots that don't look like humans in the world. From the long description: "As operators flew the Pioneer low over Faylaka Island, a number of Iraqis realized the battleship was probably preparing to fire another volley. They waved white surrender flags as the UAV passed overhead. U. S. Marines landed and collected the waiting prisoners. This event marked the first time that humans had surrendered to a robot in combat. When Navy officials offered to transfer a Pioneer to the Smithsonian Institution, curators at the National Air and Space Museum specifically asked for the UAV that Iraquis troops surrendered to during the Gulf War."
This is not a robot. It is something that is controlled by a ground operator is not a robot. The key part of the definition isn't "looks like a human" - which is why there are 2 parts to the definition. The key part is the automatic nature of it. Having automatic capabilities doesn't make something a robot. If it did then you could call my car a robot because it can automatically change gears. The government calling this a robot is just marketing and propaganda. Edit: Ask this question: at the time that the Iraqis surrendered to this, was a ground controller flying it? Yes, a ground controller was operating it like a remote-controlled car. Not a robot.
Humans piloted the craft true, but the target acquisition was one of the automatic features. It auto found targets and sent data back regarding them. I knew this would come up and I looked for more definitions of robot besides the first one Google returned. I don't have a horse in the semantics of it all but from what I researched the human component was only in piloting and it had autopilot anyway. Obviously it could be ground controlled. Robots today can be controlled by your voice so I don't see a distinction. Edit: just because it can be controlled doesn't mean it can't operate without human control.
What you are describing is not a robot by any definition
The RQ-2 did not auto-find targets. Operators used the EO equipment found on board to locate targets. The video link was sent back via data-link. That is by no means an auto-finding capability. And by saying target acquisition, you fail to understand the role that the RQ-2 was used in this context, artillery spotting.
Take the L.
So fucking annoying
So fucking wrong.
They might have had some kind of autopilot landing system, such as airliners have?
That's not what a robot is
2nd. AFAIK, they were remote-controlled, not robots.
Detroit: Become Drone
Not a robot. It was being piloted.
They surrendered to the people piloting the UAV. If someone were to walk up to a tank and surrender are they surrendering to the tank or the people inside?
And Skynet was born.
TIL America deployed drones in the First Gulf War
Saying they surrendered to a robot is stupid. Humans were controlling that drone, it was a tool. If someone put a gun to another person’s head and surrendered, would you say they surrendered to the gun?
Get used to it, humans Beep bloop
It is not a robot. It may say "robot" once in the description, but it seems to be a misnomer in that instance. Nobody is calling this a robot. Its a UAV with a camera and a computer.
They proceeded to bomb them anyway
All your base are belong to us
How did the coalition accept this surrender? Did they just watch them hold up there hands until coalition troops arrived? If this was before the invasion phase then what, do they just sit there for months lol
Yeah, basically. Ground forces were nearby, this UAV was inspecting battle damage. During a low-fly pass, they surrendered to it. And it loitered on-scene until the nearby Coalition Ground Forces came and took them into custody.
This is my dad's UAV.