--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeffrey Stark <XXXXXXX@boshgs.com>
Date: Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: Correct Terminology for Unmanned Aircraft
To: "noah.shachtman@gmail.com" <noah.shachtman@gmail.com>
Cc: "david_axe@hotmail.com" <david_axe@hotmail.com>


Mr. Shactman--

I get it now.

Forgive me for erroneously concluding that Danger Room is a serious attempt at factual reporting, rather than an entertainment channel apparently targeting an audience of uninformed and uneducated dropouts that believe everything their mommies read to them.

Jeff Stark

-----Original Message-----
From: Noah Shachtman [mailto:noah.shachtman@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:06 PM
To: Jeffrey Stark
Cc: david_axe@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Correct Terminology for Unmanned Aircraft

Mr Stark:

The military has changed its terminology for these vehicles at least
three times in recent years. We feel no need to alter our language
every time the Pentagon introduces a new acronym.

Best,


nms

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jeffrey Stark
<XXXXXXXX@boshgs.com> wrote:
> Mr. Axe-
>
>
>
> In reading your article titled Pentagon Looks to Double its Unmanned Air
> Force, dated today, I note your use of the terms "drone", "robot", "UAV",
> and "unmanned".
>
>
>
> Recently, the DoD and the Air Force in particular changed the terminology
> concerning these aircraft systems to "Remotely Piloted Aircraft" (RPA).
> This terminology more accurately reflects the reality that the aircraft do
> indeed require pilots-they're just not onboard the aircraft.  They still fly
> it.  True, there are some automated capabilities inherent in these RPA
> operations, such as take-off and landing, and they are in fact capable of
> flying a pre-programmed route in some scenarios.  But they're not drones,
> they're not robots, and they're not unmanned.  And there won't be a fleet of
> 100 "drones" ".permanently on station." as your 12th paragraph implies.
>
>
>
> As for using "killer drones"..please.
>
>
>
> These terms might make for sensational reading, but they fail the accuracy
> test.  If the object of the reporting is to inform the public about the
> capabilities and limitations of military systems and organizations, I would
> recommend a closer scrutiny of sources and facts.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey A. Stark
>
> Director of Business Development
>
> BOSH Global Services