I think you have a problem with basic reading comprehension.
Thank you, that's an unusual way to kick off a polite conversation.
You replaced a whole 150 mil. group of people with one person. One which wasn't there and wasn't making decisions there.
As a rule of thumb, when it comes to people publically doing such replacements, - security decisions tend to do best when they are taken without accounting for their opinion.
I am quite relieved you aren't one of them, and it was just my basic comprehension failure.
It does exactly that...
Knowing how international courts (ICJ, maritime courts, etc) operate, it will be brought up immediately. But changing the nature of activity doesn't require a court to affirm it (especially international), the fact of
change is enough.
No a2a weapon->a2a weapon.
Twice so in an airspace, where your very presence has a shaky legal justification (which specifically does
not call for air patrols), and it will be best not to undermine it.
Yes, and the MiG-25 was shot at -with a Stinger. The outcome might have been very different had the Stinger been an AIM-9X. And yes, fighters will give a drone a respectable distance, if it's armed. They'd be fools not to.
First of all, the situation was different.
Precisely the fact that Stinger didn't hit tells a lot: missing mig-25 within the launch envelope is an achievement.
The worst thing you can do in this situation is to (1)actually shoot down a fighter, (2)by a drone that is still in shape to shoot down a manned aircraft, (3)in airspace where there is nothing wrong about the fighter's presence. Be careful what you wish for.
Russian fighter was very close to doing just that stupidity a year ago - and only blind luck saved it from doing that. But it was at least a
manned aircraft, with far more
trackable(and thus explainable) accountability. Pueblo etc demonstrates that it still can be salvaged, thou with far more harm to the aggressor than to the victim.
It wouldn't really change the fault (because hit would've turned a dangerous accident into an act of aggression(1) with possible fatalities(2) and immediate fault on Russia), but at least it's downplayable.
You want to ambush an aircraft with a drone, with control strings going somewhere (where?). That's a super poisonous can of worms.
The moment you do that - at best, you will probably stop recon flights over the Black Sea (and Syria turns from a somewhat veiled occupation under international mandate into an open occupation, because you can't stop flying there).
Is it worth it?
But probably the situation won't happen in the first place, since the moment there will be a conflict with an aircraft (drone) threatening the lives of servicemen - as it happened with US drones before(you can't get engaged by Pantsir w/o doing that, it's too short-ranged), - it will be simply shot. By a weapon benefiting from the fighter platform and FCS. And since it's an a2a armed drone - it will be a justified action, you'll just lose more $ from losing sidewinders, too.