Do you find drones to be controversial in war?

[Kurioxan]

I don't know anyone who's pro-war, and that includes the star-rank military officers I've known. There's nothing about drones that's ethical or moral; they're a tool. The tactics that they're used in, sure, but that's not an argument about drones in particular.

For instance, mentioning civilian casualties. That's collateral damage from an explosive device. The decision to use that explosive device is where the moral and ethical issues lie. Not with the drone, which is the delivery device, or the pilot who's flying it. If it hadn't been a drone, it would've been a missile fired from a jet fighter, most likely. This wouldn't have been any less damaging (arguably more), and would have put a much more expensive vehicle and a pilot into danger, to boot. Perhaps not a lot of danger, but any is more than none.

That's why they use drones. There's less risk. And reducing risk is never an ethical or moral negative.

Reducing risk... the thing is, the men driving the drone has no where near the awareness of the men in the field, the casualties will be far bigger.
Considering how little times they have been used compared to the amount of side casualties done i am not sure if they reduce anything at all...

Again, the past 2 wars werent full blown wars at all, as such it is hard to decide if those drones are effective at reducing casualties or not, it was the nature of the fightings that made it have far less civilian deaths than older wars, not the technology used, again, if anything the sheer amount of civilian casualties in those conflicts show a rather sloppy job or really nasty tactics used from both sides.

But i keep my stance, if you are going to take your life, you should be willing to risk yours, this is view has nothing to do with the nature of war which is indeed to kill the enemy (definition of enemy is quite.... arguable), im talking about morality and ethics for killing in the first place :P

[Olo]

Reducing risk... the thing is, the men driving the drone has no where near the awareness of the men in the field, the casualties will be far bigger.
Considering how little times they have been used compared to the amount of side casualties done i am not sure if they reduce anything at all...

Again, the past 2 wars werent full blown wars at all, as such it is hard to decide if those drones are effective at reducing casualties or not, it was the nature of the fightings that made it have far less civilian deaths than older wars, not the technology used, again, if anything the sheer amount of civilian casualties in those conflicts show a rather sloppy job or really nasty tactics used from both sides.

But i keep my stance, if you are going to take your life, you should be willing to risk yours, this is view has nothing to do with the nature of war which is indeed to kill the enemy (definition of enemy is quite.... arguable), im talking about morality and ethics for killing in the first place :P

Why would a drone pilot have any less awareness than a pilot in a fighter?

[Spoiler]

Reducing risk... the thing is, the men driving the drone has no where near the awareness of the men in the field, the casualties will be far bigger.
Considering how little times they have been used compared to the amount of side casualties done i am not sure if they reduce anything at all...

Again, the past 2 wars werent full blown wars at all, as such it is hard to decide if those drones are effective at reducing casualties or not, it was the nature of the fightings that made it have far less civilian deaths than older wars, not the technology used, again, if anything the sheer amount of civilian casualties in those conflicts show a rather sloppy job or really nasty tactics used from both sides.

But i keep my stance, if you are going to take your life, you should be willing to risk yours, this is view has nothing to do with the nature of war which is indeed to kill the enemy (definition of enemy is quite.... arguable), im talking about morality and ethics for killing in the first place :P

Casualties will be bigger when you can fly an unmanned drone that has eyes on its intended target as opposed to dropping missiles from a fighter jet with the hope that you destroy your intended target? The casualties have been proven to be far less with drone strikes. The main point of a drone is it gives you more awareness of the field as a whole, and to say that a man on the field can see the situation better than a drone in the air doesn't make much sense.

If your stance "has nothing do with the nature of war," then I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion about drones, considering the topic, "do you find drones to be controversial in war."

[Kalyyn]

My only issue with drones is the reduction in the number of pilots actually in the sky. It's taking a lot of the romance out of aerial combat

---------- Post added 2013-01-24 at 06:46 PM ----------

Isn't it great someone could end your life with the flick of a trigger, from anywhere in the world? And with no chance for self defense at that.

People always call it a "squeeze of a trigger" or "push of a button", but it's genuinely not that simple.

There's also a good deal of math involved.

---------- Post added 2013-01-24 at 06:48 PM ----------

Why would a drone pilot have any less awareness than a pilot in a fighter?

Flying a drone is exciting for all of five minutes. Then it becomes roughly equivalent to watching paint dry.

[Olo]

Flying a drone is exciting for all of five minutes. Then it becomes roughly equivalent to watching paint dry.

Id guess it picks up when youre about to blow someone up with a hellfire missile

[Wiyld]

My whole argument is about ethics and morality, nothing else and those are subjective
Besides doing it mostly for fun.
I much prefer a world without war.

---------- Post added 2013-01-24 at 05:39 PM ----------



I know and understand. war isnt about being fair.
But that is not what im talking about

You are almost there but seem confused.


LIFE is not fair.


No part of it is fair.

You cannot make it fair through laws or force.

Trying to rail against that fact is useless, you might as well try to drink an ocean.

That is just how it is, some people accept it and act accordingly, some people cry about it and get taken advantage of by those who have accepted it.


Also, I'm not sure where you get off claiming the drone pilots have no risk involved with their work. You don't think the enemies are doing their best to find the control centers? You don't think a well placed piece or ordinance would kill every person in the building, not just the pilots? It's like sinking an aircraft carrier, or bombing an airfield, or firing artillery into a ground forces base.

Don't like comparing the combatants on equal terms? Ok, then aren't those pilots themselves AND their families at risk of getting blown up by some suicide bomber driving/flying/carrying some measure of explosives right into them? It isn't as if we don't have precedence for this. You think the Israelis who are flying drones are completely safe from reprisal? Your looking at this entirely wrong.

[Deleted]

In war? No.

In general? Yes.

Anyway, I'll leave the debate about Skynet to all the "law of the jungle" thinkers (God, I'm mixing my metaphors and quoting North Korea now).

[Simulacrum]

The problem with drones is that there aren't really any rules governing their use. So far, everyone (who matters, anyway) has been fine with this, because the only ones using them has basically been the US and allies; who have been using them to fly wherever they feel like, to kill whoever they feel like, for whatever reason they like.

People will probably start caring when nations hostile to the US start flying drones around and killing people with them (or just doing recon, I guess) as well, but by then it's gonna be real hard for anyone to with a straight face tell them that they're not allowed to do that.

[Endus]

The problem with drones is that there aren't really any rules governing their use. So far, everyone (who matters, anyway) has been fine with this, because the only ones using them has basically been the US and allies; who have been using them to fly wherever they feel like, to kill whoever they feel like, for whatever reason they like.

People will probably start caring when nations hostile to the US start flying drones around and killing people with them (or just doing recon, I guess) as well, but by then it's gonna be real hard for anyone to with a straight face tell them that they're not allowed to do that.

That's not really true. The rules that matter, like the basic rules of warfare, those all apply. You can't fly a drone into a no-fly zone (at least, not without causing an incident if you get caught doing so, like any other aircraft), etc.

There's no special rules JUST for drones, but there's really no need for any in the first place.

[DeltrusDisc]

After reading this report from the BBC I wondered how other people view drone strikes. It was quite scary to read that according to one report around 25% of all casualties from drone strikes were civilians. However if it wasn't a drone conducting the attack would it have been a different result?

Unfortunately, and I hate to admit that I understand this and the meaning, but war is never civilian-casualty-free, never, and the point I am trying to make, is that on top of this, terrorists tend to put civilians in the way to try and protect themselves, but it's been found time and time again, that when someone really needs to get killed, they will, even if surrounded by civilians.

Not saying I'm okay with this at all, I detest, hate, despise it, and every other synonym. If we are to believe what the government/military says though, it just has to be done, especially if you can't get to the person without possibly killing more civilians/losing more soldiers on your end. Drones at least take out any possibility really of casualties on our side.

[ptwonline]

When you're fighting an enemy who does not go onto a field of battle, lives among civilians, and cannot be apprehended through normal means like law enforcement, then there aren't really many choices about how to defeat them.

[Skroe]

The problem with drones is that there aren't really any rules governing their use. So far, everyone (who matters, anyway) has been fine with this, because the only ones using them has basically been the US and allies; who have been using them to fly wherever they feel like, to kill whoever they feel like, for whatever reason they like.

People will probably start caring when nations hostile to the US start flying drones around and killing people with them (or just doing recon, I guess) as well, but by then it's gonna be real hard for anyone to with a straight face tell them that they're not allowed to do that.

There should be no "drone specific" rules. That's ridiculous. Is there rules for fighter / attack aircraft? Cruise missiles? Attack Helicopters.

Drones are another type of military technology that moves the attacker further and further away from the attacked. It started in the 13th century with the gun. When the gun showed up on the scene, gradually the pike and the sword receeded because everyone found great advantage in killing from a distance. And then when gun technology developed to a point that they could be fired rapidly, having men with guns line up to fire in sequence turned out to be madness, so tactics changed and armored vehicles were eventually invented. So then people created bomb-carrying airplanes to destroy the other side's armored vehicles without risking their own. So then anti-air defenses were invented. As a result, airplanes began to fly higher and faster than ever before (your average F-22 flying six times as high as World War II aircraft). But that wasn't enough, so we invented Precision Guided Munitions to attack precisely from long ranges ant great heights.

Now we do one better: we sperate the delivery system from the man that long carried it.

I'm going to call the "controversy" about Drones for exactly what it is: it's a certain, extremely liberal world view, mostly outside of the United States, trying to nip this technology in the bud. They know that in twenty five years hence when twelve American Aircraft carriers are carrying Eighty stealthy drones a piece, the cost and risk of military both precipitiously drop. The Ford Class Supercarrier, designed with an Electromagnetic Launcher specifically to be able to launch drones (which are lighter and smaller than manned aircraft) already will carry 2000 fewer people than a Nimitz-class due to automation, making them cheaper over the life of the ship. If they could cut their Aviation Wing entirely down to much smaller drone-control, you could cut hundreds of more people and lower the costs even more.

And then what happens when the "2037" bomber, the successor to the B-2, is made ultra cheap due to being a an unmanned strategic platform?

So their concerns are understandable. But also unfair. There is nothing different from a drone other than its pretty much the perfect weapon for the US: high tech, low cost, compatible with existing platforms and politically uncontroversial. And that's what drives them nuts. It allows the US to not be constrained by things like local politics in regions. It allows it to do pretty much whatever it wants.

If they want to curtail drones, do it by going after how conflicts are fought in general. But a "set of rules governing drones". I promise you, the US won't even show up to any "conversation", so good luck with it. Maybe the 10 years behind / never used operationally crowd will show up though.

[Endus]

I'm going to call the "controversy" about Drones for exactly what it is: it's a certain, extremely liberal world view

Seriously, dude, no.

I'm super mega uber liberal. I support the use of drones. The two are ENTIRELY unrelated.

[Reeve]

There should be no "drone specific" rules. That's ridiculous. Is there rules for fighter / attack aircraft? Cruise missiles? Attack Helicopters.

Drones are another type of military technology that moves the attacker further and further away from the attacked. It started in the 13th century with the gun. When the gun showed up on the scene, gradually the pike and the sword receeded because everyone found great advantage in killing from a distance.

I'd say it started with the javelin, continued with the sling, then the bow, then the composite bow, then the longbow and the crossbow, then the gun. But I'm picking nits.

---------- Post added 2013-01-24 at 09:19 PM ----------

Seriously, dude, no.

I'm super mega uber liberal. I support the use of drones. The two are ENTIRELY unrelated.

Not to mention that drones are also supported by Obama, who people on the right for some reason consider super liberal as well.

[Skroe]

I'd say it started with the javelin, continued with the sling, then the bow, then the composite bow, then the longbow and the crossbow, then the gun. But I'm picking nits.

Excellent point, but yeah those go in first. Especially the crossbow, which turned something that required years of specialized training and practice (archery) into the original point and shoot weapon that any infantryman could use.

[Mihalik]

American's freaking about their "Rights"...Police have been using Helicopters for airborn survailance and air support for about what....40 years now?

Drones only change one thing in this routine. They cost less and are easier to maintain.

Why aren't you complaining about your tax money being spent on expensive helicopter survailance?

And why would you refuse such a powerful law enforcement tool? They can be used to patrol borders, remote highways, maintain an eye on criminals while cops arrive.
They aren't exactly drones outfited with hellfire rockets you know. It's just a freaking flying remote controlled camera.

And when it comes to using them in War. Tomahawk missiles are sooo much better then drones...they only cost about 10 times more then a drone, they are fire and forget and carry much greater payloads of explosives. That's the kind of technology that was used before drones.

Drones save lives (so to speak). The lives of the pilots, and reduce the potential massive collateral damage that cruise missiles can cause. Their 3 enemy combatants per 1 civilian kill ratio is a fuck load better then what cruise missiles have.

And I remember this video
This is not being done using a drone. It is being done using manned aircraft. How is this any better then a drone may I ask?

[Adam Jensen]

Drones? No, they're just another weapon.

How they are currently being used though, is another story. But I have no qualms over the technology itself.

---------- Post added 2013-01-24 at 04:51 PM ----------

I'd say it started with the javelin, continued with the sling, then the bow, then the composite bow, then the longbow and the crossbow, then the gun. But I'm picking nits.

---------- Post added 2013-01-24 at 09:19 PM ----------



Not to mention that drones are also supported by Obama, who people on the right for some reason consider super liberal as well.

That's because according to some people in this country, Obama is a right wing islamofascist who wants to implement communism and turn the US into a left wing dystopia.

The cognitive dissonance. It burns.

[Thes]

I don't know about you guys but if I were to decide if I entered a real aircraft or a computer that commands a drone.. I surely would pick the latter.

Seems more convenient.

[anveena]

No because I don't see the difference between a drone, helicopter or an aircraft attacking a target. Two of them have pilot(s) in them while the other one's pilot isn't.

It's not like we didn't have pilot free means of killing people from miles away before drones came around. Cruise/ballistic/intercontinental ballistic missiles have been around for quite sometime and don't require a person piloting them to kill loads of people.