Are Drone Strikes War Crimes?

[Kraenen]

Henry Kissinger is a war criminal for bombing cambodia, a neutral country and killing 300 000+ peaceful civilians. Likewise, these drone strikes go into countries with no prior agreement, kill civilians and suspected combatants. Even worse is the fact that war is becoming much more cold. With the flick of a button, a man sitting in a comfortable chair, in a comfortable environment, safe in a room, half way across the world, can end hundreds of lives.

[Deleted]

No, it really isn't. Individual battles are, the war overall is far from it.

Ants say HI!

[Deleted]

Drone strikes are a far more humane way of attacking terrorists than declaring war against entire countries just because there are some terrorists hiding in them. Far fewer people die.

but how many terrorist do you think drone strikes create? - If a bomb fell from 70k feet and killed my family, trust me, I would be gunning for whoever did it

[Deleted]

yes. any use of an indiscriminate weapon that kills civillians is a war crime.

[Shamgar]

Drone strikes are a far more humane way of attacking terrorists than declaring war against entire countries just because there are some terrorists hiding in them. Far fewer people die.

Really. So the only two options that exists in the whole world is to either A) invade a country because a few terrorists hide there, or B) bomb their population from drones. How nice it must be to live in your black and white world. Or should i say star spangled?

[Kraenen]

I could go for some of this. War is not suppose to last years...Idk what happened if you go back most wars were only a few day or weeks. All of a sudden we get these long drawn out battles and the winners have to deal with the clean up. what is this I don't even.

peloponnesian war, Hundred years war, crusades, napoleonic wars, first world war, second world war, korean war, vietnam war,

i mean really. you don't know anything about history if you say wars aren't supposed to last years.

[Deleted]

During the Cold War there were a lot of US "coups" to put friendly "client" governments in charge of states (Presumably there were Soviet ones as well, not just in the immediate aftermath of world war II). I'd say that the drone strikes are existing in a similar sort of grey area. Most are confined to Pakistan as I understand it, where a lot of militant trouble stems. The Taliban issue is complicated because it's not just that they were CIA funded combatants in the Soviet-Afghanistan War, but they have occasionally been proxies of the Pakistan government and operate from Pakistan. The Taliban also claim to represent the Pashtun majority in Afghanistan. There is a Pashtun majority, but there also other majorities.

But it's still controversial.

[Kraenen]

Drone strikes are a far more humane way of attacking terrorists than declaring war against entire countries just because there are some terrorists hiding in them. Far fewer people die.

And the apprehension to killing is lessened. If you really think about drone strikes for a moment, you come to the conclusion that they are inhumane.

[Dreknar20]

Or we could stop nation building in the first place and mind our own fucking business unless there is an imminent threat or one of our important allies are attacked?

kinda agree here.

US should stop trying to fix other countries.
Focus on our own stuff, and only our own stuff

---------- Post added 2012-10-31 at 12:06 AM ----------

If you really think about drone strikes for a moment, you come to the conclusion that they are inhumane.

how so?
Is there a difference between killing with drones or killing with manned aircraft?

[Olo]

A drone isn’t any different that a fighter. If you want to argue the merits of bombing countries, go for it, but specifically discussing drones just confuses the issue.

[Kasierith]

And the apprehension to killing is lessened. If you really think about drone strikes for a moment, you come to the conclusion that they are inhumane.

The Japanese came to the same conclusion when they found out their best samurai could be put down by a farmer with a gun.

[Kraenen]

kinda agree here.

US should stop trying to fix other countries.
Focus on our own stuff, and only our own stuff

---------- Post added 2012-10-31 at 12:06 AM ----------


how so?
Is there a difference between killing with drones or killing with manned aircraft?

You answered it yourself

[Dreknar20]

You answered it yourself

ima confused.
So to you its a crime because a human isnt killing a human?

Or you are simply saying its just inhumane?
But its not like the drones have a mind of their own, and its just the evolution of warfare too i guess

[Olo]

ima confused.
So to you its a crime because a human isnt killing a human?

It's still a human killing a human. Just in this case the human doing the killing is on the othe side of the world.

[Kraenen]

ima confused.
So to you its a crime because a human isnt killing a human?

Or you are simply saying its just inhumane?
But its not like the drones have a mind of their own, and its just the evolution of warfare too i guess

When did I say it was a crime? I said it was inhumane. I really don't see how you're having difficulty with this one. With the flick of a button, a man sitting in a comfortable chair, in a comfortable environment, safe in a room, half way across the world, can end hundreds of lives.

Do you think there's any difference between that and someone with an axe, having to chop their way to hundreds of killings?

[Dreknar20]

With the flick of a button, a man sitting in a comfortable chair, in a comfortable environment, safe in a room, half way across the world, can end hundreds of lives.

Same can be said with artillary, or even manned aircraft, but the threat is a bit higher

Its just how warfare works these days

[Kraenen]

Same can be said with artillary, or even manned aircraft, but the threat is a bit higher

Its just how warfare works these days

"That's just the way it is" Is not an argument for doing something.

[Olo]

When did I say it was a crime? I said it was inhumane. I really don't see how you're having difficulty with this one. With the flick of a button, a man sitting in a comfortable chair, in a comfortable environment, safe in a room, half way across the world, can end hundreds of lives.

Do you think there's any difference between that and someone with an axe, having to chop their way to hundreds of killings?

Man didn’t become the dominant species on this planet because of our physical strength; we did it with our intellect. Seems to me drones exemplify humanity.

[Wiyld]

You are asking the wrong question.

The weapons used in a war are nearly irrelevant. Its a grey area but until a weapon becomes a sadistic tool for the infliction of suffering instead of an efficient tool for disabling an enemy asset, everything goes.

Someone brought up the 3 sided bayonet, it was made illegal because a simple 2 sided blade is all you need to kill or incapacitate an enemy combatant, the three sided blade did nothing but ensure a wounded enemy would slowly bleed out and most assuredly get some sort of infection and die. Regardless of the knife used however the guy was combat ineffective and didn't need to suffer any longer. Its the same idea that real sportsmen use when taking down game. Sportsmen frown upon poor shots that leave an animal to bleed out over a long period of time, if your going to do it, do it right and kill em outright.

Honestly I think the reason things like mustard gas and other wide area chemical weapons were banned was because any tiny little nation can employ them to protect themselves against a very very strong opponent. If all the big guys get together and make it illegal then they maintain the upper hand in conventional war. I suppose the same could be said of Nuclear weapons. That's really one of the only things keeping Israel on the map, tiny nation backed up by very very big weapons that negate the deficiencies of a small conventional force.

Dropping a bomb from a remote controlled drone has 0 difference then dropping it from a manned plane other then the margin of danger to friendly operators. If we didn't have drones out there we would have planes doing exactly the same work, we would be watching move videos like that one Wiki leaks let out of the Apache killing the two little kids in the street. Instead we get videos of drones doing it.


Back to my original point, you are asking the wrong question. The correct one would be more along the lines of 'when is it appropriate to take the final step to armed conflict?'

I'm a big fan of the Teddy Roosevelt motto involving soft speech and big sticks. Regardless of the conflict the most efficient, effective weapon available for the job should be used. The real judgement call isn't how to kill the other guy, it's if we ought to be doing it at all.

[Gothicshark]

We live in a F'd up period of time.

Drones are just the latest weapon of war. They have no honor, no pride they just kill. Are the people using them guilty of war crimes, not unless they purposely kill civilians, knowing full well that they where targeting civilians.

Next, civilian casualties in a war zone happen, it always has happen and it will always happen. America has tried harder than any other nation in history to limit civilian casualties to the point it is comically bad, and makes the war take too long, which incidentally increases the likelihood of civilian causalities.

America has been in Afghanistan and for 11 years, Iraq for 10. In Islamic nations 13 is the age of consent, meaning enemy soldiers could be 13, it also means that the current enemy forces will have little or no memory as to the reason America is in their country.