@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Drones
-
What’s your thoughts on the subject?
-
They counter and defeat the actions of the enemy, making random terrorist attacks and all types of warfare where the enemy does not fight head on. Those enemies could never develop these weapons, so we are always ahead of them and can strike at any time and anywhere.
-
The issue isn’t just about the method. Drones are merely a method. The thing is if the method is easy enough and removed enough and clean enough it is easy to do things you might not if you had to do it yourself and it becomes really easy not to worry about whether those things should be done, if you’re right to do them.
I’m thinking Stark in the very beginning of “A Game of Thrones” with the deserter. Or maybe Patton with his dislike of push button bombing, “Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed.” Star Trek, “A Taste of Armageddon.” Too much removal and you easily lose what it was you were after in the first place.
-
Well look at how warfare changed from Vietnam. Every type of action was guerrilla style warfare, which essentially defeated linear combat. Latter it morphed into terrorism. Gladly technology counterbalanced this style with the remedy of remote pinpoint bombing…using drones.
I’m working on a new chip at Skynet…and hopefully a new solution will emerge…for a better tomorrow.
-
Drones can be seen as a logical extension of a point noted by Richard Overy in his book Why the Allies Won. He argues that the Anglo-American bombing campaign against Germany in the West (as contrasted with the Russian ground offensive in the East) reflected the Anglo-American preference for technology-based, capital-intensive methods of warfare which minimized the amount of manpower that had to be put into the direct line of fire. Drones raise the level of the required technology even higher, and reduce the number of directly exposed personnel even further to (in principle) zero.
-
The issue isn’t just about the method. Drones are merely a method. The thing is if the method is easy enough and removed enough and clean enough it is easy to do things you might not if you had to do it yourself and it becomes really easy not to worry about whether those things should be done, if you’re right to do them.
I’m thinking Stark in the very beginning of “A Game of Thrones” with the deserter. Or maybe Patton with his dislike of push button bombing, “Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed.” Star Trek, “A Taste of Armageddon.” Too much removal and you easily lose what it was you were after in the first place.
The way I see it, Drones are no different than missiles, only more accurate. The submarine I served on had the ability to fire 12 or more tomahawk missiles at targets when ordered. We are just pushing buttons, how is it different? Then you can make the argument that any long range weapon is similar to drones- you may not see who or what you are firing at.
If anything, Drones are more humane and more accurate because the drone ‘pilot’ has the ability to see what they are shooting at.
-
Its a tool at our disposal so use them
It cant be any worse than the “Bat bomb”, or throwing a dead animal over the castle wall with a catapult……ooohhh yeahh the giant magnifying glass or a laser…future wars -
I’ve no problem from a military perspective, a getting it done perspective, with using missiles or drones or what have you. I agree with the points made in that regard so far. They are an efficient tool.
I merely point out (and think the survey is skirting around in hopes of remaining apolitical) that tools can be subtle traps and we need to be wary of them. I work in an engineering department. One summer we had an intern. He knew the CAD program. He understood that tool quite well. Didn’t really get how to make drawings that told machinists what they needed to know.
Spellcheck comes to mind. You still need to proofread. Anybody had a cashier that couldn’t make change without the cash register?
In the case of drones, much more so than Tomahawk missiles, I think we’re making efficient use of our tools to make drawings machinists can’t use.
-
@CWO:
Drones can be seen as a logical extension of a point noted by Richard Overy in his book Why the Allies Won. He argues that the Anglo-American bombing campaign against Germany in the West (as contrasted with the Russian ground offensive in the East) reflected the Anglo-American preference for technology-based, capital-intensive methods of warfare which minimized the amount of manpower that had to be put into the direct line of fire. Drones raise the level of the required technology even higher, and reduce the number of directly exposed personnel even further to (in principle) zero.
Can we say “duh”?
I agree with frim, but in the case of open conflict I feel they are fair game. They aren’t really that useful for asymmetrical warfare/small cell terrorism.
-
Thats like saying Tanks are to overpowered, you cant use them.
-
Thats like saying Tanks are to overpowered, you cant use them.
That’s what they say about Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. So what’s the diff?
-
Thats like saying Tanks are to overpowered, you cant use them.
Is this referring to what I said? If so, that’s not at all what I conveyed.
Anyways…
The issue being discussed here is the difference between war and murder.
Another side of that equation is the moral question from “Minority Report”, which is - “is pre-crime criminal indictable?” The problem being that everyday people are being sentenced to death, just because of who they associate with, regardless of if they have committed a crime or not; because the balance of probabilities suggest it’s only a matter of time before they “carry out an act”.
-
Thats like saying Tanks are to overpowered, you cant use them.
That’s what they say about Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. So what’s the diff?
Anyways…
The issue being discussed here is the difference between war and murder.
Another side of that equation is the moral question from “Minority Report”, which is - “is pre-crime criminal indictable?” The problem being that everyday people are being sentenced to death, just because of who they associate with, regardless of if they have committed a crime or not; because the balance of probabilities suggest it’s only a matter of time before they “carry out an act”.
That is exactly the ethical question. Nicely, put.
-
Yea, I don’t proof read my garbage…sorry
-
Thats like saying Tanks are to overpowered, you cant use them.
That’s what they say about Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. So what’s the diff?
Anyways…
The issue being discussed here is the difference between war and murder.
Another side of that equation is the moral question from “Minority Report”, which is - “is pre-crime criminal indictable?” The problem being that everyday people are being sentenced to death, just because of who they associate with, regardless of if they have committed a crime or not; because the balance of probabilities suggest it’s only a matter of time before they “carry out an act”.
Well, I suppose its when and where you use them. How is using a drone strike against a known enemy different than using a conventional air strike? Sniper team? Ship-launched missile? The weapons of war will always get more efficient over time.
You could say a drone strike is the most humane of them all because it can hover overhead, be sure of the target, and strike at will- this gives the drone pilot ample ability to minimize collateral damage (of course IF the pilot does that). This is much harder to do with other ways to do the strike. Think about other ways to get a missile into the area.
Now, if your beef with drones are the long distance strikes where the pilot is in no danger, then, well- you have a problem with modern warfare. How ‘in-danger’ are the pilots dropping bombs? At least in Afghanistan, not much more than the sailors on ships firing tomahawks, etc… When at war, do we not want to preserve our highly trained soldiers and sailors?
The difference with Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear is that they are much more indiscriminate as to who they kill/maim/wound. You can’t be sure your chemical weapons won’t spread with the wind to your own troops/civilians; You may not be able to control Biological weapons at all; Nuclear weapons, well, that does a lot of damage and renders a large area uninhabitable for a bit of time. At least the half-lives of fission fragments associated with Nuclear Weapons detonations are very short, so people can move back into the area, clean it up, and live there again (Hiroshima/Nagasaki).
-
The issue isn’t just about the method. Drones are merely a method. The thing is if the method is easy enough and removed enough and clean enough it is easy to do things you might not if you had to do it yourself and it becomes really easy not to worry about whether those things should be done, if you’re right to do them.
I’m thinking Stark in the very beginning of “A Game of Thrones” with the deserter. Or maybe Patton with his dislike of push button bombing, “Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed.” Star Trek, “A Taste of Armageddon.” Too much removal and you easily lose what it was you were after in the first place.
You are right, we should put away all our guns and fight with swords. Isn’t the point of modern warfare to preserve the lives of countries citizens? Why put people in harms way if you don’t have to? I do not advocate purely autonomous robot fighting like the Terminator- of course there has to be a human element to it, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use modern technology.
-
The danger I see with such technology is that once governments get this capability they will never relinquished this power. When taking a life takes as little effort and thought as using a joy stick and pushing a button human life suddenly becomes easier to take.
I love my Country, I just don’t trust people in power.
-
You could say a drone strike is the most humane of them all because it can hover overhead, be sure of the target, and strike at will- this gives the drone pilot ample ability to minimize collateral damage (of course IF the pilot does that). Â This is much harder to do with other ways to do the strike. Â Think about other ways to get a missile into the area. Â
BJ…
I don’t disagree with some of what you’re saying but… this whole “Humane”, “Sure of the target” thing is a bunch of crap.
I want you to scroll down and read the names of those children outloud to yourself, and decide if you think you “may” be misinformed on the “humane” angle.
Of course, there’s the whole concept that those children could be considered combatants, and “child soldiers”, putting IED’s and crap in roads etc; but that doesn’t really work in say… the “Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female” case, does it?
In short, we are blowing up little kids with drones, so… go left or go right, I think it’s fair people pause on this item for consideration. Â Don’t you? :P
Hmm… Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye. Four years old. Does yours or anyones version of humane make it right BJ?
Anyways… don’t anyone take me for a bleeding heart. It’s war and people die. I understand the bigger concepts at work here.
To me, the killing is much less the problem than the lying about it. If we’re going to change the world, and if that change will cost lives. FINE. But lets be open about it, get it done, and STOP screwing around.
-
The issue isn’t just about the method. Drones are merely a method. The thing is if the method is easy enough and removed enough and clean enough it is easy to do things you might not if you had to do it yourself and it becomes really easy not to worry about whether those things should be done, if you’re right to do them.
I’m thinking Stark in the very beginning of “A Game of Thrones” with the deserter. Or maybe Patton with his dislike of push button bombing, “Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed.” Star Trek, “A Taste of Armageddon.” Too much removal and you easily lose what it was you were after in the first place.
You are right, we should put away all our guns and fight with swords. Isn’t the point of modern warfare to preserve the lives of countries citizens? Why put people in harms way if you don’t have to? I do not advocate purely autonomous robot fighting like the Terminator- of course there has to be a human element to it, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use modern technology.
No one is debating the efficacy of drones.
I have already addressed your points earlier in this thread. I’d point you to Garg’s earlier post pointing out the issue isn’t the drones. It is whether the use of drones constitutes war or murder and whether we’re executing criminals before they’ve committed a crime.
The question is whether or not what we’re doing with them is right, whether the powers that be are being honest with us and themselves.
My point about Stark is when a man who’d committed a capital crime needed to be put to death, the man with the power and responsibility for making that decision went out, looked the man in the eye, heard what he had to say for himself, and then swung the sword with his own hands. I don’t think any of the people making the decisions on drones have that kind of honor or even the concept of that kind of honor.
The question is not whether or not we are using the right tool but whether we should be doing the job at all.
-
You could say a drone strike is the most humane of them all because it can hover overhead, be sure of the target, and strike at will- this gives the drone pilot ample ability to minimize collateral damage (of course IF the pilot does that). � This is much harder to do with other ways to do the strike. � Think about other ways to get a missile into the area. �
BJ…
I don’t disagree with some of what you’re saying but… this whole “Humane”, “Sure of the target” thing is a bunch of crap.
I want you to scroll down and read the names of those children outloud to yourself, and decide if you think you “may” be misinformed on the “humane” angle.
Of course, there’s the whole concept that those children could be considered combatants, and “child soldiers”, putting IED’s and crap in roads etc; but that doesn’t really work in say… the “Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female” case, does it?
In short, we are blowing up little kids with drones, so… go left or go right, I think it’s fair people pause on this item for consideration. � Don’t you? :P
Hmm… Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye. Four years old. Does yours or anyones version of humane make it right BJ?
Anyways… don’t anyone take me for a bleeding heart. It’s war and people die. I understand the bigger concepts at work here.
To me, the killing is much less the problem than the lying about it. If we’re going to change the world, and if that change will cost lives. FINE. But lets be open about it, get it done, and STOP screwing around.
I can see where you are coming from, I just feel that a drone strike is better than using a conventional air strike or a tomahawk missile fired from miles away. Would more children have died on these larger strikes? I believe so, hence the more humane aspect. We could go back to carpet bombing, but I doubt that would be tolerated these days. Maybe a ground assault? Would that be better?
Many times these enemy combatants deliberately hide in civilian areas. How do we combat that? It is a tough situation. I have to believe that the people doing the strikes are doing their best to minimize civilian casualties. Again, I don’t think drone pilots are any farther removed than the Fire Control Technician on a ship firing a missile or the F-18 pilot firing air-to-ground munitions.
Suggested Topics
