Drones

Thats like saying Tanks are to overpowered, you cant use them.

@empireman:

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?

@empireman:

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”.

@Gargantua:

@empireman:

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

@Gargantua:

@empireman:

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).

@frimmel:

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.

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. 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.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen

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.

@BJCard:

@frimmel:

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.

@Gargantua:

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.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen

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.

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.

Well, if you are arguing the bigger picture - i.e. why we are fighting Islamic Extremism or why we are fighting in Afghanistan, then that is a whole other can of worms.  I’m just arguing that drone strikes are no different than any other long range weapon.

If you are insinuating that a drone pilot has no honor, and only does as ordered even if he/she feels it is wrong, than again that is a whole other topic.  If you mean the big wigs ordering ‘hits’ on known terrorists, then what would you have them do instead?

I agree that drone strikes are simply another long range weapon and I am not saying that the pilots have no honor.

I am not going to open the other can of worms that you’ve correctly identified.

@frimmel:

I agree that drone strikes are simply another long range weapon and I am not saying that the pilots have no honor.

I am not going to open the other can of worms that you’ve correctly identified.

Fair enough- I am not trying to be combative, just debating.  Thanks for your input.

We’re the problem because of the Moral picture we’ve painted ourselves in…

Is it murder, or is it war? Who’s to say.

Oh the days of imperialism are missed…

@Gargantua:

We’re the problem because of the Moral picture we’ve painted ourselves in…

Is it murder, or is it war? Who’s to say.

Oh the days of imperialism are missed…

I guess it depends on your point of view.  One thing is certain- the western democracies are at war with extremist Islam.

Skip extremism.  From an objective/historical/factual point of view, Islam in general is a more accurate description.

It’s definetly over the 50% hump.

@BJCard:

@frimmel:

I agree that drone strikes are simply another long range weapon and I am not saying that the pilots have no honor.

I am not going to open the other can of worms that you’ve correctly identified.

Fair enough- I am not trying to be combative, just debating.  Thanks for your input.

We’re good. We’re in the same game and the same page of the rulebook.  :-)

@Gargantua:

Skip extremism.  From an objective/historical/factual point of view, Islam in general is a more accurate description.

It’s definetly over the 50% hump.

You really think that the western world is at war with over 50% of Muslims?  Wow, I hope that’s not the case- something like 1.6 Billion people in the world are Muslim…

@BJCard:

@Gargantua:

Skip extremism.  From an objective/historical/factual point of view, Islam in general is a more accurate description.

It’s definetly over the 50% hump.

You really think that the western world is at war with over 50% of Muslims?  Wow, I hope that’s not the case- something like 1.6 Billion people in the world are Muslim…

If it weren’t for Garg being 'Nadian, I’d say we’re American: we’re at war with everything.