Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've heard this on TV a few times and the blame usually falls on the technolgy itself being in some way immoral. I get that inadvertantly causing civilian deaths and violating borders and assasinations are bad. But, surely theres no difference between using a drone and a piloted aircraft or CIA trained assasians on the ground; things the US has done for decades? If the issue is that the technology isn't quite up to the mark and is not quite as accurate as a manned aircraft then surely in a decade or so the technology will be adequete. it just seems really strange that people blame the drones and not the people operating/maintaining them or the policies themselves. Its like people in the Renaisance claiming that guns were a dishonourable way of killing but hacking somebody to pieces with a sword was "just killing". Just feels like very anachronistic moralising IMO.

it's the fact it pretty indiscriminate and does kill alot of bystanders and has been conducting hits in Pakistan, that's the difference between unmanned bombs and assassins

Drones have long loiter times, so they have a semi-permenancy a fly-over doesnt.

It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

 Orlanth wrote:
It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Pakistan's? No, I absolutely do not care about their airspace or sovereignty. They sheltered bin Laden for years. They can complain all they want.

 Seaward wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Pakistan's? No, I absolutely do not care about their airspace or sovereignty. They sheltered bin Laden for years. They can complain all they want.

You do realise that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, right? That is the last place you want to piss off and add fuel to for islamic extremists to burn and come to power.

The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

 Seaward wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Pakistan's? No, I absolutely do not care about their airspace or sovereignty. They sheltered bin Laden for years. They can complain all they want.

I get that...

But, my beef is that it's a very tiny minority that the US needs to go after and using Drones to me just seems to be an awful way to do this. My take is that if we feel the need to use the drones, then send in the special forces (boots on the ground) to get the mission done.

Yeah, they have nukes... so do we, so there is that.

While nuclear weapons are bad, scary, awe-ful things... and I'm not satisfied that ANYONE has them... the odds of them being used again are IMO vanishingly small.

Use a nuke, expect immediate world-wide condemnation and your country to be invaded. Justifiably.

So, we're talking about a country with a strongly fundamentalist foundation (Pakistan) armed with a nuke being harassed by drones. Pakistan will not use the nuke, there is simply too much for them to lose.

I understand that bad feelings that the use of drones generate, but the bad feelings that would be generated by the act of deploying troops and materiel into a region to wage the "war on terror" would be significantly worse.

This is a sad planet, and it's not going to ever be "just", but drones have their uses. Furthermore, they aren't going to go away. I mourn the loss of the innocents, but bad people have been around since forever and we have to understand that our hoping/wishing/praying for something different won't affect reality.

The cycle of violence will never end. I understand that we are probably creating some more enemies for every one we remove - and maybe more for the innocents we remove - but this is the world we live in.

 Seaward wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Pakistan's? No, I absolutely do not care about their airspace or sovereignty. They sheltered bin Laden for years. They can complain all they want.

We have active drone programs in virtually every mid eastern and north African country right now... As to the ops point, I think this is it right here. Drones themselves aren't too bad, but we use them in a way that violates treaties that we are signatory to. Their almost sole role is assassination, they do it pervasively and constantly, and they do it without a strong level of oversight or detail as they are entirely reliant on aerial views and intel tips on the ground. She sheer scale of their use is what puts them in the media, and their role is distasteful at best.

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

I think there is some concept of honourable combat in which the aggressor at least exposes himself to some kind of danger. In that concept, drones rank with snipers as people killing defenceless targets from afar, without risk.

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

I think there is some concept of honourable combat in which the aggressor at least exposes himself to some kind of danger. In that concept, drones rank with snipers as people killing defenceless targets from afar, without risk.

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

Oh, no doubt. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong in either direction, just that it's what the arguments against drones essentially boil down to.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

I think there is some concept of honourable combat in which the aggressor at least exposes himself to some kind of danger. In that concept, drones rank with snipers as people killing defenceless targets from afar, without risk.

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

Oh, no doubt. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong in either direction, just that it's what the arguments against drones essentially boil down to.

I thought the argument boiled down to the fact that were indiscriminate, as characterizes all aerial weapons. Certainly, there's a weird honor thing going on too, but I've yet to see that as more than a footnote or a part of an argument stating a dwindling level of morality involved in western warfare.

 whembly wrote:
I get that...

But, my beef is that it's a very tiny minority that the US needs to go after and using Drones to me just seems to be an awful way to do this. My take is that if we feel the need to use the drones, then send in the special forces (boots on the ground) to get the mission done.

Yeah, they have nukes... so do we, so there is that.

Targets of this sort move around a lot. We find out where they are, and we have a fairly small window, in many cases, to actually hit them. We cannot just send SEALs or ACE guys in with a couple hours' notice. Drones, we can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Interestingly, westerners tend to see suicide bombers as unfair, though their level of risk is 100%.

I have never heard anyone complain about suicide bombers because they're unfair.

I have heard people complain about suicide bombers because their targets are, very often, purely civilian.

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I get that...

But, my beef is that it's a very tiny minority that the US needs to go after and using Drones to me just seems to be an awful way to do this. My take is that if we feel the need to use the drones, then send in the special forces (boots on the ground) to get the mission done.

Yeah, they have nukes... so do we, so there is that.

Targets of this sort move around a lot. We find out where they are, and we have a fairly small window, in many cases, to actually hit them. We cannot just send SEALs or ACE guys in with a couple hours' notice. Drones, we can.

Drones also give you the opportunity to strike at the point of identification, drones are all primarily surveillance craft first and strike craft second. The time to identification and strike on a drone can be seconds which allows for us to attack people identified as setting up roadside bombs or transporting munitions or manpower too or from a conflict. Problematically it can't do fact checking, and it's hard to see who is in a van (as previous controversial incidents have shown).

I have never heard anyone complain about suicide bombers because they're unfair.

Suicide bombings probably as fair as it gets where killing people is concerned. That's a one way ticket, no cheating.

Unfair as in being an underhanded type of attack.

Drones' targets are often civilian. In practice if not in theory.

Mistakes are easier to make when judging a situation from a web cam.

 Seaward wrote:

I have never heard anyone complain about suicide bombers because they're unfair.

I have heard people complain about suicide bombers because their targets are, very often, purely civilian.

Yeah me either.. Alls fair in love and war, I have heard complaints about their indiscriminate nature though. You would think considering that (by definition!) they have a human opartor they would leave little to no civilian casualities, but its not the case, and they also seem to not give a gak anyway, as long as they are making a good effort to get the troops, they seem to care little for the Afghan civilians.

For example, I personally complained, and long and loudly, when a SVBIED blew himself up far too early, didn't kill anyone on our patrol, and killed 4 innocent Afghans and a fething donkey though.

....


I mean, I really like horses and donkeys. I think they are stoic and noble animals.

I dislike drones because they make the act of killing more impersonal. The person piloting the drone never has to face death or witness first hand the effects of their actions like a soldier on the ground does.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I dislike drones because they make the act of killing more impersonal. The person piloting the drone never has to face death or witness first hand the effects of their actions like a soldier on the ground does.

That's not much different than most fixed wing air missions though.

The only problem I have with our use of drones is what I'd consider to be excessive civilian collateral. If we could get that cut down substantially with better humint then I'd be all for it.

I prefer we use diplomacy first and foremost. I'd like to really strengthen our world presence within the world community via the UN and so forth.

On the other hand, when diplomacy has failed and hostilities are neccesary, I'd prefer we do so overwhelmingly, with horrifying force, so to end them as soon as humanly possible. It's the best thing to do to save lives, ours and theirs, but waging war as quickly and decisively as that. If killing 6 stateless actors in a pickup from a Reaper will save more lives elsewhere, what moral right do we have to not press the button.


So far as "honor" and "each side having a fair chance", what the F is that nonsense. This isn't the super bowl or cricket, it's war.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I dislike drones because they make the act of killing more impersonal. The person piloting the drone never has to face death or witness first hand the effects of their actions like a soldier on the ground does.

That's not much different than most fixed wing air missions though.

But at least the pilot of an aircraft has to face the possibility of death, from a surface to air missile for example. The drone pilot is sitting in a heavily guarded base in front of a television screen. If a missile takes out his drone then all that's been lost is a multi-million dollar piece of kit, rather than a multi-million dollar piece of kit and a human being.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I dislike drones because they make the act of killing more impersonal. The person piloting the drone never has to face death or witness first hand the effects of their actions like a soldier on the ground does.

That's not much different than most fixed wing air missions though.

But at least the pilot of an aircraft has to face the possibility of death, from a surface to air missile for example. The drone pilot is sitting in a heavily guarded base in front of a television screen. If a missile takes out his drone then all that's been lost is a multi-million dollar piece of kit, rather than a multi-million dollar piece of kit and a human being.

We have never used a drone against an enemy with the capacity to shoot down strategic bombers or fighter craft. The chance of their jet going down is n't much worse than the chance of the drone pilot being in a car accident driving to work.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I've heard this on TV a few times and the blame usually falls on the technolgy itself being in some way immoral. I get that inadvertantly causing civilian deaths and violating borders and assasinations are bad. But, surely theres no difference between using a drone and a piloted aircraft or CIA trained assasians on the ground; things the US has done for decades? If the issue is that the technology isn't quite up to the mark and is not quite as accurate as a manned aircraft then surely in a decade or so the technology will be adequete. it just seems really strange that people blame the drones and not the people operating/maintaining them or the policies themselves. Its like people in the Renaisance claiming that guns were a dishonourable way of killing but hacking somebody to pieces with a sword was "just killing". Just feels like very anachronistic moralising IMO.

So you are asking in the context of drone strikes?

This was a much longer argument I saw by a professor, but it was a bit ago so bear with me.

In essence, (armed) drones turn the paradigm of war on its head. Generally, the military is there to protect the civilians from foriegn invaders. It doesn't make much difference in someplace like Afghanistan, but it sets a precedent where if we ever get into conflict with a country that has any kind of means, we'll see drones being used against us as well. In that situation the military becomes protected by the civilian population as drone controllers are tucked away flying missions while the drones go after targets that are exposed, which would be the cities and factories.Even in situations like we have now, if the opposition can't fight back by killing drones, given half a chance their option is to go after what they can.

War is a blood sacrifice, and when you remove the blood from one side, it becomes easier both to go to war, and it provokes more attacks against civilians. It isn't as simple as all drone use being bad, but we need to look at how it affects the way we fight wars/conflicts.

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

War has to be fair? Do we need to start standing out in straight lines just to give the enemy a chance?

 Platuan4th wrote:
The issue(at least according to the UN and the Air Force members I know) is that Drones can be sent in to kill without exposing our own soldiers. Essentially, the 'issue' is that it's unfair.

Which is why its so awesome.

Drones away!

One of the points of generalship is to put your forces at an advantage over the enemy.

That said, there is a feeling that waging war with no risk to yourself is in some way unfair. You may not feel that, but some people do.

 Orlanth wrote:
Drones have long loiter times, so they have a semi-permenancy a fly-over doesnt.

It also highlights the attitude of the US not giving a feth about airspace and sovereignty.

Exactly. Again, another reason its so awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One of the points of generalship is to put your forces at an advantage over the enemy.

That said, there is a feeling that waging war with no risk to yourself is in some way unfair. You may not feel that, but some people do.

Those people are what I like to call 'idiots.'

Exactly. Again, another reason its so awesome.

In every thread it's like you want us to be attacked.

Those people are what I like to call 'idiots.'

We have never used a drone in a war. We've used them solely in counter insurgency efforts and unilateral actions against civilian populations. Using robots to blow people up without a ground presence encourages terrorist attacks on civilian targets and breeds immense ill will with everyone.

One could say that those people are pragmatic. The drone strikes certainly haven't won us the "war", but they've sure as hell made us look bad.

 Frazzled wrote:

Those people are what I like to call 'idiots.'

Agreed. All is fair in love and war.

I also don't see why we should get so pissed about the occasional glut of civilian casualties when our enemies actively target our civilians. They say all American/British citizens are legitimate targets. I mean, Jesus, at least we fething TRY not to kill people that don't deserve it.

Now, clearly I'm far too experienced to not be aware that the most important aspect of winning an occupation such as the Afghan conflict and the wider war on terror is winning the hearts and minds of the populace, which is why we have strict ROE and always try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimum. But I dont think its the end of the world when we occasionally feth up. I certainly don't think we should stop using the drones. They work, they are awesome.

At the end of the day, we already occupy the moral high ground. Most Muslims don't see us as heartless baby killers, they are aware we don't intentionally kill the innocent. Only the most extreme fethers think we eat babies... and we aren't going to win them over anyway! I don't see why we should freak out over the occasional wayward drone attack.

feth em. I want us to win, not worry about playing fair with a bunch of savage mother fethers who never do.

Oh, and have a side hobby of throwing acid in little girls faces for the crime of learning to read.

I understand your frustration with that part of the worl Mattyrm, but this isn't just about that part of the world or the things that happen there. At some point drones will be used in other places, including on us.

I also don't see why we should get so pissed about the occasional glut of civilian casualties when our enemies actively target our civilians

Do you see why those two attitudes might be connected to each other though? We both keep killing each others civilians because we both keep killing each others civilians.