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.

LONDON – Anti-war protesters demonstrated Saturday outside a Royal Air Force base used to control drone flights over Afghanistan.

Until this week, British drones were operated only from a U.S. Air Force base in Nevada.

The Ministry of Defense announced Thursday that a new drone-operating squadron had begun operating from RAF Waddington in eastern England.

The ministry says the Reaper drones are used for "intelligence and surveillance missions," but also are equipped with missiles and bombs.

About 400 peace activists marched to the perimeter fence of the base, saying drones make it too easy to launch deadly attacks from a distance and out of public sight.

"Because of their remote nature, there is no risk to any of our forces and that makes it easier to launch weapons and makes it much easier for politicians to get involved in warfare," said Chris Cole of the Drone Campaign Network.

The defense ministry says drone operators "adhere strictly to the same laws of armed conflict and are bound by the same clearly defined rules of engagement" as other RAF pilots.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/27/protesters-march-against-first-british-drone-base/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2Rl0CBkeE

I'm curious. I mention this before. How drone operations occur/operate. Pretty wild heh.

Yes, less demonstrate against something that poses less of risk to our boys.....

I'm rather glad we have drones on our side.

It's not so much the protests against the technology per se, as it is the fear of a new era where politicans can kill people at the touch of a button (effectively). And that this in turn will devalue the significance of human life. Obama's use of drones to date has created a very dodgy precedent on moral and legal grounds, and a lot of people are intensely opposed to our politicans having that kind of power.

Even if our drones are not currently used to mount weapons, the fact is that ultimately, they quickly could be if given the right loadout/software.

Because if the government couldn't just up and kill people before it totally can now. I mean, all the spec ops teams, covert intelligence agencies, smart bombs, tanks, and aircraft carriers were just practice. It's this that will forever tip the proverbial balance. /Sarcasm

People have a weird way of looking at the world.

 LordofHats wrote:
Because if the government couldn't just up and kill people before it totally can now. I mean, all the spec ops teams, covert intelligence agencies, smart bombs, tanks, and aircraft carriers were just practice. It's this that will forever tip the proverbial balance. /Sarcasm

People have a weird way of looking at the world.

My thoughts exactly. They've had that kind of power before drones anyway.

We've had drones for quite a while now, this is just the first drone base situated in the UK.

 Albatross wrote:
We've had drones for quite a while now, this is just the first drone base situated in the UK.

You're welcome.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
We've had drones for quite a while now, this is just the first drone base situated in the UK.

You're welcome.

Uh, no, you're welcome. Afghanistan is a war the USA started, we purchased our Reapers from you and used them pretty exclusively in that conflict in order to better assist efforts there. We're your allies. Try to remember that instead of being obnoxious.


In any case, the UK has provided bases for US use pretty regularly over the last half-century, so what's your point? That we share capabilities? Surely that's a good thing.

 LordofHats wrote:
Because if the government couldn't just up and kill people before it totally can now. I mean, all the spec ops teams, covert intelligence agencies, smart bombs, tanks, and aircraft carriers were just practice. It's this that will forever tip the proverbial balance. /Sarcasm

People have a weird way of looking at the world.

Not so weird when you think about it. Put it this way.

Abu Qatada returns to his homeland and starts activities that we suspect may have something to do with terrorism. He's holed up with his best mates up in the mountains somewhere, and the Jordanian Government doesn't care enough to pursue him. Mrs May has no ability to seize him (another country), deploying military forces is diplomatically unacceptable and impossible, and spies aren't exactly going to work to find out what he's up to (they'd be obvious somewhere remote).

Now keep in mind here, that we have no evidence that Mr Qatada is actually doing anything wrong. All we have is something purely circumstantial, that would never suffice in a British law of court to even mount a prosecution.

With our new drone capabilities, now all she has to do is drop a drone on his head. Nice and simple. Proof is irrelevant, nobody will start a war over it, and there's a good chance most people won't even care. The fact it might take out the two or three people standing around him is also deemed 'politically acceptable'.

Now, is it not somewhat dicey that our government will have the capacity to do such things? Within our own moral and legal framework, is it not worrying that our government will be able to just sidestep the law and kill people like this?

Some of you may say, 'ah, its Qatada, so it doesn't matter'. But what if its somebody else without such notoriety? They'd still be deemed 'politically acceptable' losses, them and everyone around them.

Remember, suspicion is not proof of guilt. And I'm not entirely sure I trust our polticians with the potential power to obliterate people around the globe without real consequences. Even if it is supposedly in my own interests. There's a fine line when it comes to protecting your people, and I think this may cross it.

Wonder how effective it will be against illegal drug shipments. Think the US is going to keep tabs on our cousin efforts. Drug trade cut by 50% lol

MY point is, all that has been the case since what? 2007? Drones aren't a new thing for the RAF.

Fecking drones, we need more human soldiers to die! Fight the drones!

...wow.

 Albatross wrote:
MY point is, all that has been the case since what? 2007? Drones aren't a new thing for the RAF.

I think that the controlling base being in the US made it hard to protest a specific place. Im pretty sure that i remember protesta about dronea in the past.

 Albatross wrote:
Uh, no, you're welcome. Afghanistan is a war the USA started, we purchased our Reapers from you and used them pretty exclusively in that conflict in order to better assist efforts there. We're your allies. Try to remember that instead of being obnoxious.

Wow. You really do enjoy that completely unmerited high horse, don't you?

Nothing obnoxious was intended. Grow the feth up.

 Ketara wrote:

Not so weird when you think about it. Put it this way.

Abu Qatada returns to his homeland and starts activities that we suspect may have something to do with terrorism. He's holed up with his best mates up in the mountains somewhere, and the Jordanian Government doesn't care enough to pursue him. Mrs May has no ability to seize him (another country), deploying military forces is diplomatically unacceptable and impossible, and spies aren't exactly going to work to find out what he's up to (they'd be obvious somewhere remote).

Now keep in mind here, that we have no evidence that Mr Qatada is actually doing anything wrong. All we have is something purely circumstantial, that would never suffice in a British law of court to even mount a prosecution.

With our new drone capabilities, now all she has to do is drop a drone on his head. Nice and simple. Proof is irrelevant, nobody will start a war over it, and there's a good chance most people won't even care. The fact it might take out the two or three people standing around him is also deemed 'politically acceptable'.

Now, is it not somewhat dicey that our government will have the capacity to do such things? Within our own moral and legal framework, is it not worrying that our government will be able to just sidestep the law and kill people like this?

Some of you may say, 'ah, its Qatada, so it doesn't matter'. But what if its somebody else without such notoriety? They'd still be deemed 'politically acceptable' losses, them and everyone around them.

Remember, suspicion is not proof of guilt. And I'm not entirely sure I trust our polticians with the potential power to obliterate people around the globe without real consequences. Even if it is supposedly in my own interests. There's a fine line when it comes to protecting your people, and I think this may cross it.

Except for the part where the government could (and did) do this before. Ever read up on the early years of the FBI or the OSS immediately following WWII, or all of those revenge operations planned by Israel? Drone's are just a new toy in an old game but apparently it takes the new toy for anyone to care about the game that politicians the world over were already playing.

This is how the monopolization of force works. When you own all the force, you can kill people whenever you want. It's just a question of when's the next time the person(s) with all the force want to kill someone really badly. Drones may make this easier, but they don't do anything that wasn't already being done.

 Ketara wrote:
It's not so much the protests against the technology per se, as it is the fear of a new era where politicans can kill people at the touch of a button (effectively). And that this in turn will devalue the significance of human life. Obama's use of drones to date has created a very dodgy precedent on moral and legal grounds, and a lot of people are intensely opposed to our politicans having that kind of power.

Even if our drones are not currently used to mount weapons, the fact is that ultimately, they quickly could be if given the right loadout/software.

And this is different from having a supersonic stealth aircraft fly over and drop a smart bomb from thousands of feet up how? Or maybe you can explain to me how this isn't infinitely better than the time where to deal with military targets from the air hundreds of strategic bombers were committed and not a single feth was given about whether they lived or died? And said bombers tended to not only destroy the target but turn the entire city around the target into rubble and ash?

People I think confuse the changing situation for a novel one. Before the War on Terror we weren't fighting wars against individuals, we were fighting wars against nations. Russia was the enemy. You can't just blow up the head of the Communist Party and expect to cause any real harm to Russia's ability to threaten you.

You can however blow up the 'suspected' leaders of a terrorist organization and cause harm to their ability to threaten you. If we didn't have drones we'd still be killing these people. We didn't use one to kill Bin Laden because sending soldiers in to do it was a stronger political message than a drone strike but we could have drone striked him, dropped a smart bomb from a B2, barraged the place with an AC130, hell we could have just nuked it and washed our hands of the whole thing (that last one is totally hyperbolic XD but w/e).

There is no new legal or moral questions in this situation. Just ones no one was paying attention too before because the bad guy was a different kind of enemy and the governments of the world could play their games while the masses got distracted with the main attraction and missed the side shows.

I went past RAF Waddington yesterday...

... and the protest appeared to consist of a single [small] caravan in the field opposite, with a white sheet on it saying "protest coming soon" (or similar, IIRC). Also note that this Caravan has been there since before Christmas, although the sheet only said something about peaceful protesting or somesuch as I recall.

Just what I saw though.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Uh, no, you're welcome. Afghanistan is a war the USA started, we purchased our Reapers from you and used them pretty exclusively in that conflict in order to better assist efforts there. We're your allies. Try to remember that instead of being obnoxious.

Wow. You really do enjoy that completely unmerited high horse, don't you?

Nothing obnoxious was intended. Grow the feth up.

Could've fooled me.

When it takes half a second to add an emoticon that can ensure that an internet comment is recieved as it was intended, and nothing is done to help the transition, you can't blame people when they take a flat comment like yours as being obnoxious.

The tonal difference between "You're welcome." and "You're welcome. =P" on what, by the look of the topic, is a serious thread, can be rather large. Whether or not it was intended to be obnoxious is immaterial; how it could be percieved as such is what matters here, and it's really quite clear to see where Albatross is coming from in his reply. With that understanding in mind, is it really so hard to say "I didn't mean it like that; sorry." as opposed to "Grow the feth up."?

Look at who you're asking, Avatar...

 LordofHats wrote:

Except for the part where the government could (and did) do this before. Ever read up on the early years of the FBI or the OSS immediately following WWII, or all of those revenge operations planned by Israel? Drone's are just a new toy in an old game but apparently it takes the new toy for anyone to care about the game that politicians the world over were already playing.

This is how the monopolization of force works. When you own all the force, you can kill people whenever you want. It's just a question of when's the next time the person(s) with all the force want to kill someone really badly. Drones may make this easier, but they don't do anything that wasn't already being done.

I agree its an old game. Nobody is disputing that the government has always done somewhat underhanded things to preserve the state.

The issue is the ease with which drones bring the 'alternative' options to the fray. Committing special task force squads, bombing with stealth craft, snipers, poison, etc, etc. All of these are relatively complex methods, and usually require considerable planning and foresight. They also tend to have fairly large political repurcussions if brought to light. For example, if it turned out we were inserting special forces squads into France to kill people, can you imagine the diplomatic ramifications once the French government found out?

The result being that before the state undertakes that kind of action, it seriously vets whether or not it is necessary. Is it worth the potential political/diplomatic fallout, is it worth the level of resources being committed, and how certain are they of the necessity for undertaking the action (i.e. is Mr Qatada actually just on holiday).

Drones reduce all of this. It's airborne, so there's no need for the complications of moving humans around. It costs a fixed sum of money, so the resources are known definitively. The political and diplomatic fallout is a lot less than other options. And above all else, it is exceedingly easy. Mrs May simply gives the order, and some chap over at an RAF base plays a computer game (effectively).

The use of drones usually amounts to state sponsored assassination, nothing more or less. Whilst we know that kind of thing occurs, it usually happens out of sight. And that's a for a damn good reason, namely that we know how ethically dubious it is. Do you really want that sort of thing to become routine?


I personally am all in favour of the use of drones. But only in situations of open warfare, or direct immediate threat. Using them in the style of the US, to pick off one person who you think might be the one you want, and the ten people around him, is disgusting. And I would not see such a policy instituted by my government.

 Ketara wrote:
I agree its an old game. Nobody is disputing that the government has always done somewhat underhanded things to preserve the state.

The issue is the ease with which drones bring the 'alternative' options to the fray. Committing special task force squads, bombing with stealth craft, snipers, poison, etc, etc. All of these are relatively complex methods, and usually require considerable planning and foresight. They also tend to have fairly large political repurcussions if brought to light. For example, if it turned out we were inserting special forces squads into France to kill people, can you imagine the diplomatic ramifications once the French government found out?

The result being that before the state undertakes that kind of action, it seriously vets whether or not it is necessary. Is it worth the potential political/diplomatic fallout, is it worth the level of resources being committed, and how certain are they of the necessity for undertaking the action (i.e. is Mr Qatada actually just on holiday).

Drones reduce all of this. It's airborne, so there's no need for the complications of moving humans around. It costs a fixed sum of money, so the resources are known definitively. The political and diplomatic fallout is a lot less than other options. And above all else, it is exceedingly easy. Mrs May simply gives the order, and some chap over at an RAF base plays a computer game (effectively).

The use of drones usually amounts to state sponsored assassination, nothing more or less. Whilst we know that kind of thing occurs, it usually happens out of sight. And that's a for a damn good reason, namely that we know how ethically dubious it is. Do you really want that sort of thing to become routine?


I personally am all in favour of the use of drones. But only in situations of open warfare, or direct immediate threat. Using them in the style of the US, to pick off one person who you think might be the one you want, and the ten people around him, is disgusting. And I would not see such a policy instituted by my government.

I think it's safe to assume you guys will probably operate under the aegis of our, "Yeah, sure, we'll play along with acting like your political grandstanding could affect us in the slightest," concern-free drone use as long as you continue buying all of your cool toys from us.

Restricting offensive drone use - or any of the varied equivalents - only to situations of open warfare or even direct immediate threat simply fails to acknowledge the nature of modern conflict.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how effective it will be against illegal drug shipments.

They won't be.

 Seaward wrote:


Restricting offensive drone use - or any of the varied equivalents - only to situations of open warfare or even direct immediate threat simply fails to acknowledge the nature of modern conflict.

Absolute rubbish. Whilst the nature of middle-eastern terrorism has become a new factor, I do not buy even for a minute that, 'Kill people in other countries and the twenty people who happen to be standing around them' is a valid method of resolving modern conflict outside of warfare and immediate threats. If anything, all it does it breed additional mistrust and resentment, as those twenty other people have families and friends too.

 Ketara wrote:
Absolute rubbish. Whilst the nature of middle-eastern terrorism has become a new factor, I do not buy even for a minute that, 'Kill people in other countries and the twenty people who happen to be standing around them' is a valid method of resolving modern conflict outside of warfare and immediate threats. If anything, all it does it breed additional mistrust and resentment, as those twenty other people have families and friends too.

Do you think people getting killed because they happened to be standing near a viable target is something new? If anything, we're reducing the amount of collateral damage that would be inflicted by the alternatives - a Tomahawk from somewhere over the horizon or a Rhino dropping a JDAM or whatever. These are targets we're going to hit, one way or another, because waiting to get punched before hitting back doesn't work anymore.

 LordofHats wrote:
Because if the government couldn't just up and kill people before it totally can now. I mean, all the spec ops teams, covert intelligence agencies, smart bombs, tanks, and aircraft carriers were just practice. It's this that will forever tip the proverbial balance. /Sarcasm

People have a weird way of looking at the world.

Well, here's the thing. While it's true that of course, governments have always been able to project force; drones remove a lot of the political danger due to the lack of (friendly) casualties. As a result of that, they also remove a lot of the restraint that would normally accompany that force.

To quote a film:

Do you know why I do what I do? I mean, there are more prestigious assignments. Keeping track of nuclear arsenals. You'd think that more critical to world security. But it's not. No. Nine out of ten war victims today are killed with assault rifles and small arms. Like yours. Those nuclear missiles, they sit in their silos. Your AK-47, that is the real weapon of mass destruction.

We could kill a lot of people with all aircraft carriers we own, but we don't. We use the Reapers quite a bit, though.

I'm not against drones, though. Not at all - I'm all for any technology that protects the lives of our troops. I'm simply concerned with the methods with which they are being deployed, and again, how divorcing the danger from the action naturally tends to liberalize the use of them.

Seaward wrote:
Do you think people getting killed because they happened to be standing near a viable target is something new? If anything, we're reducing the amount of collateral damage that would be inflicted by the alternatives - a Tomahawk from somewhere over the horizon or a Rhino dropping a JDAM or whatever. These are targets we're going to hit, one way or another, because waiting to get punched before hitting back doesn't work anymore.

That's the thing though. If the Drones weren't available, would we be lobbing Tomahawks around? Would those alternatives actually in fact, be being used? I personally think that you would find that the number of casualties inflicted would actually drop quite sharply, and far fewer people would be killed. Why? Because as Ouze very eloquently put it:

Ouze wrote:
they also remove a lot of the restraint that would normally accompany that force.

I have no problem with drones per say. I have no problems with them even being used in specific situations either.

What worries me is that because of their ease of use, they are used in situations that would not previously have warranted such an extreme response as state sanctioned assassination. Problems that may well previously have been resolved through diplomacy or other methods, are replaced with the use of drones. Death from the sky becomes the standard coin for dealing with certain situations, rather than a last resort.

There will be times when such techniques and methods as drones are appropriate. But their ease of use and lack of consequences, means that more peaceful and appropriate methods are circumvented in favour of the, 'Sod it, let's just kill him and the twenty people around him approach'.

The more drone strikes the more we can slash from Defense

Ketara wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Because if the government couldn't just up and kill people before it totally can now. I mean, all the spec ops teams, covert intelligence agencies, smart bombs, tanks, and aircraft carriers were just practice. It's this that will forever tip the proverbial balance. /Sarcasm

People have a weird way of looking at the world.

Not so weird when you think about it. Put it this way.

Abu Qatada returns to his homeland and starts activities that we suspect may have something to do with terrorism. He's holed up with his best mates up in the mountains somewhere, and the Jordanian Government doesn't care enough to pursue him. Mrs May has no ability to seize him (another country), deploying military forces is diplomatically unacceptable and impossible, and spies aren't exactly going to work to find out what he's up to (they'd be obvious somewhere remote).

Now keep in mind here, that we have no evidence that Mr Qatada is actually doing anything wrong. All we have is something purely circumstantial, that would never suffice in a British law of court to even mount a prosecution.

With our new drone capabilities, now all she has to do is drop a drone on his head. Nice and simple. Proof is irrelevant, nobody will start a war over it, and there's a good chance most people won't even care. The fact it might take out the two or three people standing around him is also deemed 'politically acceptable'.

Now, is it not somewhat dicey that our government will have the capacity to do such things? Within our own moral and legal framework, is it not worrying that our government will be able to just sidestep the law and kill people like this?

Some of you may say, 'ah, its Qatada, so it doesn't matter'. But what if its somebody else without such notoriety? They'd still be deemed 'politically acceptable' losses, them and everyone around them.

Remember, suspicion is not proof of guilt. And I'm not entirely sure I trust our polticians with the potential power to obliterate people around the globe without real consequences. Even if it is supposedly in my own interests. There's a fine line when it comes to protecting your people, and I think this may cross it.

This is very well said. Please take an exalt, sir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:The more drone strikes the more we can slash from Defense

I think the cost would just be taken out of your morality instead.

Your talking about politicians...politicians with morality.....funny.....