Military Drones Contract Keylogger Virus

[ihax4snax]

I don't understand how that is wrong. All that is doing is roughly dividing the deaths by half. Seeing as USA has the drones, why should you care? Unless you think that is is better for USA soldiers to put their lives at risk than be immoral, then drones are going in the right directions. The less human casualties the better.

 

[cookyy2k]

I don't understand how that is wrong. All that is doing is roughly dividing the deaths by half. Seeing as USA has the drones, why should you care? Unless you think that is is better for USA soldiers to put their lives at risk than be immoral, then drones are going in the right directions. The less human casualties the better.

Think he probably still has the romantic image of war where you charge in on your horse have a bit of sword play then all go home for tea once the winner has been decided. But since the tech exists to have drones, jets and cruise missiles they do exist.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

It's a keylogger. It can't be used to control the drones it just means that whoever put it in will be able to tell what the drones are being used for.

It's pretty friggin obvious what it's being used for!


Anyway, i'm going ot be sensible here, and say that THE ROBOTS ARE TAKING OVER, OH GOD WE'RE DOOMED, RUN!!!

So yeah, that's just my take on things ;P

 

[MasterSplinter]

That said, the only real question is when we'll see these drones struck by a truly malicious threat. Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

Allright. Who let 1983's matthew broderick near a internet conection and a hot girl again?

 

[Treblaine]

Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

When the hell did any of the rules of war necessitate that you HAVE to put yourself in harms way in order to deal a blow to the enemy?

Snipers, Artillery, roadside bombs, tanks, machine guns with interlocking fields of fire, every military strategy is about dealing the maximum damage to the enemy with the minimum risk to yourself.

Are you suggesting that if there was some way that all of our soldiers could be made 100% bullet and Bomb proof you would oppose that?

You would oppose a method that would prevent any more of your country's soldiers returning home in a coffin? Would you oppose it SIMPLY because our soldiers MUST be in harms way in order to conduct the business of war? It may be a tactical necessity to put them in harms way to achieve an objective, but it is no moral necessity.

This is totally immoral.

No, this is totally unfair, but that's what war is. You think roadside bombs are fair? You think "banning" them is any kind of solution?

If you think "war" is everyone dressing in bright colours, lining up in front of each other in an orderly fashion and taking turns to shoot at each other, that is not the "most moral" of war. That is a careless waste of life. Arbritrarily putting your soldiers in harms way just to "make it fair" utterly betrays the purpose of war.

Do not mistake the unavoidably of soldiers dying in combat with their necessity that they MUST die as a matter of morality.

War is about winning!

The rules of war forbid things that do not serve victory but are merely vindictive. Like mistreating prisoners. It is actually in the army's benefit to offer to treat enemy prisoners with decency as if there is the threat of summary execution or torture then they will be likely to surrender, but will never surrender, will fight to the very end far beyond the point of defending their objectives if its the only way to avoid a terrible fate.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Just imagine, important mission going on. Drones performing recon over enemy territory. Generals and the President sit in front of the screen, when suddenly big green bold letters shine on "CHEAP PENIS DRUGS XXX".

 

[Treblaine]

double post

 

[FFHAuthor]

Mark my words, the Airforce is just gonna go over to Linux.

 

[VincentX3]

I SWEAR I WASN'T LOOKING AT PORN IN THE DRONES!!

<.<
¬.¬

Come on... you know you thought it too.

 

[Muphin_Mann]

I find this rather terrifying. A lot of black hats are sociopaths who, if they knew they could get away with it, wouldnt be averse to killing people with their own rogue drones. The only difference between the amoral psychopath who trolls people online and the one that starts strangling hookers is the level of risk they are comfortable with. I would NOT want a drone in the hands of a hacker.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

Frak that.

I believe a line from Sun Tzu is in order here:

Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.

One of the basics of war; the best and most powerful military forces will reduce all possible harm that could be done to their forces while making sure never to let an opportunity to strike at their enemies go to waste.

If that means using a bunch of UAVs to rain silent death down upon unsuspecting targets from miles away, then so be it. Why risk your own neck when you can risk a replaceable drone instead?

 

[Treblaine]

War is already just about tolerated as an occasionally necessary evil, I honestly think there should be as many sanctions in place as possible to restrict the use of excessive force when fighting against an enemy.

Don't you realise you are playing directly into Republican/Conservative paranoia about these various arms agreements? These arms agreements have always on the surface stated that they exist to diminish the chance of unnecessary suffering, NOT as a means to hobble justified military action in some kind of pacifist conspiracy.

But that is PRECISELY what you are saying you want these laws of war should be there for! Be nothing but arbitrary restrictions on justified use of military force for no other cause than the assumption that all use of military force is wrong, even when facing an incredibly dangerous and amoral enemy.

Using this tech to protect settlements and civillians, I can get behind. As for the application of this tech in an offensive capacity, that's a moral grey area for me, but I do believe that yes, we should be using our technological advantage for capture/protection, and not for killing.

They are protecting civilians. These UAvs are decapitating organisations who are running operation to murder civilians by the thousands and continue to do so in every village they take there are reprisals against anyone who diverged from their primitivist ideology.

You cannot capture these individuals. Especially with a UAV when it may have to loiter for as much as 24 hours waiting for their target to expose itself for just a moment, then launch a supersonic missile. And even with armed interdiction on foot, you cannot take any chanced trying to capture them at gun-point. Literally within less than a second of seeing them you need to put a bullet through their brain and through the brain of every one near them, as that's the only way to counter the suicide bomb menace.

If we're facing a foe on equal footing, THEN we should be going all out, simply because there's a possibility (nay, a likelihoods) that the enemy is doing the same.

You can'e seriously believe that if we offer to fight the Taliban on "equal footing" that they will take up that offer? That they won't continue to fight as a smart enemy, only picking the fights they think they can win.

Don't you realise the contradiction of "equal footing" yet "all out". All out would be to use all the technology, and capability we have to defeat the Taliban.

 

[Denamic]

"We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,"
I read that as "We keep pressing the 'No' button when it pops up, and it keeps coming back".

 

[yuval152]

NO! he's gonna steal my Porn little pony account.

 

[Treblaine]

For christ's sake, I wasn't talking about what I think war is actually like, I was just trying to explain my view on the morality of it all.

Well I think your morality is contradictory and shallow.

Also, can you explain why our own troops dying is more of a blow to the human race than one of the enemy dying? what entitles us to disregard the effect of the death of a misguided extremist, but to regard the death of one of our own as a far greater tragedy?

Err, because they are misguided extremist! Why else?

These extremists are enemies of any human who disagrees with their delusions (which is most humans including most Muslims). These extremists endorse and practice premeditated murder of children who are taught in any school other than one that teaches their oppressive delusions. They are oppressors of humanity. If they get their way, humans suffer. They will suffer for generations.

And these UAV attacks don't attack the young who are told lies, they target the originator of the lies, those who give the order to burn down a school full of children. Those who give the order to execute the jewish journalist. Death comes to those who give the order for others to go on suicidal shooting sprees while they sit where they assume they are safe from any repercussion.

Our soldiers are fighting against that. It IS a tragedy when each one of them is killed by those sick fuckers and their death cult.

It is a death cult. All of human life is nothing but a means to an end of their delusion that "god will sort it out" the revel in how if everyone died they will go to heaven and everyone else will go to hell.

That's the moral dimension to using Unmanned Bombers.

 

[hiks89]

its skynet i tell you!

 

[Albino Boo]

I don't agree with the Taliban by any means, and I would rather see the Taliban wiped from the face of the planet.

But not the MEN. No, the Taliban is a construct based around ideas, which are fed to some gullible and deluded people. I try to justify the war by pointing out the protection of innocents, and I can agree with your sentiment, but it's still tragic that they have to die. after all, these are ordinay men, led astray by propaganda, hatred, ignorance. Only a select few of a group like that, the manipulators who start them, can be said to be bad to the core (although I'd still debate that). The death of a man is no less tragic if he died because he was misguided, or he died because he was protecting innocents. I guess that's my own ultra-lefty side showing there.

Anyway, All I'm saying is that a peacekeeping operation should remain exactly that. If we use excessive force to intentionally attack and eliminate insurgents, then fair play, we can protect civillians.... but then, that's the kind of military action that causes grieving relatives and unintentional collateral damage, leading to the creation of more extremists....

I guess you see where I'm going there. I suppose I used the worst wording I could have possibly chosen when I tried to argue in favour of "equal footing" that doesn't make sense, granted. I should have used a different argument.

But still, I don't think we can remove our own men from combat that much, as a matter of some ill-defined principle I'm trying to work out just now. *thinks hard*

Damnit, I KNOW there's a reason I beleive this. I guess my view that the death of a man is no less tragic regardless of what he did or stood for is the prevailing factor in this belief. I don't think we have the right, even if we're doing the right thing. "we're justified in removing humans from the fight, but they are not" just doesn't fly with me, not in the slightest.

Do want know why Rupert Murdoch is so successful world wide? It because it the one place that they wont have to read self indulgent posturing of bleeding heart liberals. They sit 1000s of miles away from any risk and spout utter nonsense. I would respect you if was your fragile human flesh you were putting in the way of supersonic half inch lumps of lead but no you want someone else to do it. Its this kind of smug amoral grandstanding that destroys the credibility of left. In your your world the Bosnian commander of Sarajevo was a war criminal because made extensive use of landmines. You simply ignore the fact the alternative was worse. Without those landmines those nice friendly poeple who massacred 8000 unarmed men and boys in Srebrenica would have taken Sarajevo. In real world the job of the armed forces is not to die for your country to but to make some poor bastard die for his. Everything else is window dressing.