The biggest problem with drones, currently, is that they're operated by the CIA, a civilian authority, rather than a structured organisation like the army or the airforce, where there is a chain of command with a clear line of responsibility.
What's the issue with drones? (UAVs, not bees)
- Thread starter ReadyAmyFire
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Apologies, as mentioned I'm from Northern Ireland, and I'm not too savvy on the correct titles applied to foreign heads of state. I used 'Mr.' because he's male.BabySinclair said:
Many thanks to everyone who replied too, especially those who provided links for further reading, something for me to do tomorrow. Quite happy with the response I got to this.
The U.S uses drones to attack targets without endangering any Americans, the problem is that these attacks have killed alot of civilians. I like the idea of attacking targets without putting anyone in danger, but I think the civilian deaths are too high to continue with it.
I'm not 100% sure on the context of the argument, as I've never honestly heard anyone say that the military should not use UAVs... on military targets. I've heard plenty about how there shouldn't be any UAVs used on/against US citizens (read: Christopher Dorner), but I've never seen anyone get upset simply by the use of UAVs.ReadyAmyFire said:
Well, assuming they actually know how UAVs work. I've seen people say that robots shouldn't be killing people, but that's not really how drones work in the first place, so it's not really applicable.
There's nothing inherently wrong with drones, just how he uses them. For one thing, he regularly flies them over other nations, including ones he shouldn't be involved i. There was an emberrising case where one crashed, and he asked the nation to return the drone that was being used to secretly spy on them. He also uses them recklessly in military situations. There's nothing wrong with killing known terrorists using UAV's, but a lot of innocent people get killed in the collatoral. In one situation the United States saw a marriage procession, and thought there could possibly be a member of a terrorists organization. They shot a missile, turning the wedding procession into a funeral procession. It turns out there was no terrorist there. This creates blowback, which means that it turns the local people against the U.S., making it more likely that America will be attacked again. It actually makes America less safe. Another issue is that Obama doesn't believe these people should be charged with a crime, and that his judgement is enough to order an assasination, even if the person is a United States citizen. He's already killed a United States citizen overseas for being a suspected member of al-quaeda, as well as his teenage son, who was innocent and hadn't seen his father in years. The problem is that terrorism is a crime, terrorists are not a formal military organization. The situation escalated when it was suggested that the rules used to justify these actions overseas could be used at home as well.ReadyAmyFire said:
The main issue is that politicians want to use drones to constantly spy on their own citizens, and potentially even arm those drones. If the government is as careless at home as they are overseas, it could be bad. The primary fear is that the United States is coming closer to becoming a police state that has surveillance systems in place to watch citizens at all time. They already tap our phone records without probable cause, which means you don't have to suspected of a crime to be watched. Furthermore they're developing drones no larger than a bird, which means they could be watching you and you wouldn't even know it. This affects all nations, not just the U.S., because he's already used them to spy on other nations. If he's willing to violate the privacy of his own people, he will not hesitate to do the same to other nations.
The republicans support this too. McCain, the man who ran against Obama, largely supports these measures, and so did
Romney. Some people, like Ron Paul, and his son, are against these actions, but most politicians tend to support it. The issue is getting a lot of attention because Rand Paul filibustered the issue in congress.
This may have been a little more in depth than you wanted, so sorry if it's confusing. Basicly people just don't want to be spied on. Hope it helps
I don't see how it's much different from a mortar in that regards. Artillery is also a hell of a lot more dehumanizing in that regards. So is dropping a bomb from a plane when the enemy hasn't got anti-aircraft weapons.FireAza said:
This is the only issue I can really see with them:
The fact that they are seemingly not classified under the same as other forms of military action is disturbing. A person manning a drone should be considered the same as a pilot of a fighter craft in regards to the rules of engagement and such. The fact they don't seem to have the same kind of legislation in place in regards to their usage is the only fault I can really find.Esotera said:
It's not the usage of drones I find objectionable, it's the way that they have been and are being used.
By the same token, so are bomber planes, except it's mere miles instead of hundreds.FireAza said:
OT: ...Bleh. Drones fill me with sad, and I have no rational comments beyond that.
Their use for air strikes against targets in Pakistan may have something to do with it.ReadyAmyFire said:
A Reaper can carry 3800lbs of weapons, including Hellfires and JDAMs, a number of these have been fired into populated areas, which is not against US military rules of engagement as the drones are operated by the CIA and the CIA define anyone within the blast radius as an enemy combatant (whether identified or not).
Basically they are being used as unofficial weapons of terror and assassination, which isn't stacking up problems for America and the rest of the western world at all.
This is one of the many reasons I have a problem with drones. Anything that makes war easier and reduces the death toll is a bad thing IMO. Being able to send your robot armies to fight each other like a game of urban-warfare-chess takes away a lot of the reticence behind starting a war.Ultratwinkie said:
Another big issue is the effects on the drone "pilots" themselves. PTSD is several percentage points higher in that group than in the actual gun-toting soldiers, because of how much cognitive dissonance there is trying to justify killing someone who isn't a direct threat to them. One "pilot" in a news article I read the other day said he watched one of his "marks" bleed to death for several minutes after blowing up their convoy, and he still has flashbacks and nightmares about it.
OP: Hope this helps you out. If you want my opinion on civilian law-enforcement use of UAVs, which is another animal entirely, just say so. I've got a lot to say on that topic.
Now this I did not know, is the CIA a civilian agency? That seems messy from a rules of engagement/laws of war standpoint.fix-the-spade said:
What do people generally think then of the companies and people that develop and build these things? There's a good chance I'll find myself as part of this military-industrial complex. I remember when I thought engineering would be a pretty ethically neutral career choice.
I believe that this runs into the idea that advancing technology is our ethical responsibility. You can't claim that developing weapons capable of keeping your soldiers out of harm's way (by not having them directly engaged with the enemy)unethical any more than you can claim building a manufacturing robot that replaces a human worker unethical. By stifling the advances of technology, you resign a future human to unwarented suffering for the supposed good today.
The way the technology is used can be argued, but its creation must happen for the betterment of our species. We are inventors; we will invent.
The way the technology is used can be argued, but its creation must happen for the betterment of our species. We are inventors; we will invent.
The CIA is a frightening entity, and needs to be disbanded. Intelligence gathering is important, but the military should be the one to act on the intelligence. The CIA helped overthrow the Iranian government in 1953, and set up a dictator in charge. When Iran overthrew the government, surprise surprise, they came to hate us. People wonder why there is so much hatred against us in the region, but most Americans are unaware of the things our government has done without our knowledge. The Iranians remember though, and so do our other enemies. It's counter productive.ReadyAmyFire said:
Sorry, it's been bugging me for a bit and I apologize if the first part of my response was inappropriate. The general rule of thumb that I use is their position as title; Prime Minister, President, Senator, Queen, and so forth.ReadyAmyFire said:
That's a good question and I don't know, all the engineers I know work in retail electronics or motorsports, nobody ever questions themReadyAmyFire said:
I used to know a guy who worked at Rolls Royce aero blowing up jet engines (no really, that was his job) and when the military question came up he always insisted it was airliner turbofans he worked with.
wow an american that actually know his stuff, that is amaizing most of them where perplexed when i mention the shit american did in central/south america, and the middle eastFox12 said:
Eeeeeyup. I said it.Griffolion said:
True, but when someone says the word "terrorist", what nationality/race do you most commonly associate with that term? Wish I could find the source for this, I just remember hearing it on the news. But a guy at the NSA was asked about the issue of profiling people when he was making the case about profiling people of middle eastern dissent moreso than other nationalities. He admitted that no, not all terrorists are middle eastern, however it would be silly to act like they're not the most common offenders. As the numbers show, middle eastern people are the most likely to be associated with terrorism - not the only ones to be associated with it, just the most likely. To say we shouldn't be profiling them despite those numbers just so we don't come off looking like racists is naïve. Like I said, I've got no source on that quote, so take it for what you will. Beyond that, I try to refrain from getting dragged into discussions like this, so I'm gonna go ahead and call it quits here.
So to you or anyone else that might want to respond to the above comment: don't expect a response in return. Again, take that however you'd like and have a pleasant day.
War has always been about seizing advantages, ruining your enemies ability your ability to fight, and prevent as many losses as possible. Quick wars were on side utterly eradicates the other side is actually is better for both nations. Quick wars mean less of the economy is destroyed, there is less injury and suffering, and finally less people die. Making a fair war is to create a LONG war.FireAza said:
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."
-Sun Tzu
Besides, if we all agree war is the only means to resolve a situation, we must go out and kill for some goal, why should we send our own people to die? Yes, the blurry infared images are hard to really think of as human for the operator, but otherwise that person would be required to go out and personally try to kill them. They will have less reservations about killing the blips on the screen, but the operator will not have to live with the deaths they caused haunting them for the rest of their lives, if they don't die themselves.
News to me, I thought we were pretty happy go lucky with the whole drone thing. I can see where a fully automated and infinite army is scary, but it's what we're building towards, and it is saving [our] lives. So, good job on the drones and can't wait to see what comes next.
The problem I've seen more of is when the same drones are turned on the US. The ones that fly overhead of cities and communities surveying the american populace and that I have a problem with. The fact that they're doing it and the implications thereof(like not being able to trust your own people?) is more unsettling than the idea of having a mechanical army.
The problem I've seen more of is when the same drones are turned on the US. The ones that fly overhead of cities and communities surveying the american populace and that I have a problem with. The fact that they're doing it and the implications thereof(like not being able to trust your own people?) is more unsettling than the idea of having a mechanical army.
Theres a lot to consider.ReadyAmyFire said:
first up , and this i know is an odd concept that woolly thinking liberals keep banging on about but some peace loving hippies actually believe murdering people is wrong!
any change in the capabilities of a nation is an escalation, someone builds an anti missile system that can shoot down our cruise missiles, well whats wrong with that? its purely defensive it just ups their safety. well yes but what is our response going to be? were going to make better missiles or invent a new form of delivery aren't we? there's no way we can sit there at a disadvantage.
So what do UAV's do to the equation. well the American military has one problem, its owned by a republic so public opinion matters, and it matters alot, this weakness cost them Korea , Vietnam and the first and arguably second Iraq war, in addition it changes the way America fights, it cant cut loose with full chemical bio and nuclear capabilities because it has to answer to the populace. UAV's can be deployed in far greater numbers. it takes much less time to train someone to pilot these things than it does a modern aircraft. so its a massive escalation and it removes the public backlash of seeing those boxes coming back draped in flags. IE it removes the cost that matters to a theater of war and makes hostile actions less costly which lowers the bar and that's never a good thing.
Realistically how long is it till the interface is changed or removed full automation may not be something that's actually desirable let alone practical , but if it can fly itself and the controller simply designates targets via satellite imaging or whatever which will be a massive further escalation of ability that will need to be countered.
Then you have issues of use and control. if America wants to bomb somewhere right now you have to go to the military a body that has strict rules of engagement, is open to public review and is answerable for its actions. add UAV's to the mix and any TLA (Three letter agency , FBI, NSA, CIA etc) can utilize these tools
the list of targets the Air force is wanting and willing to bomb with these devices in the open is quite probably a lot different than the list the CIA thinks it can get away with in the name of freedom under total secrecy.