What's the issue with drones? (UAVs, not bees)

[ReadyAmyFire]

Snipped

Succinct and informative post, thank you. Others have touched on the surveillance aspect, which I can understand, especially if the US government is using them on US citizens, but you seem to touch on the protestations I originally saw which seems to be around the use of UAVs as weapons delivery platforms in a conflict zone.

With regard to what you say about removing the cost in terms of human lives, is the UCAV any different to an artillery shell, torpedo, cruise missile, or to stretch the metaphor, a crossbow bolt in this respect? Trying to achieve your military aims with as little risk to your own people as possible seems like a worthwhile thing to do.

With regard to target designation, I don't think what you've described is a new thing, Iran Air 655 was targeted and fired upon merely as a dot on a radar screen if I remember correctly? And doesn't the military already try to diffuse responsibility for killing by employing more crew-served weapons?

You last paragraph is the one I find the most interesting, and it's something other posters have brought up, regarding the fact that UCAV's are employed by the CIA, outside of the rules and doctrines the military is bound to and even worse may not even be answerable for it's actions?

Sorry if that's a little long winded with a great many questions, this is something I've recently become very interested in and frankly a little shocked at my level of ignorance towards.

 

[Griffolion]

Eeeeeyup. I said it.

Yeah, I can see that...

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.

I most commonly think of a group like the IRA. But I must be in the minority. Still, making an ad populum argument by saying that it's okay to just say "X goes over to insert middle eastern country here and become a terrorist", and then justifying it by saying "well most people associate terrorists with middle eastern people" is a bit of a cop-out. You could have easily just have made that comment a non-regional comment, thus avoiding the whole thing.

 

[OneCatch]

...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.

Now this I did not know, is the CIA a civilian agency? That seems messy from a rules of engagement/laws of war standpoint.

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.

Yeah, engineering itself is ethically neutral - it's the application that makes the difference.

If you don't want to build weapons, then go into a career building civilian/surveillance models. It's a booming market. In fairness to drones, for every model of armed drone there are 20 that aren't - even in military applications the majority are for recon and surveillance.
Even the first Predator models were surveillance drones with Hellfire missiles bolted to the sides.

Ultimately it isn't the drones themselves that are unethical though (any more than the LCD screens they're video feeds are displayed on, or the chairs the operators sit in).
It's the current Western policies governing their use which is utterly morally bankrupt.


In answer to previous questions - yes the CIA is civilian; the drones are seconded to them specifically to bypass the Geneva Conventions and various 'laws of war', and to avoid the US having to actually declare war before bombing.
In fact, the CIA gets most of the horrible jobs because they can bypass various international treaties and constitutional 'difficulties' by virtue of being civilian.
That's why the CIA's Special Activities Division [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division] gets a lot of the sedition/espionage/false flag/assassination side of things, which military outfits like the SEALs or Force Recon, or whatever, cannot legally do.

 

[Abomination]

I refuse to feel bad about my allies having the upper hand in an armed conflict. Would I rather those I am not allied with have that technology? Of course not.

Every revolution in warfare has been brought about by one side introducing a weapon or tactic that allows them to strike at the enemy with little fear of retaliation. First it was the spear, then it was the bow, then it was the shield, then it was trained dogs, then it was armour, then it was the horse, then it was the pike and formations, then it was the fort, then it was siege equipment, then it was the longbow, then it was the matchlock, then the cannon, then rifling, then scopes, then bolt action, then repeaters, then automatics, then trench warfare, then artillery, then armoured vehicles, then bombers, then fighters, then submarines, then rockets, then jet fighters, then smart bombs, then drones.

Every invention has been about either putting the wielders spear point further from the wielder and closer to the enemy or introducing a barrier between the enemy's spear point and the wielder's person. The next evolution here will likely be a form of cyber warfare to identify where the drone pilots or command centers are located so their own drones can strike there. What will happen after that? Perhaps EMP devices... who knows?

This is how warfare evolves, it always had and it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As long as a human is still pulling the trigger then I am fine with it, no matter how far away from the tip of his spear he happens to be. When the trigger is being pulled by something OTHER than a human then - and only then - have we got a serious problem.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Check out the bureau of investigative journalism, they're the ones who have gathered most of the data behind this story, and it's a fairly decent resource for the statistics. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

The issue is drones have killed thousands of civilians & result in extrajudicial killings. If America invaded Pakistan and killed hundreds of people there would be international outrage, but if they use drones nobody can stop them as there's no precedent. Some of the targets have also been American citizens who have been denied their right to a fair trial, even if they are guilty. It also results in psychological terror for anyone living in the error due to the constant droning overhead.

Also the way things are going a couple of decades from now drones will be able to make autonomous decisions on whether to kill or not. That is distinctly not cool and we should instinctively rebel against that.

I'm a bit baffled it took all the way to the bottom of the page to actually mention the large proportion of civilians killed with seemingly no political backlash by drones.

This point right here is why people are protesting, because drones are being used as consequence-less killing machines, and have ended up generating disturbingly frequent reports of cases where civilians have been caught in the crossfire of their strikes and killed, and then these leaks come out: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781930-exclusive-cia-didnt-always-know-who-it-was-killing-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show?lite

It's not so much the idea of having autonomous killing machines (although some people are worried about that) It's the fact that no one has any idea how many people have been killed by the relentless drone strikes in the Middle East, and what percentage was valid military/invalid civilian targets, yet they continue to be not only used but their use is increasing at a startlingly fast rate.

 

[zumbledum]

With regard to what you say about removing the cost in terms of human lives, is the UCAV any different to an artillery shell, torpedo, cruise missile, or to stretch the metaphor, a crossbow bolt in this respect? Trying to achieve your military aims with as little risk to your own people as possible seems like a worthwhile thing to do.

Indeed its exactly like that , and thats a problem on the basic human level we call it the arms race, each war is far more destructive than the last because both sides do this, but the relevant point to this debate that i admit i didn't make overly clear is the affect of escalation and threat, seeing dead Americans come home in box's is the big limiting factor, if America gains the ability to wage war remotely and remove the cost of American lives it makes it much more practical and therefore likely that America will act in a hostile manner, and even if that's not true every other nation has to consider this increased threat and respond. basically by upping the ante other nations will feel pressured into also increasing their military abilities to counter the increased American Threat, the worrying thing is clearly no one can compete financially or technologically so the only option will be increased nuclear chemical and biological vectors.

With regard to target designation, I don't think what you've described is a new thing, Iran Air 655 was targeted and fired upon merely as a dot on a radar screen if I remember correctly? And doesn't the military already try to diffuse responsibility for killing by employing more crew-served weapons?

Indeed it was. but a number of things had to fail badly for that to happen , the traffic controllers, radar ops and the fighter pilots all dropped the ball that day, now imagine how more likely mistakes like that are more likely to happen when the entire process is being run by one guy in a bunker controlling who knows how many drones and their being a mass number of this uav controllers. Making war and destruction a remote and safe thing to inflict is just lowering the bar and making it more likely to happen. If america had this tech up and running 10-15 years ago would we already have seen them used against Syria, Iran and who knows who else?

You last paragraph is the one I find the most interesting, and it's something other posters have brought up, regarding the fact that UCAV's are employed by the CIA, outside of the rules and doctrines the military is bound to and even worse may not even be answerable for it's actions?

The Bay of Pigs. (attempted invasion of Cuba)

Operation Northwoods (planned mass false flag terrorist attacks on the American nation using plane hijacks bombs and mass shootings all to be framed to lay blame on Cuba to allow america to invade. bit too close to what happened on sep 11 if you ask me)

They funded Saddam Hussein Ba'ath party coup in Iraq, they had a hand in putting Gaddafi in power
both done to turn the region away from pro communist regimes to more American friendly , the irony of that can not be lost on anyone.

they trained and funded the Taliban , They were brave freedom fighters, fighting off the yolk of the evil soviet aggressor at the time, noticing a pattern here?

They fund and support a feudal government and help put down pro democracy rallies in Saudi Arabia. see America is all for democracy so long as there not going to vote in an Islamic regime. or one that wont sell tehm oil and let them build airbases anyway.

I mention these notable highlights to show the kind of thing these so called people get up to as it is, and to illustrate the clear and present moral danger of letting these guys get their hands on drone tech. the whole point i guess is you cant simply think of the times and places this tech should be used you have to consider all the motives and goals of all the people that can and will get their hands on it.

Sorry if that's a little long winded with a great many questions, this is something I've recently become very interested in and frankly a little shocked at my level of ignorance towards.

np at all its an interesting topic and a good debate

 

[Devil's Due]

Drone pilots are also getting the same amount of PTSD that regular pilots get from combat since they are stuck in a weird loop where they wake up and see their kids off to school and have to kill people during their day and then return to see their kids again. This creates some psychological confusion and potential damage since they are not fully envolped in either world. If they were deployed and doing this, it'd be easier since they wake up and end the day in a combat zone, but to wake up as a civilian, be an airman, and then be a civilian again once they leave just leads to a lost of difficulty.

If I had to make some AFI (Air Force Instruction, the rules that the USAF goes by), I'd make it to

1) Drones may not be armed unless in an already established combat engagement.

2) Drones may be used for surveillance but at no time may they violate the first AFI.

Basically meaning if they're going out to watch people, they cannot have weapons armed. If they are watching people and even if the people are obviously planting bombs, they cannot fire. They may only fire during engagement where troops are currently under attack and request air support. Once the engagement ends and the troops are fine, the drone is required to de-arm anything left over. It cannot be used as an offensive weapon or a preemptive weapon, only defensive or surveillance basically.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm a student engineer and we've spent a lot of the past three years talking about UAVs, even designed and built a miniature one this year, and at no point has any lecturer mentioned that there were ethical considerations to their use, so all this talk of banning them has gone well over my head (pun totally intended).

Do your drones fire missiles that can be authorised through non-standard channels to be legally used on American citizens?

Have your drones been used to kill American citizens, including ones we have now admitted were likely innocent and NOT the intended target?

 

[Nieroshai]

You have some guy, hundreds of miles away, joystick in hand, ending the lives of living human beings (who look like nothing more then little dots) with the touch of a button. It's a tad unfair and kinda disturbing how easy and dehumanizing it makes the act of taking a life.

I didn't think we were talking about UCAVs in specific. I got more of the impression this was about spy drones.

 

[Fox12]

...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.

Now this I did not know, is the CIA a civilian agency? That seems messy from a rules of engagement/laws of war standpoint.

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.

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.

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 east

I blame the educational system, which has become a bit of a cheer leader for the government. None of my teachers ever taught any of this in school, and most people don't learn about it until college, if they learn about it at all. It's not unusual I suppose, seeing as most Japanese schools won't teach about Nanking. There's a strong difference between the American people and the American government, but it's difficult to criticize the one without people thinking your criticizing the other. This is unfortunate, because we're simply repeating our mistakes.

 

[Abomination]

Drone pilots are also getting the same amount of PTSD that regular pilots get from combat since they are stuck in a weird loop where they wake up and see their kids off to school and have to kill people during their day and then return to see their kids again. This creates some psychological confusion and potential damage since they are not fully envolped in either world. If they were deployed and doing this, it'd be easier since they wake up and end the day in a combat zone, but to wake up as a civilian, be an airman, and then be a civilian again once they leave just leads to a lost of difficulty.

Wait, what? Breakfast cooked by the wife in the morning, clock in, kill some people, come home, hug the kid, throw a tennis ball for the dog... remember that is exactly what you saw some guy thousands of miles away doing before you destroyed the building next to him.

Jeez, who thought it would be a good idea to allow such a quick transition between combat zone and civilian life?! Barracks were invented for a reason and it isn't just to be accommodation for troops.

 

[TheMyffic]

It completely desensitizes you to the horror and brutality of taking life. The bravery of being out of range...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rekuWIKr55A

 

[shootthebandit]

1) these systems are incredibly good. Especially when these aircraft are equiped with "beyond visual range" weapons. They wont fire unless the target can be visually identified though which sort of renders them useless. Yeah they would still need a human operator to release the weapon

Yeah, that's what I meant.

2) currently but UAV development is advancing VERY rapidly

True, but you only need fast maneuvers when fighting other planes (I think), and they aren't used for that. Though, yeah, things will change in the future.

Its naturally the next step. And its coming pretty quickly just google taranis and see what it can do. Its only a prototype at the minute but its getting there

 

[Devil's Due]

Drone pilots are also getting the same amount of PTSD that regular pilots get from combat since they are stuck in a weird loop where they wake up and see their kids off to school and have to kill people during their day and then return to see their kids again. This creates some psychological confusion and potential damage since they are not fully envolped in either world. If they were deployed and doing this, it'd be easier since they wake up and end the day in a combat zone, but to wake up as a civilian, be an airman, and then be a civilian again once they leave just leads to a lost of difficulty.

Wait, what? Breakfast cooked by the wife in the morning, clock in, kill some people, come home, hug the kid, throw a tennis ball for the dog... remember that is exactly what you saw some guy thousands of miles away doing before you destroyed the building next to him.

Jeez, who thought it would be a good idea to allow such a quick transition between combat zone and civilian life?! Barracks were invented for a reason and it isn't just to be accommodation for troops.

I'm slight confused as to what you're talking about. RPA operators are officers and generally life off base housing in a regular neighborhood since they have such a high BAH compared to the enlisted who generally have to live in a barracks because of their below-minimum pay wages.

Unless you mean they should have some sort of buffer after doing a shift for the RPA operators and help them figure out and deal with what just happened before being allowed back home, then I agree completely. Maybe a de-brief with a psychologist afterwards if there was any ordinance used (the military is so terrified of any psychological issues that people will utterly refuse to talk to psychologists while in because it may ruin their careers) and just have a chat and then release 'em. Hell, I was even considering becoming an RPA while in Air Force ROTC to become a 2nd LT.

EDIT: Hope I didn't misread your post and end up acting like an ass. Sorry.

 

[Abomination]

Drone pilots are also getting the same amount of PTSD that regular pilots get from combat since they are stuck in a weird loop where they wake up and see their kids off to school and have to kill people during their day and then return to see their kids again. This creates some psychological confusion and potential damage since they are not fully envolped in either world. If they were deployed and doing this, it'd be easier since they wake up and end the day in a combat zone, but to wake up as a civilian, be an airman, and then be a civilian again once they leave just leads to a lost of difficulty.

Wait, what? Breakfast cooked by the wife in the morning, clock in, kill some people, come home, hug the kid, throw a tennis ball for the dog... remember that is exactly what you saw some guy thousands of miles away doing before you destroyed the building next to him.

Jeez, who thought it would be a good idea to allow such a quick transition between combat zone and civilian life?! Barracks were invented for a reason and it isn't just to be accommodation for troops.

I'm slight confused as to what you're talking about. RPA operators are officers and generally life off base housing in a regular neighborhood since they have such a high BAH compared to the enlisted who generally have to live in a barracks because of their below-minimum pay wages.

Unless you mean they should have some sort of buffer after doing a shift for the RPA operators and help them figure out and deal with what just happened before being allowed back home, then I agree completely. Maybe a de-brief with a psychologist afterwards if there was any ordinance used (the military is so terrified of any psychological issues that people will utterly refuse to talk to psychologists while in because it may ruin their careers) and just have a chat and then release 'em. Hell, I was even considering becoming an RPA while in Air Force ROTC to become a 2nd LT.

EDIT: Hope I didn't misread your post and end up acting like an ass. Sorry.

You mentioned that some individuals were able to essentially command a drone to kill someone and then they would go home in the afternoon, clocking out of work essentially, and be back in civilian life. I thought that having such a situation is insane as barracks were designed to ensure there was a barrier between military life and civilian life.

The need for this barrier is because the two can no co-exist at the same time without something eventually breaking - either the soldier aspect or the civilian aspect due to the influence of the other. An individual should not be in a warzone one day and be a civilian the other then back again, let alone doing it consistently every 12 hours.

 

[Devil's Due]

Drone pilots are also getting the same amount of PTSD that regular pilots get from combat since they are stuck in a weird loop where they wake up and see their kids off to school and have to kill people during their day and then return to see their kids again. This creates some psychological confusion and potential damage since they are not fully envolped in either world. If they were deployed and doing this, it'd be easier since they wake up and end the day in a combat zone, but to wake up as a civilian, be an airman, and then be a civilian again once they leave just leads to a lost of difficulty.

Wait, what? Breakfast cooked by the wife in the morning, clock in, kill some people, come home, hug the kid, throw a tennis ball for the dog... remember that is exactly what you saw some guy thousands of miles away doing before you destroyed the building next to him.

Jeez, who thought it would be a good idea to allow such a quick transition between combat zone and civilian life?! Barracks were invented for a reason and it isn't just to be accommodation for troops.

I'm slight confused as to what you're talking about. RPA operators are officers and generally life off base housing in a regular neighborhood since they have such a high BAH compared to the enlisted who generally have to live in a barracks because of their below-minimum pay wages.

Unless you mean they should have some sort of buffer after doing a shift for the RPA operators and help them figure out and deal with what just happened before being allowed back home, then I agree completely. Maybe a de-brief with a psychologist afterwards if there was any ordinance used (the military is so terrified of any psychological issues that people will utterly refuse to talk to psychologists while in because it may ruin their careers) and just have a chat and then release 'em. Hell, I was even considering becoming an RPA while in Air Force ROTC to become a 2nd LT.

EDIT: Hope I didn't misread your post and end up acting like an ass. Sorry.

You mentioned that some individuals were able to essentially command a drone to kill someone and then they would go home in the afternoon, clocking out of work essentially, and be back in civilian life. I thought that having such a situation is insane as barracks were designed to ensure there was a barrier between military life and civilian life.

The need for this barrier is because the two can no co-exist at the same time without something eventually breaking - either the soldier aspect or the civilian aspect due to the influence of the other. An individual should not be in a warzone one day and be a civilian the other then back again, let alone doing it consistently every 12 hours.

Agreed, and sometimes they do it like that with some RPA's being overseas so it works, but a lot are still on the mainland and all the CIA ones if I'm not mistaken are still here too. I honestly cannot imagine doing it anymore and having to explain to my friends / family how my daily life goes by. And I feel sorry that RPA's I'm sure can't really discuss their issues because people probably wouldn't understand how they feel or see any issue. "What, you're fighting from a booth far away from the war? So scary!" You'd be surprised how many pilots just hate RPA operators and refuse to consider them worthy fellow pilots since they're not out in the field yet they do the same job. They get a lot of shit and do a weird psychological job.

It's a very touchy subject and one the military and CIA definitely need to address because this shit can end badly.

 

[DBLT4P]

I don't really see being able to bomb a place while sitting comfy a thousand miles away being that different from a general ordering the taking of a hill, an action that will cost many lives, while he himself sits safe and cozy way behind the front lines.

Very much this. The person deciding on the attack is far from the pointy end in any event. It didn't stop the people at the pointy end from following orders.

I'll add that the likely alternatives to using a drone are:

A conventional piloted airstrike - involves putting pilots and very expensive aircraft at risk, along with increased fuel consumption and maintenance costs, decreased loiter time, and bad decisions due to combat stress, high likelihood of collateral damage. Usually requires a spotter or "air combat controller" to direct the aircrafts attacks.

Infantry assault - slow (especially in difficult terrain like A-stan), very dangerous for the dozen or more people involved, again high likelihood of collateral damage.

Assassination via sniper team - (exceedingly rare) very time consuming, but rather exact with a lower chance of collateral damage, extremely dangerous, inefficient use of skilled operators unless targets are very high value, which is really the only time they might be used.

Artillery strike - killing is even more dehumanized, artillery teams don't even know what they are shooting at, their targets are miles away and out of "line of sight," an artillery team's commander gets a radio call asking him to hit a square on a grid (literally battleship style) calculations are made, the howitzers are aimed, the cord gets pulled and something miles away disappears. High collateral damage risk, as well as potential friendly fire risk if the strike is called too close to other friendly units in the area, or even the unit that called it (called a "danger close") this risk is lessened substantially with the use of "smart shells" (GPS satellite guided munitions, but these are very expensive, the Excalibur guided artillery rounds cost over a million $USD each) also usually requires a spotter in the area like a conventional airstrike.

Considering the alternatives, the use of drones is the safest (for friendlies and noncombatants), and most strategically, tactically, and economically sound option at the disposal of the US and allied coalition forces.

Edit: In my opinion, at least

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Mechanization of war is the issue I always think of when UAVs get brought up.

We need an intelligent game to handle this issue. If it involved PMCs, Yahtzee would be proud.

 

[NightmareExpress]

Today, your enemies.
Tomorrow, your pizza.
The day after, your rights.

Drones replace the pilot, which is good (unless you're now out of a job). It ends up with the life of one less on the line and the vehicle can be designed without the need for a person being inside. I'm pretty sure it ends up being more efficient in terms of getting more drones out there than it does pilot per aircraft, but don't quote me on that.

However, the rapid production, mobilization and utilization can prove to be concerning.
Approaching the "big brother" level of concerning, where they could be used to hyper-police cities. When more work is done on AI and implemented on such devices as the drones, stuff that you see in Terminator, Robocop and what have you can become a reality. In addition to war becoming more grand in scale and people becoming more dehumanized to violence, you get the looming threat of rogue AIs and hackers.

Every advancement when it comes to war and protection makes the future less safe.
Just look at all the tension after the atom bomb was realized, all the bans from the Geneva convention following WWI & II.
This is why drones and the future of warfare is being met with caution. I imagine a vast amount more could be typed, but this is simply the stuff off the top of me head.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't know. Maybe slaughtering people with high tech drones while they desperately try to resist using improvised weapons and flaming bottles doesn't sit right with some people.