7 ms·

The focus on drone programs is misguided. Drones are the best way to conduct a war and minimize casualties, of both US soldiers and foreign civilians. Tradition

The focus on drone programs is misguided. Drones are the best way to conduct a war and minimize casualties, of both US soldiers and foreign civilians. Traditional air strikes, artillary, ground assaults, or airborn assaults would result in much more death and destruction. I expect you really just believe the US shouldn't be fighting the Taliban in the tribal area of Pakistan. But since we are, drones are the best way to do it. Just look at what Russian intervention in Syria looks like. Or Saudi intervention in Yemen looks like. Drones are much less destructive.

lhc- 10y ago
I'm not sure how you can argue drones minimize foreign civilian casualties, given the constant reports of drones bombing weddings and social gatherings based on the location of a cell phone. That's basically just repeating direct propaganda.
- darawk 10y ago
  But that isn't because they're drones. People have a visceral, irrational reaction to drones because they feel autonomous and impersonal. But ultimately there is a human pressing the button to fire those missiles. It's really no different from a fighter jet dropping the bombs, there's just no risk of casualties on our side. Yes, those casualties are bad, and we should be agitating against them, but it isn't the drones that are the problem.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Except that we seem far more willing to commit drones, rather than manned craft.
    - darawk 10y ago
      So, you're arguing that we should have to risk lives because we'd be less willing to commit them? That seems like a profoundly misguided argument.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        Is it? In [0] (from 2015) the number of US citizens who had been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan was around 2.5 million, or about 0.75% of the population at the time of writing. Why do we continue to send these men and women over there? Because no one knows them. The risk to someone the average US citizen knows is near 0. This lack of connection allows people to make the decision to commit these anonymous soldiers to a war on the other side of the world. This is only exacerbated by drone warfare. Now, we'll be committing even fewer of our own citizens lives to the risk of war. Materiel is easily replaced in comparison, and the losses are more easily covered over. One of the reasons that we, finally and way too late, pulled out of Vietnam was the draft. The idea that you, or your brother, or your son, or your cousin could be drafted and thrown into a war that none of you wanted. Now it's an all-volunteer military. While we may be wary of war, it's far less of an emotional and ethical strain on the people of this country when they go into their voting booths. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-trag...
        darawk 10y ago
        I don't disagree that this is an interesting and troubling trend to keep an eye on. The lowered cost of war absolutely has all the effects you describe, and that is, in a global sense, absolutely a scary thing, with disconcerting implications. However, it is philosophically untenable to take the position that we should be forced to risk a life in order to take one. That is an anachronism that only feels justified out of a misplaced sense of moral fairness. What we should be doing is focussing on better procedures to prevent civilian casualties. Drones actually represent a great opportunity to employ very stringent procedures to prevent such things. Much more so than a fighter jet or troops on the ground. You can easily do things like have multiple people sign off before a missile is launched, employ machine learning to enhance images and attempt to classify and predict common sources of operator error, etc..
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Do you operate, build, or design drones for a living?
    - rhino369 10y ago
      Is that accurate? The USA has been willing to use regular manned aircraft for bombing in plenty of situations that are more dangerous than Pakistan and Yemen. There is basically zero chance the taliban can shoot down an F15. Drones are used because they are cheaper and the better tool for the job. In fact, Drones only work in areas where the opposing forces have virtually no ability to shoot down aircraft. Because drones are sitting ducks. In a shooting war against any country with anti-air capabilities, drones wouldn't stay in the air for long.
- rhino369 10y ago
  It's not constant reports, but it's happened several times. But a land invasion gets many more killed. So do regular aerial bombardment. What is the better tactic?
  - zo1 10y ago
    >"What is the better tactic?" Short of a complicated and "nuanced" response, I'd suggest: How about not invading a sovereign nation? Worst case, the UN could block-off all in-out with that country. Trade, travel, communication. All of it until they abide by UN laws.
djsumdog 10y ago
No, they're equally destructive as standard air assaults. They've taken the place of manned bombing runs and created an additional layer of abstraction between pilots and the people they kill. You know the best way to minimize causalities? Stop creating wars. In thirty years from now, I'd put money that declassified papers will show the US and allies explicitly created ISIS. It fits the pattern (1973 US led military coupe in Chile that killed 11,000 civilians, the Iranian Contra Scandal, The School of the Americas, the failed Bay of Pigs, the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq .. the list is as long as you want to make it). You're right, drones do have less causalities than ground troops for instilling fear and creating needless wars. So let's step back and stop the needless wars.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rhino369 10y ago
  They have greater time over target which allows greater time to accurately pick a target. Sure, a hellfire is a hellfire, but a hellfire is a small missile. Traditional strike fighters and bombers use larger munitions. You could send in Apaches but they are vulnerable to anti-air attacks. People always say the layer of abstraction is a problem, but I've never heard a good reason articulated. Look at the carnage that Russian and Saudi air campaigns are doing in Syria and Yemen. Drone campaigns are much less dangerous.

lhc- 10y ago

I'm not sure how you can argue drones minimize foreign civilian casualties, given the constant reports of drones bombing weddings and social gatherings based on the location of a cell phone. That's basically just repeating direct propaganda.

darawk 10y ago
But that isn't because they're drones. People have a visceral, irrational reaction to drones because they feel autonomous and impersonal. But ultimately there is a human pressing the button to fire those missiles. It's really no different from a fighter jet dropping the bombs, there's just no risk of casualties on our side. Yes, those casualties are bad, and we should be agitating against them, but it isn't the drones that are the problem.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Except that we seem far more willing to commit drones, rather than manned craft.
  - darawk 10y ago
    So, you're arguing that we should have to risk lives because we'd be less willing to commit them? That seems like a profoundly misguided argument.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      Is it? In [0] (from 2015) the number of US citizens who had been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan was around 2.5 million, or about 0.75% of the population at the time of writing. Why do we continue to send these men and women over there? Because no one knows them. The risk to someone the average US citizen knows is near 0. This lack of connection allows people to make the decision to commit these anonymous soldiers to a war on the other side of the world. This is only exacerbated by drone warfare. Now, we'll be committing even fewer of our own citizens lives to the risk of war. Materiel is easily replaced in comparison, and the losses are more easily covered over. One of the reasons that we, finally and way too late, pulled out of Vietnam was the draft. The idea that you, or your brother, or your son, or your cousin could be drafted and thrown into a war that none of you wanted. Now it's an all-volunteer military. While we may be wary of war, it's far less of an emotional and ethical strain on the people of this country when they go into their voting booths. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-trag...
      - darawk 10y ago
        I don't disagree that this is an interesting and troubling trend to keep an eye on. The lowered cost of war absolutely has all the effects you describe, and that is, in a global sense, absolutely a scary thing, with disconcerting implications. However, it is philosophically untenable to take the position that we should be forced to risk a life in order to take one. That is an anachronism that only feels justified out of a misplaced sense of moral fairness. What we should be doing is focussing on better procedures to prevent civilian casualties. Drones actually represent a great opportunity to employ very stringent procedures to prevent such things. Much more so than a fighter jet or troops on the ground. You can easily do things like have multiple people sign off before a missile is launched, employ machine learning to enhance images and attempt to classify and predict common sources of operator error, etc..
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Do you operate, build, or design drones for a living?
  - rhino369 10y ago
    Is that accurate? The USA has been willing to use regular manned aircraft for bombing in plenty of situations that are more dangerous than Pakistan and Yemen. There is basically zero chance the taliban can shoot down an F15. Drones are used because they are cheaper and the better tool for the job. In fact, Drones only work in areas where the opposing forces have virtually no ability to shoot down aircraft. Because drones are sitting ducks. In a shooting war against any country with anti-air capabilities, drones wouldn't stay in the air for long.
rhino369 10y ago
It's not constant reports, but it's happened several times. But a land invasion gets many more killed. So do regular aerial bombardment. What is the better tactic?
- zo1 10y ago
  >"What is the better tactic?" Short of a complicated and "nuanced" response, I'd suggest: How about not invading a sovereign nation? Worst case, the UN could block-off all in-out with that country. Trade, travel, communication. All of it until they abide by UN laws.

djsumdog 10y ago

No, they're equally destructive as standard air assaults. They've taken the place of manned bombing runs and created an additional layer of abstraction between pilots and the people they kill. You know the best way to minimize causalities? Stop creating wars. In thirty years from now, I'd put money that declassified papers will show the US and allies explicitly created ISIS. It fits the pattern (1973 US led military coupe in Chile that killed 11,000 civilians, the Iranian Contra Scandal, The School of the Americas, the failed Bay of Pigs, the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq .. the list is as long as you want to make it). You're right, drones do have less causalities than ground troops for instilling fear and creating needless wars. So let's step back and stop the needless wars.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rhino369 10y ago
They have greater time over target which allows greater time to accurately pick a target. Sure, a hellfire is a hellfire, but a hellfire is a small missile. Traditional strike fighters and bombers use larger munitions. You could send in Apaches but they are vulnerable to anti-air attacks. People always say the layer of abstraction is a problem, but I've never heard a good reason articulated. Look at the carnage that Russian and Saudi air campaigns are doing in Syria and Yemen. Drone campaigns are much less dangerous.