3 ms·

I think there is an argument being made that the drone technology enables a distancing of “the person doing the killing” from the action. That being 200 miles,

by Jolter 4y ago

I think there is an argument being made that the drone technology enables a distancing of “the person doing the killing” from the action. That being 200 miles, or 2000, from the person being killed lets one take the decision to kill more lightly. Drone operation becomes like a video game. The worry is that such distancing increases the risk of collateral damage, or simply mistaking of targets. There were accusations during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the US were bombing weddings and civilian homes.

solardev 4y ago
Sure, but the same could be said for artillery or cruise missiles or guided bombs or nukes, no? Pretty sure similar arguments were made in the past for longbows and trebuchets. Killing at a distance is as old as projectiles. It seems to me collateral damage making the news is a big improvement over the old days. In the past, when giant armies clashed, entire cities were razed, the countryside left barren, huge populations were displaced, women and children enslaved, etc. Now it's a big deal when a single wedding or child is hurt... what used to be so commonplace as to not even be worth mentioning now makes headlines. That's an improvement, isn't it? The ability to perform "surgical" assassinations with precise targeting should be overall less damaging than rolling in with tanks and napalm and carpet bombs. IMO the "facelessness" of drone war is sort of virtue signaling... why should it matter whether you can see your opponents before you kill them? It's not like you're giving every opponent a fair trial with a jury before you kill them. It's war. More precise targeting of a smaller number of targets, even with a higher error rate, should still end up killing fewer people overall than an indiscriminate total war. Now, more selfishly, from a US national security perspective: When we're expecting big powerful states again as opponents (as in, China or Russia instead of Afghanistan or Iraq), frankly, we'll need all the help we can get. It's one thing to mourn innocent Afghan civilians lost during a small-scale conflict, it's another thing to be ill-equipped to handle the bigger threats of the future against enemies who aren't at all concerned with human rights. I don't think it is realistic to expect a peaceful, utopian future for our species in the near-term. All signs point to conflicts escalating as resources diminish, democracies wane, authoritarianism rising, and climate change exacerbating divides. As cold wars heat back up and proxy wars proliferate, we'll either be sending in more technology or more troops. Personally, I'd rather it be American drones than American lives.

by Jolter 4y ago

solardev 4y ago

Sure, but the same could be said for artillery or cruise missiles or guided bombs or nukes, no? Pretty sure similar arguments were made in the past for longbows and trebuchets. Killing at a distance is as old as projectiles. It seems to me collateral damage making the news is a big improvement over the old days. In the past, when giant armies clashed, entire cities were razed, the countryside left barren, huge populations were displaced, women and children enslaved, etc. Now it's a big deal when a single wedding or child is hurt... what used to be so commonplace as to not even be worth mentioning now makes headlines. That's an improvement, isn't it? The ability to perform "surgical" assassinations with precise targeting should be overall less damaging than rolling in with tanks and napalm and carpet bombs. IMO the "facelessness" of drone war is sort of virtue signaling... why should it matter whether you can see your opponents before you kill them? It's not like you're giving every opponent a fair trial with a jury before you kill them. It's war. More precise targeting of a smaller number of targets, even with a higher error rate, should still end up killing fewer people overall than an indiscriminate total war. Now, more selfishly, from a US national security perspective: When we're expecting big powerful states again as opponents (as in, China or Russia instead of Afghanistan or Iraq), frankly, we'll need all the help we can get. It's one thing to mourn innocent Afghan civilians lost during a small-scale conflict, it's another thing to be ill-equipped to handle the bigger threats of the future against enemies who aren't at all concerned with human rights. I don't think it is realistic to expect a peaceful, utopian future for our species in the near-term. All signs point to conflicts escalating as resources diminish, democracies wane, authoritarianism rising, and climate change exacerbating divides. As cold wars heat back up and proxy wars proliferate, we'll either be sending in more technology or more troops. Personally, I'd rather it be American drones than American lives.