7 ms·

I think it is time for a world-wide ban on armed drones, period. Just like we have international treaties for other horrible things like mustard gas. Do all t

by ck2 13y ago

I think it is time for a world-wide ban on armed drones, period. Just like we have international treaties for other horrible things like mustard gas. Do all the reconnaissance you can get away with. But I don't want a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a trailer somewhere in the US, pulling a trigger to kill unquantifiable targets anywhere in the world. Or any other country doing it to anyone else for that matter.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- hazz 13y ago
  This piqued my interest. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, was signed by the United States on the same day it was opened, January 13th 1993 [1]. It came into force in 1997. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical...
  - knome 13y ago
    I was cast into doubt by the same comment. The United States military does not make use of even things like pepper spray as a non-lethal weapon specifically because of being a signatory of treaties against use of any chemical warfare.
    - drzaiusapelord 13y ago
      Pepper spray is useless in a combat situation. Wind and other factors mean that it could benefit your enemy more than you (same with other chemical weapons). Also, why bother when we have flash-bang grenades, sonic weapons, and white phosphorous. Not to mention, in war deadly force is authorized under even the most trivial of circumstances. Why pepper spray a guy and take a risk when you can shoot him and not take a risk?
      - roel_v 13y ago
        If civilian police uses mace for small-scale arrests during riots, MP's could do the same thing for example during protests around embassies in non-war-but-dangerous circumstances. Except they don't. I don't think the GP was suggesting dropping pepper gas bombs, or using mace cannons while storming an enemy outpost.
        drzaiusapelord 13y ago
        Then the military can call in the civilian authorities if its not a military matter and they can use whatever methods they deem appropriate. This isn't some kind of wonderful humanitarian gesture by the US military, its just proper role separation. If the shit hits the fan, its deadly force. You don't roll out soldiers for fun. They're trained to kill, not be cops.
- JOfferijns 13y ago
  This is simply not true, the US has both signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention [1], though it still has to destroy some of their stockpile [2]. [1] http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/ http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/ [2] http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/11/us/u-s-chemical-weapons/ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/11/us/u-s-chemical-weapons/
ars_technician 13y ago
Why does it matter where the operator is? How about a ban on killing unquantifiable targets? Modern fighter pilots can be just as overworked and have about the same risk of dying from being shot at.
mikeash 13y ago
I don't really understand the outrage over drones specifically. This constant bombing of foreign countries is terrible, but I don't understand why the "drones" part of it is also considered bad. Why is a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a trailer somewhere in the US worse than a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a cockpit of an F-16?
- kitsune_ 13y ago
  As mentioned in other comments in this thread: From a political point of view, drones are much more attractive than traditional methods. You won't see the corpses of dead Americans being dragged through Mogadishu with drones. You won't see captured pilots being paraded in front of a camera with drones.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    We won't see captured pilots being paraded in front of a camera with regular piloted aircraft either, not ones flown by the US against any likely current target.
    - kitsune_ 13y ago
      I suggest googling F117 and Serbia.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        I suggest googling "how to make points in a less irritating and confrontational way than telling people that you suggest googling something". In any case, I remember it fairly well, no need to look it up. Which current likely target is a heavily-armed state with a strong air defense system? (North Korea is a possibility, although I have to wonder just how good their air defenses are these days. It also strikes me as a target where drones would be a great idea if it ever comes down to a shooting war.) I'd also like to note that the F-117 shootdown didn't involve the pilot being captured, much less paraded in front of a camera, although he certainly could have been.
walshemj 13y ago
As opposed to a wired fighter jock inbound in a fast mover who has only one pass before he bingo's and might have .5 seconds to decide if he should abort or not - having less pressure will result in better decisions.
daigoba66 13y ago
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the concept of banning armed droned, but I don't think the operators actually get to pick and choose the targets. I don't think the operators have much discretion at all. Those orders, especially orders to fire, likely come from a commanding officer. The same probably applies to fighter and bomber pilots too, though they may have more discretion when it comes to defending the aircraft.

by ck2 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hazz 13y ago
This piqued my interest. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, was signed by the United States on the same day it was opened, January 13th 1993 [1]. It came into force in 1997. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical...
- knome 13y ago
  I was cast into doubt by the same comment. The United States military does not make use of even things like pepper spray as a non-lethal weapon specifically because of being a signatory of treaties against use of any chemical warfare.
  - drzaiusapelord 13y ago
    Pepper spray is useless in a combat situation. Wind and other factors mean that it could benefit your enemy more than you (same with other chemical weapons). Also, why bother when we have flash-bang grenades, sonic weapons, and white phosphorous. Not to mention, in war deadly force is authorized under even the most trivial of circumstances. Why pepper spray a guy and take a risk when you can shoot him and not take a risk?
    - roel_v 13y ago
      If civilian police uses mace for small-scale arrests during riots, MP's could do the same thing for example during protests around embassies in non-war-but-dangerous circumstances. Except they don't. I don't think the GP was suggesting dropping pepper gas bombs, or using mace cannons while storming an enemy outpost.
      - drzaiusapelord 13y ago
        Then the military can call in the civilian authorities if its not a military matter and they can use whatever methods they deem appropriate. This isn't some kind of wonderful humanitarian gesture by the US military, its just proper role separation. If the shit hits the fan, its deadly force. You don't roll out soldiers for fun. They're trained to kill, not be cops.
JOfferijns 13y ago
This is simply not true, the US has both signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention [1], though it still has to destroy some of their stockpile [2]. [1] http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/ http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/ [2] http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/11/us/u-s-chemical-weapons/ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/11/us/u-s-chemical-weapons/

ars_technician 13y ago

Why does it matter where the operator is? How about a ban on killing unquantifiable targets? Modern fighter pilots can be just as overworked and have about the same risk of dying from being shot at.

mikeash 13y ago

I don't really understand the outrage over drones specifically. This constant bombing of foreign countries is terrible, but I don't understand why the "drones" part of it is also considered bad. Why is a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a trailer somewhere in the US worse than a tired, overworked, morally disconnected 20-something sitting in a cockpit of an F-16?

kitsune_ 13y ago
As mentioned in other comments in this thread: From a political point of view, drones are much more attractive than traditional methods. You won't see the corpses of dead Americans being dragged through Mogadishu with drones. You won't see captured pilots being paraded in front of a camera with drones.
- mikeash 13y ago
  We won't see captured pilots being paraded in front of a camera with regular piloted aircraft either, not ones flown by the US against any likely current target.
  - kitsune_ 13y ago
    I suggest googling F117 and Serbia.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I suggest googling "how to make points in a less irritating and confrontational way than telling people that you suggest googling something". In any case, I remember it fairly well, no need to look it up. Which current likely target is a heavily-armed state with a strong air defense system? (North Korea is a possibility, although I have to wonder just how good their air defenses are these days. It also strikes me as a target where drones would be a great idea if it ever comes down to a shooting war.) I'd also like to note that the F-117 shootdown didn't involve the pilot being captured, much less paraded in front of a camera, although he certainly could have been.

walshemj 13y ago

As opposed to a wired fighter jock inbound in a fast mover who has only one pass before he bingo's and might have .5 seconds to decide if he should abort or not - having less pressure will result in better decisions.

daigoba66 13y ago

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the concept of banning armed droned, but I don't think the operators actually get to pick and choose the targets. I don't think the operators have much discretion at all. Those orders, especially orders to fire, likely come from a commanding officer. The same probably applies to fighter and bomber pilots too, though they may have more discretion when it comes to defending the aircraft.