4 ms·

I just don't get the controversy. Anything which is permissible for a piloted bomber to destroy is surely okay for a drone to destroy as well, yes? Why the foc

I just don't get the controversy. Anything which is permissible for a piloted bomber to destroy is surely okay for a drone to destroy as well, yes? Why the focus on drones per se? Yes, civilian deaths are bad. Yes, war is bad. Yes, perhaps the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be ended tomorrow. So why don't we discuss those? Drones seem utterly irrelevant: 1. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? If anything it seems that they inflict fewer. Thus focussing on this aspect actually hurts their case. 2. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? I honestly have no idea, but the answer doesn't seem obvious. 3. Do drones make the US less safe than a traditional infantry based occupation? Again, I've got no idea. 4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for human life.

gw 12y ago
Read the summary, and you'll find it is not condemning the specific technology, but rather the way it's being used. The website is named after drones because they happen to be the warfare tactic du jour. If instead we were lobbing bombs from howitzers, it would make perfect sense to title the website accordingly.
coldtea 12y ago
>1. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for different kind of attacks. If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller plus not needing pilots and not having any casualties on the operating side, etc, they will also be used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much more difficult to approve and costlier. Technological changes are enablers and multipliers -- they change what we can do and how often we can do it. >2. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? Yes, since suddenly you have essentially small planes taking over the area and killing people, especially when they can be used to occupy and have almost zero casualties from the occupying site. >4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for human life. There's also the fact that those are not even used in a properly declared war, and are even used against sovereign countries.
- mpyne 12y ago
  > Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for different kind of attacks. "Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for Afghanistan) and 2003 (for Iraq). Do you really think that fighter jets are just roaming around randomly in Afghanistan bombing random things? There are plenty of aircraft, sure, but they are doing missions like CAS (close air support of ground troops) or delivering bombs to precise targets.... the same kind of thing drones are doing. Except drones carry smaller bombs than 500lb JDAMs, which helps drones reduce collateral damage (and civilian casualties) from the equivalent strike directed by a manned attack fighter. But either way, being used for "different kinds of attacks" is not even close to illegal. If anything using drones with lower-payload ordnance to perform different missions instead of manned fighters with cluster bombs or JDAMs is a noted improvement in the U.S. military's efforts to reduce CIVCAS and collateral property damage. > If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller plus not needing pilots and not having any casualties on the operating side, etc, they will also be used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much more difficult to approve and costlier. Drones are, sadly, not getting any cheaper. They are cheaper to train pilots for, that much is true. But again, "it's not quite as sporting" isn't an argument against drones.... the same argument was used about long-range artillery in the Russo-Japanese war (some British fogies actually said they would never personally use artillery if they couldn't personally see the aimpoint, an attitude which didn't last long on the Western Front). The Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a brutal, evil weapon in WWI... that's right, the shotgun, the "OMG drones!!" of 1917.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >"Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for Afghanistan) and 2003 (for Iraq). So? If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant. They haven't stopped because drones, just because that part of the whole operation was over. You usually do those at the first stage of a "war", not at the "ocuppying force" stages. >The Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a brutal, evil weapon in WWI... that's right, the shotgun, the "OMG drones!!" of 1917. Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race? If anything I'd like to see those things controlled and restricted, like with do with other kinds of weapons with international treaties. There's an hypocrisy involved in all this, that usually the persons saying it's all OK will be all tears and patriotic songs if it's even a person on their land that gets the same treatment, wheres the lives of 100s of innocent people on foreign lands are somehow not worth much.
neumann 12y ago
I had a similar initial reaction. Discussion on drones often conflate issues relating to the use of drones per se, and the policy of the US to target humans for killing as part of a murky overlay between anti-terrorism and a defacto war, which is likely illegal to begin with. The act of using a drone versus a plane to drop the missile is surely not in of itself controversial. The main issue as to the use of drones is that the lower cost of flying these machines means the US can a) afford more sorties which further terrorises the civilians (as it is not a war, it is by definition terrorism) and b) the lowered risk to US life and 'shot down plane' stories means the US media is less likely to give a shit and report on it.
magpi3 12y ago
I have never heard anyone say that the U.S. is at "war" in Pakistan. Instead Pakistan allows military strikes on terrorists that the U.S. is in a forever war with. That is part of what makes the use of drones there scary. If military jets were bombing areas in Pakistan, there would be an outcry. Drones for some reason are different. They feel like a slippery slope towards a new way of thinking about an almost casual and less invasive military violence that is somehow more permissible than "traditional" (jets, troops) forms of military engagement. Now that I think about it, maybe the above is just because most countries share no experience with being the _victims_ of drone strikes. Most countries can relate to a physical invasion or of planes bombing from above. But drones are so new and so specifically tied to the fight with terrorists that perhaps there is a feeling that drones are something that happens to "other people's countries" (so to speak), and that is what makes them less bad some how. A good recent Rolling Stone article on the Forever War: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/three-troubling-lessons-from-the-latest-u-s-drone-strikes-20140617 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/three-troubling-le...
- mpyne 12y ago
  > If military jets were bombing areas in Pakistan, there would be an outcry. That literally just happened the other day, after Pakistan Taliban forces attacked the airport at Karachi. Where was the outcry? Did we miss it? Or do people not notice Pakistani civilians dying when it's Pakistani aircraft dropping the ordnance? If it's OK for Pakistan to bomb people that the U.S. is also at war with then I don't see why it is wrong for Pakistan to allow the U.S. to bomb people that the U.S. is at war with. That was, after all, the story of WWII in the European Theater of Operations.

gw 12y ago

Read the summary, and you'll find it is not condemning the specific technology, but rather the way it's being used. The website is named after drones because they happen to be the warfare tactic du jour. If instead we were lobbing bombs from howitzers, it would make perfect sense to title the website accordingly.

coldtea 12y ago

>1. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for different kind of attacks. If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller plus not needing pilots and not having any casualties on the operating side, etc, they will also be used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much more difficult to approve and costlier. Technological changes are enablers and multipliers -- they change what we can do and how often we can do it. >2. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? Yes, since suddenly you have essentially small planes taking over the area and killing people, especially when they can be used to occupy and have almost zero casualties from the occupying site. >4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for human life. There's also the fact that those are not even used in a properly declared war, and are even used against sovereign countries.

mpyne 12y ago
> Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for different kind of attacks. "Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for Afghanistan) and 2003 (for Iraq). Do you really think that fighter jets are just roaming around randomly in Afghanistan bombing random things? There are plenty of aircraft, sure, but they are doing missions like CAS (close air support of ground troops) or delivering bombs to precise targets.... the same kind of thing drones are doing. Except drones carry smaller bombs than 500lb JDAMs, which helps drones reduce collateral damage (and civilian casualties) from the equivalent strike directed by a manned attack fighter. But either way, being used for "different kinds of attacks" is not even close to illegal. If anything using drones with lower-payload ordnance to perform different missions instead of manned fighters with cluster bombs or JDAMs is a noted improvement in the U.S. military's efforts to reduce CIVCAS and collateral property damage. > If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller plus not needing pilots and not having any casualties on the operating side, etc, they will also be used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much more difficult to approve and costlier. Drones are, sadly, not getting any cheaper. They are cheaper to train pilots for, that much is true. But again, "it's not quite as sporting" isn't an argument against drones.... the same argument was used about long-range artillery in the Russo-Japanese war (some British fogies actually said they would never personally use artillery if they couldn't personally see the aimpoint, an attitude which didn't last long on the Western Front). The Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a brutal, evil weapon in WWI... that's right, the shotgun, the "OMG drones!!" of 1917.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >"Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for Afghanistan) and 2003 (for Iraq). So? If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant. They haven't stopped because drones, just because that part of the whole operation was over. You usually do those at the first stage of a "war", not at the "ocuppying force" stages. >The Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a brutal, evil weapon in WWI... that's right, the shotgun, the "OMG drones!!" of 1917. Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race? If anything I'd like to see those things controlled and restricted, like with do with other kinds of weapons with international treaties. There's an hypocrisy involved in all this, that usually the persons saying it's all OK will be all tears and patriotic songs if it's even a person on their land that gets the same treatment, wheres the lives of 100s of innocent people on foreign lands are somehow not worth much.

neumann 12y ago

I had a similar initial reaction. Discussion on drones often conflate issues relating to the use of drones per se, and the policy of the US to target humans for killing as part of a murky overlay between anti-terrorism and a defacto war, which is likely illegal to begin with. The act of using a drone versus a plane to drop the missile is surely not in of itself controversial. The main issue as to the use of drones is that the lower cost of flying these machines means the US can a) afford more sorties which further terrorises the civilians (as it is not a war, it is by definition terrorism) and b) the lowered risk to US life and 'shot down plane' stories means the US media is less likely to give a shit and report on it.

magpi3 12y ago

I have never heard anyone say that the U.S. is at "war" in Pakistan. Instead Pakistan allows military strikes on terrorists that the U.S. is in a forever war with. That is part of what makes the use of drones there scary. If military jets were bombing areas in Pakistan, there would be an outcry. Drones for some reason are different. They feel like a slippery slope towards a new way of thinking about an almost casual and less invasive military violence that is somehow more permissible than "traditional" (jets, troops) forms of military engagement. Now that I think about it, maybe the above is just because most countries share no experience with being the _victims_ of drone strikes. Most countries can relate to a physical invasion or of planes bombing from above. But drones are so new and so specifically tied to the fight with terrorists that perhaps there is a feeling that drones are something that happens to "other people's countries" (so to speak), and that is what makes them less bad some how. A good recent Rolling Stone article on the Forever War: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/three-troubling-lessons-from-the-latest-u-s-drone-strikes-20140617 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/three-troubling-le...

mpyne 12y ago
> If military jets were bombing areas in Pakistan, there would be an outcry. That literally just happened the other day, after Pakistan Taliban forces attacked the airport at Karachi. Where was the outcry? Did we miss it? Or do people not notice Pakistani civilians dying when it's Pakistani aircraft dropping the ordnance? If it's OK for Pakistan to bomb people that the U.S. is also at war with then I don't see why it is wrong for Pakistan to allow the U.S. to bomb people that the U.S. is at war with. That was, after all, the story of WWII in the European Theater of Operations.