5 ms·

Because they're concerned that the lack of a pilot, and thus, pilot risk, means the US is more willing to order attacks, since there is no political risk to the

Because they're concerned that the lack of a pilot, and thus, pilot risk, means the US is more willing to order attacks, since there is no political risk to themselves should something be shot down? Because they're concerned with the change in warfare this heralds, that we're moving to using technologies that explicitly and autonomously target civilian areas, and deciding who 'enemy combatants' are based on presidential mandate, rather than military engagements, thus setting a terrible precedent for future wars (i.e., if we ever were to find ourselves at war with another country, or even not at war, just that one of our citizens did something against a country, and that country decided to use drones to attack civilian sites, claiming they were attacking enemy combatants, what recourse would we have on the international stage)? Because they're concerned not so much with drones, but with the precedent set by presidentially ordered assassination, and through means known to cause collateral damage (unlike most alleged assassination attempts prior)? Because the entire policy has led to intense fear in the areas we're flying drones over; not only are we now inspiring terror in our attempt to find and kill terrorists (...), but we're hurting our chances at winning over 'hearts and minds' and such, and likely raising up a generation in these countries that hates and fears us.

mauricemir 12y ago
what risk does the average pilot in the USAF face - its not like they are facing any! air assets and any ground assets will have been obliterated.
- poof131 12y ago
  There is definitely some risk.[1][2] Aviation is inherently a risky endeavor. Operations in war zones make it even more so. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_...
  - CHY872 12y ago
    Yes, but it does work out as maybe 20 offensive planes crashing over 10 years and presumably hundreds of thousands of flight hours; and with only a few fatalities at that.
mc32 12y ago
You bring up great points, but I don't think the nyt actually cares. They bring this up because it will resonate and people will read it and that brings them money and it gives them 'Intellectual credibility'. If they actually cared they'd lobby against they'd donate their profits, etc. They pretend to care about this change in warfare. And, realistically, even if they could affect US policy, there is absolutely no possibility they'd be able to affect how China Russia or Iran decide to use drones. Yes, the US is the one with drones in the news but not the only nation which will ever use them. The cat's out of the bag. It's not like we're going to go back to having people complain about the undue risk we put pilots under when we have less risky alternatives. It's also more costly to put pilots up there, they tire, make mistakes, etc. Drones can keep flying without need for rest. I'm being cynical, but that's just how it is.
- eli 12y ago
  I think you're just plain wrong. The story is about drones because that is the story. If manned jets had dropped the bomb or paratroopers shot hostages by mistake, there would certainly be a story about that.
  - mc32 12y ago
    Tell me, what's a viable alternative the US or world constituency will accept as viable? I'd like to know what you think might work better, given where we are today. don't seek out enemies (let bag guys and gals do as they will) support a network of ground troops and supporting intelligence with consequent monetary and cost in lives and perhaps effectiveness a multi-decade effort to socially engineer people (address their grievances, if possible, not clear it is, but lets suppose it good old fashioned carpet bombing
tomjen3 12y ago
>what recourse would we have on the international stage An army bigger than the rest of the world, combined? Winners to what winners want, losers suffers as they must.
NateDad 12y ago
They're not autonomous. They're piloted by a person. There's very little difference between looking at the screen in the cockpit to know when to drop the bomb, and looking at the screen in the control room.
- lostcolony 12y ago
  Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, it is not truly autonomous, but the mindset of many of those interviewed in the areas we are conducting attacks is basically "death can come down from on high at any moment from clear blue skies". They're not viewing it as "soldiers sometimes come into our village and shoot at suspected terrorists and there are sometimes civilian casualties". And the tendency is to keep moving to that; even now it's only 'soldier vs civilian' by technicality; as soon as we can replace the soldier at the viewscreen with an algorithm, we likely will.

mauricemir 12y ago

what risk does the average pilot in the USAF face - its not like they are facing any! air assets and any ground assets will have been obliterated.

poof131 12y ago
There is definitely some risk.[1][2] Aviation is inherently a risky endeavor. Operations in war zones make it even more so. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_...
- CHY872 12y ago
  Yes, but it does work out as maybe 20 offensive planes crashing over 10 years and presumably hundreds of thousands of flight hours; and with only a few fatalities at that.

mc32 12y ago

You bring up great points, but I don't think the nyt actually cares. They bring this up because it will resonate and people will read it and that brings them money and it gives them 'Intellectual credibility'. If they actually cared they'd lobby against they'd donate their profits, etc. They pretend to care about this change in warfare. And, realistically, even if they could affect US policy, there is absolutely no possibility they'd be able to affect how China Russia or Iran decide to use drones. Yes, the US is the one with drones in the news but not the only nation which will ever use them. The cat's out of the bag. It's not like we're going to go back to having people complain about the undue risk we put pilots under when we have less risky alternatives. It's also more costly to put pilots up there, they tire, make mistakes, etc. Drones can keep flying without need for rest. I'm being cynical, but that's just how it is.

eli 12y ago
I think you're just plain wrong. The story is about drones because that is the story. If manned jets had dropped the bomb or paratroopers shot hostages by mistake, there would certainly be a story about that.
- mc32 12y ago
  Tell me, what's a viable alternative the US or world constituency will accept as viable? I'd like to know what you think might work better, given where we are today. don't seek out enemies (let bag guys and gals do as they will) support a network of ground troops and supporting intelligence with consequent monetary and cost in lives and perhaps effectiveness a multi-decade effort to socially engineer people (address their grievances, if possible, not clear it is, but lets suppose it good old fashioned carpet bombing

tomjen3 12y ago

>what recourse would we have on the international stage An army bigger than the rest of the world, combined? Winners to what winners want, losers suffers as they must.

NateDad 12y ago

They're not autonomous. They're piloted by a person. There's very little difference between looking at the screen in the cockpit to know when to drop the bomb, and looking at the screen in the control room.

lostcolony 12y ago
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, it is not truly autonomous, but the mindset of many of those interviewed in the areas we are conducting attacks is basically "death can come down from on high at any moment from clear blue skies". They're not viewing it as "soldiers sometimes come into our village and shoot at suspected terrorists and there are sometimes civilian casualties". And the tendency is to keep moving to that; even now it's only 'soldier vs civilian' by technicality; as soon as we can replace the soldier at the viewscreen with an algorithm, we likely will.