The drone program which includes unilateral secret assassination runs on political targets absent a declaration of war or any judicial oversight is the problem.
Drones themselves are a problem because they dehumanize both targets and killers involved.
The drone program which includes unilateral secret assassination runs on political targets absent a declaration of war or any judicial oversight is the problem.
Okay, this is at least a valid point of argument.
Drones themselves are a problem because they dehumanize both targets and killers involved.
In what way? I mean, how is this any different than dropping a precision guided bomb from a human-piloted attack aircraft at 35,000 feet?
Drones themselves are a problem because they dehumanize both targets and killers involved.
Not good enough.
However bad wardrones may be, they're not as bad as warhumans.
I think it's a major cause for concern. American mainstream culture is too far removed from American military aggression as it is. Drones make it even EASIER to kill people in other countries while Joe Six Pack on the street barely even notices we're doing it. Fuck that. Reinstate the draft every single time we occupy anywhere.
The drone program which includes unilateral secret assassination runs on political targets absent a declaration of war or any judicial oversight is the problem.
Okay, this is at least a valid point of argument.
Drones themselves are a problem because they dehumanize both targets and killers involved.
In what way? I mean, how is this any different than dropping a precision guided bomb from a human-piloted attack aircraft at 35,000 feet?
Yeah as I recall, the crews who dropped nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima felt totally ambivalent about it.
Yeah as I recall, the crews who dropped nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima felt totally ambivalent about it.
Not a fair comparison, unless instead of drones you're talking about intercontinental ballistic missiles. The use of drones is no different than the use of any other conventional weapon system that hits targets beyond visual range.
Yeah as I recall, the crews who dropped nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima felt totally ambivalent about it.
Not a fair comparison, unless instead of drones you're talking about intercontinental ballistic missiles. The use of drones is no different than the use of any other conventional weapon system that hits targets beyond visual range.
I disagree. I think the psychology of killing by wire is different than the psychology of pulling a trigger on an actual firearm.
Yeah as I recall, the crews who dropped nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima felt totally ambivalent about it.
Not a fair comparison, unless instead of drones you're talking about intercontinental ballistic missiles. The use of drones is no different than the use of any other conventional weapon system that hits targets beyond visual range.
I disagree. I think the psychology of killing by wire is different than the psychology of pulling a trigger on an actual firearm.
You do realize that every single piece of military technology, other than perhaps combat pistols and rifles, involve "killing by wire," as you call it. You don't have someone in a bomber tossing bombs by hand out of a bomb bay -- they push a button in the cockpit that opens the bay and drops the bombs. Even the drones have a trigger control that you push -- they are piloted by humans at a remote base, complete with joysticks with trigger buttons on them.
Yeah as I recall, the crews who dropped nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima felt totally ambivalent about it.
Not a fair comparison, unless instead of drones you're talking about intercontinental ballistic missiles. The use of drones is no different than the use of any other conventional weapon system that hits targets beyond visual range.
I disagree. I think the psychology of killing by wire is different than the psychology of pulling a trigger on an actual firearm.
You do realize that every single piece of military technology, other than perhaps combat pistols and rifles, involve "killing by wire," as you call it. You don't have someone in a bomber tossing bombs by hand out of a bomb bay -- they push a button in the cockpit that opens the bay and drops the bombs. Even the drones have a trigger control that you push -- they are piloted by humans at a remote base, complete with joysticks with trigger buttons on them.
I think you know what I actually meant without me childishly spelling it out for you line by line.
I think you know what I actually meant without me childishly spelling it out for you line by line.
Actually, I do not. Again, I see no distinction between using a remotely piloted drone (there is still a human at the controls -- he/she just isn't in the actual aircraft) to attack someone outside of visual range as opposed to dropping a precision-guided bomb from 35,000 feet from a piloted aircraft -- especially against a technologically unsophisticated enemy who lacks effective air defense measures.
You don't understand that I'm making a distinction between telepresence and not-telepresence, even if you don't agree that there's a difference psychologically? Give me a break. Don't waste discussion on minutae.
If keeping wars really fucking ugly was a reasonably effective strategy for limiting military aggression, there is no way WWII could have followed so soon after WWI.
You don't understand that I'm making a distinction between telepresence and not-telepresence, even if you don't agree that there's a difference psychologically? Give me a break. Don't waste discussion on minutae.
I was limiting myself to the notion of the psychological difference. I do agree that the technology is different vis a vis telepresence vs. non-telepresence. However, the ethical and moral quandries aren't all that different to any other sort of beyond visual range conventional weaponry. We've had artillery that could hit a target beyond visual range for well over 100 years. We've had airplanes that could bomb targets from altitudes where the crew couldn't even see if there were people in the targets since WW2. We've had cruise missiles that could autonomously attack targets without a human at the controls since the 1980s. We even lobbed some of these at bin Laden in Afghanistan during the Clinton administration after the African embassy bombings. This is nothing new. In fact, I'd rather have a human piloted remote drone attacking a target instead of an automatically guided cruise missile if only because there is a chance that a human could recognize incorrect targeting information and abort the attack -- an autonomous Tomahawk cruise missile couldn't do that.
You also seem to fail to understand that ever since WW2, a great amount of effort has been put into developing conventional weapons systems that could accomplish their goal of "only killing the bad guys" (let's assume we're dealing with legitimate "bad guys" here, like WW2 Nazis, for the sake of this argument) while minimizing collateral damage to innocent bystanders. We no longer need to firebomb the hell out of a city and take out large parts of its civilian population to take out a military installation -- we can now do it with a pair of GPS-guided bombs from a single plane -- or a single drone aircraft -- and these bombs will limit their damage to the actual military installation if everything works right. Of course, nothing is ever 100% reliable -- weapons guidance systems could fail, we could get bad intelligence as to whether a facility is military or not, a pilot may mistake a civilian for an enemy fighter, shrapnel from a direct hit on a legitimate military target may still injure and kill bystanders, and so on.
It's certainly not pretty now, and I'm not saying it is. It is, however, definitely a lot better than the days of WW2 when you basically had to destroy entire cities with hundreds or thousands of bombs from dozens of aircraft in order to take out a single military target.
I can respect a stance against using drone aircraft out of a belief that the military operations they are participating in aren't justified or a belief in total pacifism. I may not necessarily agree with those stances, but I can at least respect them. However, a stance that the use of drones themselves is somehow immoral whereas using any other weapon system would be just fine is just plain ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the evolution of military weapons systems over the past 60 years.
The idea that soldiers need to be warriors killing up close in order to make sure we only get the bad guys is absurd. As much as it's messed up, drones are pretty much the best way to reduce civilian causalities in these strikes. If you send a manned aircraft, they have much less time to sit above the target, so they can't time the strike for minimum casualties. Low altitude gunships aren't much better and limit the precision of targeting because they have a lower angle of attack. Helicopters are much riskier for the pilots because of the proliferation of low-altitude shoulder-mounted rocket launchers and the simple fact that a machine-gun on the roof of a car or building can pose a real threat to it. Landing a special-forces team won't even help, because it just means the targets will scatter and use human shields anyway.
There has been a lot of technological advances over the past twenty years or so towards maximizing precision, but fact of the matter is there is a bomb on the end of the missile and it always sucks to be in a bomb's radius. Obama has been fighting this war the smartest way modern technology will allow. There is no option to switch to another weapon system if you want to reduce civilian deaths. He either stops the strikes, or he escalates to something worse. There is no other option that will be safer for civilians.
There really isn't an easy answer in terms of pure utilitarian ethics. It's pretty established that the Taliban and al-Qaeda cause a lot of suffering wherever they operate. I used to believe they were mostly a US government smoke and mirrors thing, pinning the blame on a political scapegoat, but nope, they exist and they are pretty great at making people miserable or dead. Personally, I think Obama has been handling the war he was given very well; any al-Qaeda leader who pokes his head out gets obliterated from twenty thousand feet, while the dude has also been working very closely with every single ally he can get together to allow local nations to deal with them, plus snubbing Israel whenever they get antagonistic.
One other thing to keep in mind is the psychological stress of a soldier being "up close and personal" with his potential enemies may result in mistakes in judgment. When you're on edge about being killed at any particular moment, you're far more likely to snap and shoot at anything that moves due to viewing them all as potential threats. If you're a safe distance away and know that the worst thing that can happen is your remote control plane stops working, you'll be in a much better state of mind to make a rational decision as to whether or not the potential target in your sights is actually an enemy.
Are you talking about Iran? Because Iran is a pretty developed nation. It's a large, technologically advanced kinda-democratic nation with a progressive urban population under the thrall of a religiously-motivated government supported by the redneck rural population. I don't understand how the United States doesn't get along better with them, seeing as both your countries are pretty much exactly the same.
Are you talking about Iran? Because Iran is a pretty developed nation. It's a large, technologically advanced kinda-democratic nation with a progressive urban population under the thrall of a religiously-motivated government supported by the redneck rural population. I don't understand how the United States doesn't get along better with them, seeing as both your countries are pretty much exactly the same.
The rural redneck populations. They're xenophobic to the core. That's why we don't get along better.
Are you talking about Iran? Because Iran is a pretty developed nation. It's a large, technologically advanced kinda-democratic nation with a progressive urban population under the thrall of a religiously-motivated government supported by the redneck rural population. I don't understand how the United States doesn't get along better with them, seeing as both your countries are pretty much exactly the same.
It would, if the religion in question happened to be the same one.
Comments
Drones themselves are a problem because they dehumanize both targets and killers involved.
However bad wardrones may be, they're not as bad as warhumans.
You also seem to fail to understand that ever since WW2, a great amount of effort has been put into developing conventional weapons systems that could accomplish their goal of "only killing the bad guys" (let's assume we're dealing with legitimate "bad guys" here, like WW2 Nazis, for the sake of this argument) while minimizing collateral damage to innocent bystanders. We no longer need to firebomb the hell out of a city and take out large parts of its civilian population to take out a military installation -- we can now do it with a pair of GPS-guided bombs from a single plane -- or a single drone aircraft -- and these bombs will limit their damage to the actual military installation if everything works right. Of course, nothing is ever 100% reliable -- weapons guidance systems could fail, we could get bad intelligence as to whether a facility is military or not, a pilot may mistake a civilian for an enemy fighter, shrapnel from a direct hit on a legitimate military target may still injure and kill bystanders, and so on.
It's certainly not pretty now, and I'm not saying it is. It is, however, definitely a lot better than the days of WW2 when you basically had to destroy entire cities with hundreds or thousands of bombs from dozens of aircraft in order to take out a single military target.
I can respect a stance against using drone aircraft out of a belief that the military operations they are participating in aren't justified or a belief in total pacifism. I may not necessarily agree with those stances, but I can at least respect them. However, a stance that the use of drones themselves is somehow immoral whereas using any other weapon system would be just fine is just plain ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the evolution of military weapons systems over the past 60 years.
There has been a lot of technological advances over the past twenty years or so towards maximizing precision, but fact of the matter is there is a bomb on the end of the missile and it always sucks to be in a bomb's radius. Obama has been fighting this war the smartest way modern technology will allow. There is no option to switch to another weapon system if you want to reduce civilian deaths. He either stops the strikes, or he escalates to something worse. There is no other option that will be safer for civilians.
There really isn't an easy answer in terms of pure utilitarian ethics. It's pretty established that the Taliban and al-Qaeda cause a lot of suffering wherever they operate. I used to believe they were mostly a US government smoke and mirrors thing, pinning the blame on a political scapegoat, but nope, they exist and they are pretty great at making people miserable or dead. Personally, I think Obama has been handling the war he was given very well; any al-Qaeda leader who pokes his head out gets obliterated from twenty thousand feet, while the dude has also been working very closely with every single ally he can get together to allow local nations to deal with them, plus snubbing Israel whenever they get antagonistic.
Wait...
In Iran its "Anyone who doesn't believe in Muhammad we will send to Hell!"