|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Drone Warfare
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Seems like we need a new thread on the inherent violence of drone warfare.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The ethical problem with drones first and foremost is their combination of (theoretical) "as if you were there" performance and the physical remoteness of the operator to the theatre in which they are used. ...
How is this ethical problem any different from throwing a rock at somebody or launching a ballistic missile? Is there some warrior code that says combat should only take place within line of sight or arm's reach?
It is generally accepted that the more removed a person is from their actions, the more extreme those actions will be.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The actions of a soldier in a firefight would be less extreme than those of a drone operator?
Besides, the people operating the drones do what they're ordered to do; the people giving the orders aren't any more removed from drone operations than they are from F-15E squadron operations.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You can get people to directly do nasty things to other people. But that generally requires training and/or exposure. Entering a building and killing all its occupants, targets and bystanders, is a very different thing than dropping a bomb on the same building even knowing there are probably non-combatants inside.
F-15 v. drone? The objection is that the pilot of a manned aircraft has more ownership of what they are doing than the operator of a drone. This makes sense from a psychological standpoint.
Following orders was not considered an excuse in the Nuremberg trials, though it has been accepted in some cases when those being tried/investigated have been on the same side as the investigators.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You can get people to directly do nasty things to other people. But that generally requires training and/or exposure. Entering a building and killing all its occupants, targets and bystanders, is a very different thing than dropping a bomb on the same building even knowing there are probably non-combatants inside.
It is - but if the last 15 years teach us anything, it's that the US has plenty of uniformed people ready, willing, and able to do the former; I doubt their greater closeness to the action improves the outcome for the targets. quote:
F-15 v. drone? The objection is that the pilot of a manned aircraft has more ownership of what they are doing than the operator of a drone. This makes sense from a psychological standpoint.
I'm not convinced of your premise, but even if it were true, what point is this statement intended to support? That a pilot is less likely to carry out a mission than a drone operator? I think that unlikely. quote:
Following orders was not considered an excuse in the Nuremberg trials, though it has been accepted in some cases when those being tried/investigated have been on the same side as the investigators.
My point was that those giving the orders aren't any more remote in the case of drones than in the case of F-15s, and I expect the orders would be carried out in either case; I don't believe either the pilots or drone operators would consider them war crimes. Do you think the drone strikes are more likely to be war crimes than the 1999 air attacks on Iraq in 1999 that I mentioned above?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Arguably the soldiers more directly involved in the bloodiness of combat and seeing casualties on their own side are more likely to become brutalized, become part of a group seeing the "red mist" and may even more readily engage in atrocities. We were discussing Mỹ Lai earlier. Of course drone pilots can do bad things under orders, I think they are less likely to do bad things outside orders.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
F-15 v. drone? The objection is that the pilot of a manned aircraft has more ownership of what they are doing than the operator of a drone. This makes sense from a psychological standpoint.
I'm not convinced of your premise, but even if it were true, what point is this statement intended to support? That a pilot is less likely to carry out a mission than a drone operator? I think that unlikely.
It is the premise being argued by those who consider drones more unethical, and I agree in principle, but not sure in practice. Given the ability to engage targets which one doesn't need to ever see, it may be not be the argument it once could have been. Still, a combat pilot is much more likely to see the damage done than a drone operator. And one is essentially there as opposed to sitting in an office thousands of mile away and going home for dinner.
quote:
Do you think the drone strikes are more likely to be war crimes than the 1999 air attacks on Iraq in 1999 that I mentioned above?
I think drone strikes are less likely to be catagorised as war crimes. "Oh bugger, we hit the wrong building/didn't realise non-combatants were present/had faulty intel, etc. Ooops." Yes, these can all happen with aircraft as well. But the perception of the process is different.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Arguably the soldiers more directly involved in the bloodiness of combat and seeing casualties on their own side are more likely to become brutalized, become part of a group seeing the "red mist" and may even more readily engage in atrocities. We were discussing Mỹ Lai earlier. Of course drone pilots can do bad things under orders, I think they are less likely to do bad things outside orders.
Combat troops are more likely to directly commit atrocities. But drone strikes are more likely to incur "collateral damage" and the public perception to them is not as severe as it is towards those who looked their victims in the face and killed them anyway.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I would rather there was no war. But if there is going to be a war it seems not unreasonable to regard deliberate killing of civilians as more culpable than collateral damage. (Even to a pacifist there's a difference between manslaughter and murder).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would rather there was no war. But if there is going to be a war it seems not unreasonable to regard deliberate killing of civilians as more culpable than collateral damage. (Even to a pacifist there's a difference between manslaughter and murder).
Although if you exchange one brutalization of a civilian for a thousand civilians killed in "collateral damage", you probably didn't make an improvement.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Of course drone pilots can do bad things under orders, I think they are less likely to do bad things outside orders.
We have often discussed the usefulness of body cameras, vehicle cameras and so on in managing the behaviour of police officers, and we have discussed whether the cameras always give the whole context (assuming the cop doesn't shut it off.) Surely the drone operator is faced with the purest form of this - absolutely everything he sees is recorded. He has no "action off-camera" as he isn't there - every scrap of information available to him can be recorded and reviewed.
[ 02. May 2016, 17:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yes. Although the capacity for group think to set in if the seniors communicate impunity is still there. Nothing is fool-proof but it still seems less likely to lead to red mist.
I'm not sure what limits the casualties from foot soldiers to single civilians vs thousands by drones?
[ 02. May 2016, 17:34: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would rather there was no war. But if there is going to be a war it seems not unreasonable to regard deliberate killing of civilians as more culpable than collateral damage. (Even to a pacifist there's a difference between manslaughter and murder).
Although if you exchange one brutalization of a civilian for a thousand civilians killed in "collateral damage", you probably didn't make an improvement.
Yep.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Of course drone pilots can do bad things under orders, I think they are less likely to do bad things outside orders.
We have often discussed the usefulness of body cameras, vehicle cameras and so on in managing the behaviour of police officers, and we have discussed whether the cameras always give the whole context (assuming the cop doesn't shut it off.) Surely the drone operator is faced with the purest form of this - absolutely everything he sees is recorded. He has no "action off-camera" as he isn't there - every scrap of information available to him can be recorded and reviewed.
The difference being direct agency. No matter what was told him/her in the station and no matter by whom, the police officer is directly responsible for their actions. ]
A drone operator says "I didn't know that was a hospital, my superior gave me direction". Superior officer(s) say "Intel said it was a clean military target". Intelligence operatives say "My sources confirmed target". Sources are confidential and often nebulous. Not only is the chain less reliable to begin with, it gives multiple points of diffusion of responsibility.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
F-15 v. drone? The objection is that the pilot of a manned aircraft has more ownership of what they are doing than the operator of a drone. This makes sense from a psychological standpoint.
I'm not convinced of your premise, but even if it were true, what point is this statement intended to support? That a pilot is less likely to carry out a mission than a drone operator? I think that unlikely.
It is the premise being argued by those who consider drones more unethical, and I agree in principle, but not sure in practice. Given the ability to engage targets which one doesn't need to ever see, it may be not be the argument it once could have been. Still, a combat pilot is much more likely to see the damage done than a drone operator. And one is essentially there as opposed to sitting in an office thousands of mile away and going home for dinner.
This is not true in practice. One of the great benefits of drones is the ability to loiter due to a lack of human pilot (increased capacity for fuel and surveillance equipment, and no risk of pilot casualty). This means that a drone pilot will usually be “present” so to speak from the initial surveillance all the way to post-engagement damage assessment.
In contrast, with manned aircraft, the pilot will most likely only be receiving targeting orders from whichever separate personnel are conducting aerial/satellite reconnaissance. Likewise, these same personnel will be responsible for doing post-engagement analysis. Modern military aircraft are too specialized to serve both roles, and a pilot would never be put at risk by loitering needlessly above a combat zone.
Therefore, a drone pilot is actually much more likely to personally witness the consequences of their actions as opposed to the pilot of a manned airplane, if this is the concern.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
It is my understanding that there is much less collateral damage using a drone than a manned aircraft (F15, for instance).
For one thing drones can stay on target for a much longer period of time. This allows for better intelligence and selection of targets. The military tries very hard to insure there will be no civilian casualties before a decision to launch weapons is made. Is it fool proof? No.
However a manned aircraft strike is a quick in and out. The pilots do not necessarily see their targets, they are directed to them by FAC's using laser pointers, or a drone painting the target with a laser. It is the laser they are focused on, not the target itself.
A drone weapons system can continue to stay on target to do continual assessment after the strike, but a manned aircraft is long gone after it launches its weapons.
Drone weapons are also much smaller in explosive size than, say a 500 lb bomb strapped under the wing of an F15. Once launched the drone weapons operator can guide the weapon up till impact. 500 lb bombs are usually dumb bombs with no guidance system. Once launched 500 lb bombs are on their own.
Moreover, with a drone there is no risk of losing a pilot from a shoot down or mechanical failure. ISIL has demonstrated what it will do with allied pilots if they are captured. I would much rather lose a drone than see a pilot burned to death.
Yes, I would much rather see no war, but in today's world that is impossible. I would much rather use modern technology to limit collateral damage as much as possible if we have to go to war.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes. Although the capacity for group think to set in if the seniors communicate impunity is still there. Nothing is fool-proof but it still seems less likely to lead to red mist.
quote:
I'm not sure what limits the casualties from foot soldiers to single civilians vs thousands by drones?
Ease. Ever done paintball? How long does it take you and your mates to kill the opposing team? Look at this spot in Sidecup. Think of a drone strike that could take out the near by repairer and a Tesco at the same time.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Therefore, a drone pilot is actually much more likely to personally witness the consequences of their actions as opposed to the pilot of a manned airplane, if this is the concern.
Viewing images on a telly is not personal. Not even close. And that is the main thrust of the point.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ease. Ever done paintball? How long does it take you and your mates to kill the opposing team?
I know nothing about drone firepower. However I go back to Mỹ Lai. And many other massacres that could be recalled. The choices are not between one foot soldier with one bullet and drones.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It is my understanding that there is much less collateral damage using a drone than a manned aircraft (F15, for instance).
It is hard to say, for a number of reasons - among them that all males of military age who die as a result of drone strikes are automatically classified as combatants of some kind.
Secondly there is the collateral damage done in terms of the psychological impact on populations in areas in which drones constantly loiter.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
If a drone pilot lived in a nice suburb in a nice home with children playing in the backyard, going into the office to computer control bombing missions, is he or she a fair war target while at home? Or in a park, at a store etc?
There is a strange asymmetry somewhere within I feel.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Therefore, a drone pilot is actually much more likely to personally witness the consequences of their actions as opposed to the pilot of a manned airplane, if this is the concern.
Viewing images on a telly is not personal. Not even close. And that is the main thrust of the point.
How exactly do you think a fighter/bomber pilot views target images?
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
How exactly do you think a fighter/bomber pilot views target images?
Cockpit glass? Regardless, the issue regarding drones does not live or die on its dis/similarity to aircraft. It is an increase in depersonalisation and a diffusion of responsibility. Neither of which is a good thing in warfare decisions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
How exactly do you think a fighter/bomber pilot views target images?
Cockpit glass? Regardless, the issue regarding drones does not live or die on its dis/similarity to aircraft. It is an increase in depersonalisation and a diffusion of responsibility. Neither of which is a good thing in warfare decisions.
My point was that there is little to no evidence to suggest any increase in depersonalization or diffusion of responsibility when comparing drones to manned aircraft—in fact, the opposite might very well be the case given their respective combat sequences. Now, if you want to compare drones to something like ground troops, then sure, there is an intellectual debate to be had regarding depersonalization and diffusion of personal responsibility, but that is really an apples-and-oranges comparison.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Therefore, a drone pilot is actually much more likely to personally witness the consequences of their actions as opposed to the pilot of a manned airplane, if this is the concern.
Viewing images on a telly is not personal. Not even close. And that is the main thrust of the point.
As I understand it, drone pilots suffer from high stress levels and a notably high proportion develop mental health problems. The majority of drone pilots are not carefree killers who treat life as a computer game; the drone pilots who've spoken to the press about it say that what particularly causes stress is the awareness that what they're doing looks like a computer game but in fact the blurry images they're blowing up are real lives that they're taking.
How this should affect our assessment of the morality of drones I leave open. I'm inclined to think that, while mental health problems among drone pilots are clearly not of the same importance as civilian casualties, they are nevertheless a moral negative.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
My point was that there is little to no evidence to suggest any increase in depersonalization or diffusion of responsibility when comparing drones to manned aircraft
Nonsense. In an aircraft you're hurtling through the sky at altitude with noise and vibration, in theatre, with immediate potential enemy aggression plus simple technical faults liable to blow you out of the sky at any moment. You're there in a way you most definitely aren't if you're sitting in a bunker in Illinois or Middlesex with minimal immediate threat to your life.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Viewing images on a telly is not personal. Not even close. And that is the main thrust of the point.
War up close and personal?
That's what lead many to volunteer for WW1. Of those many a large proportion were mutilated with bullets or shrapnel without even seeing the enemy.
A land invasion of Japan in 45 would have been up close and personal, two atomic bombs saved a huge number of combatants from that exilerating experience.
If drones are effective at controlling and reducing the need for people to butcher each other en masse then there are justifiable. It all depends whose operating the joysticks, and for what reason I suppose.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I don't see anything that makes drone warfare any more or less moral than any other kind. As I see it, it comes down to if you see war as ever being appropriate or not.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The military tries very hard to insure there will be no civilian casualties before a decision to launch weapons is made.
[...]
I would much rather use modern technology to limit collateral damage as much as possible if we have to go to war.
What if civilian targets are the primary objective? I'm slightly surprised we haven't seen drones used for terrorist attacks on the West already.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I'm slightly surprised we haven't seen drones used for terrorist attacks on the West already.
Most commercial drones have too small a potential payload, too short a flight time and too short a range in urban settings. Larger drones are spendy, and rare. Cars and people are commonplace and cheap.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The Rector commenced his sermon for Anzac Day by recalling the WW II service of his father and an uncle, both of whom returned. His uncle had been trained for unarmed conflict - killing others with his bare hands which he then proceeded to do. His father had shot and killed several Japanese soldiers. He said that the horror of those duties lived with both men for the rest of their lives. They had been preceded by millennia of soldiers engaged in direct fighting.
By contrast, a bomber pilot was not confronted by the immediacy of his actions. In between, we have fighter pilots, those firing torpedoes, and so forth. Over the years since, we have had missile launchers very remote from the consequences of their actions and a drone operator is even more so.
Now I do know in general terms of the strict rules of engagement for the forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East/Levant and the need to obtain approval from quite senior ranks before bombs are dropped, cars targeted and short range missiles fired. But surely removing the action from its consequences by thousands of kilometres makes it easier to give an order to kill, and eases the conscience a bit too much.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If a drone pilot lived in a nice suburb in a nice home with children playing in the backyard, going into the office to computer control bombing missions, is he or she a fair war target while at home? Or in a park, at a store etc?
During the Irish "troubles", soldiers were considered targets when they were at home, bombs were placed under soldiers' private vehicles, and some soldiers' children were killed. So they were certainly targets.
Was that "fair"? I'm not sure that "fair" has much to do with war.
Legitimate targets? I don't know that I see why not, in principle.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
My point was that there is little to no evidence to suggest any increase in depersonalization or diffusion of responsibility when comparing drones to manned aircraft
Nonsense. In an aircraft you're hurtling through the sky at altitude with noise and vibration, in theatre, with immediate potential enemy aggression plus simple technical faults liable to blow you out of the sky at any moment. You're there in a way you most definitely aren't if you're sitting in a bunker in Illinois or Middlesex with minimal immediate threat to your life.
You posit an interesting scenario, but not one that has any basis in reality.
An American manned bombing mission today is extremely unlikely to occur in actively hostile airspace, and even if one were to occur, the probability that such foe would also be technologically advanced enough to threaten U.S. manned bombers seriously is even more unlikely still. Moreover, drones certainly would not be a viable, alternative option in contested airspace.
Furthermore, if you read my original post, I discuss in detail why any personal connection or sense of responsibility between the pilot of a manned aircraft and his or her target is minimal due to the segregated roles of reconnaissance/surveillance and force delivery—they receive a target, launch, and fly home, most likely without second thought. A drone pilot, on the other hand, usually conducts all phases of an airstrike, from initial reconnaissance to damage assessment—thus, they have a very real and immediate idea of the consequences their own actions have wrought.
As for the real-life sensations present when flying, or any potential fear of technical faults, these have no bearing on the issue of a pilot’s level of detachment from his or her lethal actions.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
This is a little dated, but I think it gives a good description of a day in the life of a RPA pilot. (Don't call them drones pilots)..
Fact is, there is such a RPA operator shortage, the US Air Force is offering $125,000 bonus if a RPA renews his/her contract.
In 2011, Air Force psychologists completed a mental-health survey of 600 combat drone operators. Forty-two percent of drone crews reported moderate to high stress, and 20 percent reported emotional exhaustion or burnout. The study’s authors attributed their dire results, in part, to “existential conflict.” A later study found that drone operators suffered from the same levels of depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation as traditional combat aircrews. The New American
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If a drone pilot lived in a nice suburb in a nice home with children playing in the backyard, going into the office to computer control bombing missions, is he or she a fair war target while at home? Or in a park, at a store etc?
There is a strange asymmetry somewhere within I feel.
I think that's an important point about asymmetry. I have two primary concerns with the drone war against terrorists living among civilians: the first is that the concept of a battlefield / combat zone is now blurred to the point where it doesn't exist anymore. I think that the asymmetry you refer to helps make this acceptable to the citizens (as a whole) of the Western countries waging the war since we would be less willing to contemplate similar action if the terrorists could respond in kind. This is not new with the use of drones since it's also true for long range bombers, artillery, and cruise missiles. But the use of drones has allowed for a new kind of targeting of individuals anywhere on the planet, which has removed the last vestiges of the combat zone.
My second concern is that this is a war that can never officially end by its very nature. There is no organized leadership that could surrender for or call off all the terrorists, even if they were so inclined. We are now in a permanent state of war with no boundaries and need new rules for ourselves that take this into account.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
But the use of drones has allowed for a new kind of targeting of individuals anywhere on the planet, which has removed the last vestiges of the combat zone.
Recent events suggest that one hardly needs a drone to carry out assaults against civilians far from a combat zone.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
But the use of drones has allowed for a new kind of targeting of individuals anywhere on the planet, which has removed the last vestiges of the combat zone.
Recent events suggest that one hardly needs a drone to carry out assaults against civilians far from a combat zone.
Absolutely, which is why we are fighting this war. The targeting I was referring to was targeting that can now be done by our military on a much larger scale than before (compared to when it was limited to assassinations). It doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just that we should be very careful about how we do it within the context of a permanent war with enemies that can be identified only with difficulty and who now fall anywhere on a spectrum. It used to be relatively clear who the enemy was, collectively and individually. It's no less important now, but it is more difficult.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
But the use of drones has allowed for a new kind of targeting of individuals anywhere on the planet, which has removed the last vestiges of the combat zone.
Recent events suggest that one hardly needs a drone to carry out assaults against civilians far from a combat zone.
The blurring of which W Hyatt spoke goes both ways. At least so far, drones have been used almost exclusively against non-state actors (e.g., terrorist groups), and this is in large part a direct reaction to the asymmetrical attacks carried out by such violent, non-state actors (i.e., fourth-generation warfare). As W Hyatt mentioned, such organizations generally have no borders to traverse, no lands to occupy, and no governments to topple, hence the difficulty in applying prior paradigms from before the fall of the U.S.S.R., and the rise of a new, nebulous, and interminable kind of “war” (e.g., the “War on Terror”). Just as terrorists have blurred the line between a “combatant” and “non-combatant,” drone strikes respond in kind by designating particular targets legitimate without artificial constraint from some pre-conceived “battlefield.”
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
A drone pilot, on the other hand, usually conducts all phases of an airstrike, from initial reconnaissance to damage assessment—thus, they have a very real and immediate idea of the consequences their own actions have wrought.
As for the real-life sensations present when flying, or any potential fear of technical faults, these have no bearing on the issue of a pilot’s level of detachment from his or her lethal actions.
I still think the level of immediate danger to a pilot in the air differs markedly to that of a drone pilot, and that their geographical presence in the theatre makes a difference.
I don't dispute the assertion that drone pilots get to see more; ethical qualms are more to do with their physical remoteness and, indeed, the huge disconnect between the reality of mayhem they see on their screens and the reality of normal life immediately they leave them.
I linked to a couple of academic military research papers on this kind of thing in the original tangent which spawned this thread.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
As I see it, it comes down to if you see war as ever being appropriate or not.
Good question and one that I'm afraid the history of humanity has answered resoundingly.
'The ultimate sport' has never been far from our minds since the day one of are ancestors picked up a log and belted someone with it.
The trouble with Drones is they are just not seen as Cricket
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Because war has existed so long is not a reason that it should continue to.
And "just not cricket" is a misrepresentation of the ethical challenge being presented.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't dispute the assertion that drone pilots get to see more; ethical qualms are more to do with their physical remoteness and, indeed, the huge disconnect between the reality of mayhem they see on their screens and the reality of normal life immediately they leave them.
A couple of points - whilst to a certain extent they do see more, the manner in which the information is presented (grainy-green-black pictures for the most part due to image enhancement techniques being used) seems to lend itself to at least immediate distance (hence the language around 'bug-splats' 'pint sized terrorists' and so on).
At the same time, the medium through which the information is presented most closely resembles that of a computer game - and I think some of the commentators on this thread are underestimating the extent to which this could have an immediate distancing effect on the operators.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because war has existed so long is not a reason that it should continue to.
This is true, and I'm sure every one of us on this thread would love for there to never be another war. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether drones should be used in any war that does happen.
You seem to be arguing that if we were forced to send actual troops into war zones then (a) we would be less likely to start wars in the first place and (b) the soldiers on the ground would be less likely to commit atrocities. Neither argument is in any way supported by historical fact.
Yes, drones make war easier. But they also make it considerably safer for the side that uses them. If we're going to destroy an enemy target then I'd much rather do it with a drone and zero allied casualties than by sending in a battalion of troops and getting some of them killed. The target itself is going to be just as destroyed either way.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm reading a history of WW1 these past weeks. If drones are okay, is poison gas? Yes, they made agreements not to use it post-WW1, but it has been used. I understood Churchill considered using it if Germany had established a beachhead in England in WW2.
I understand that we've already had it decided that it is okay to kill civilians though it seems you're not supposed to shoot them or person-to-person kill them, you're supposed to bomb them.
Have we decided if it is okay to torture people or not? Does it make a difference if we torture them to death or allow them to survive? It is unclear to me what is approved currently.
And I'm back to, is it okay to kill a soldier not in uniform on the streets of one of our cities, and also his or her children and spouse? And perhaps a little additional collateral damage is okay? Which then begs the question of which of the 21st century bombings are okay in our cities? Would these have been acceptable if the terrorists had flown drones which did the killing and not personally blown themselves up?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You seem to be arguing that if we were forced to send actual troops into war zones then (a) we would be less likely to start wars in the first place and (b) the soldiers on the ground would be less likely to commit atrocities.
Atrocities will always happen in war. I am not arguing against this being true. What I am saying is that it makes the decision to attack targets without caring about innocent people also being killed more likely.
And, it has a demonstrably more negative effect. It is not for nothing that drone strikes are used in extremist recruiting material.
[ 03. May 2016, 15:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I am saying is that it makes the decision to attack targets without caring about innocent people also being killed more likely.
Again, history suggests otherwise. We were carpet bombing entire cities with high explosives and incendiaries (not to mention a couple of nukes) way before drones existed. Before planes existed naval blockades and sieges would starve combatant and non-combatant alike. The concept of razing a city to the ground goes back to before the Bible, and I doubt any of the armies involved waited patiently for non-combatants to evacuate first.
It's only comparatively recently that the concept of avoiding non-combatant deaths has even been part of warfare. And with their precision laser-guided weaponry, drones are perfectly capable of achieving that aim.
quote:
And, it has a demonstrably more negative effect. It is not for nothing that drone strikes are used in extremist recruiting material.
I imagine the primary reason drone strikes are used in their recruiting material is the fact that that's how we're attacking them. If we had troops on the ground then they'd be producing propoganda materials featuring them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
I think "Eye in the Sky" really brings home all the dilemnas:
quote:
EYE IN THE SKY stars Helen Mirren as Colonel Katherine Powell, a UK-based military officer in command of a top secret drone operation to capture terrorists in Kenya. Through remote surveillance and on-the-ground intel, Powell discovers the targets are planning a suicide bombing and the mission escalates from “capture” to “kill.” But as American pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) is about to engage, a nine-year old girl enters the kill zone, triggering an international dispute reaching the highest levels of US and British government over the moral, political, and personal implications of modern warfare.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because war has existed so long is not a reason that it should continue to.
And "just not cricket" is a misrepresentation of the ethical challenge being presented.
Forgive me for not understanding the ethical challenge here.
Are you proposing a dumbing down of technology so we fight those who oppose Western interests on their own level, with their type a weaponary?
This has already be tried in Afganistan and elsewhere with limited success and has proved just as an effective recruiting sergeant as the use of drones.
None of us can erradicate war, no matter what depth of heartfelt desire we have to that effect. If the use of drones can suppress the escalation of war then they are ethically justifiable in my view.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I don't see the ethical challenge either, if you believe that war is justified at all. How are drones any different? Dead is dead. Collateral damage is collateral damage. If we can cut down on the amount of collateral damage by the use of drones, I say it's to the good.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Drones and other methods of automated warfare make war easier to wage because we only have to count the cost in terms of money, not lives.
Even if you put combat aircraft over a target which has no AAA capability, there's still always the possibility of mechanical failure and potential loss or capture of the air crew. The metric for deciding whether to bomb a target is different when there's meat on the line.
Drones - and RC tanks and soldiers when we get them - make peace less likely.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
The US is not officially at war with some of the countries where its drones are currently killing people. Can it just kill any civilian its intelligence has identified as a threat, anywhere in the world?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
IMHO, the issues surrounding drone warfare simply highlight the hollowness of "just war theory" in general. As we've seen, the issues we're discussing here-- when is it OK to kill? when is someone "at home/off limits"?-- are all inherent to Just War itself, and have been ever since Augustine. It was a flawed theory we used to rationalize an already compromised moral choice. Centuries of using that rationalization have made us to a large degree immune to thinking about them until a new weapon comes along that shocks us into seeing it all over again-- if only for a moment. It happened 60 years ago with the atom bomb, and it's happening now. But the ethical issues are really unchanged.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I am saying is that it makes the decision to attack targets without caring about innocent people also being killed more likely.
Again, history suggests otherwise.
Actually, it doesn't because
quote:
It's only comparatively recently that the concept of avoiding non-combatant deaths has even been part of warfare.
The trend has been to reduce those deaths. Drones have the potential to reverse this.
quote:
And with their precision laser-guided weaponry, drones are perfectly capable of achieving that aim.
The objection isn't about the reduction of collateral damage inherent in the hardware, but that the hardware will be used more often and with less discrimination.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes. Although the capacity for group think to set in if the seniors communicate impunity is still there. Nothing is fool-proof but it still seems less likely to lead to red mist.
quote:
I'm not sure what limits the casualties from foot soldiers to single civilians vs thousands by drones?
Ease. Ever done paintball? How long does it take you and your mates to kill the opposing team? Look at this spot in Sidecup. Think of a drone strike that could take out the near by repairer and a Tesco at the same time.
Sidcup, to avoid confusion. It could do the garden centre as well.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The US is not officially at war with some of the countries where its drones are currently killing people. Can it just kill any civilian its intelligence has identified as a threat, anywhere in the world?
And as the technology becomes more accessible, is it OK for other countries to do the same to us?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And with their precision laser-guided weaponry, drones are perfectly capable of achieving that aim.
That's how they're advertised. One shot, one kill.
The advertising tends to gloss over the other approximately 34 people who also die in the one shot. You could look on it as an improvement to carpet bombing an entire neighbourhood to hit one man, but in WWII, I don't think we ever conducted a mission to kill one man with a squadron of heavy bombers.
So it's a bit of a straw man to compare drone strikes to carpet bombing.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The US is not officially at war with some of the countries where its drones are currently killing people. Can it just kill any civilian its intelligence has identified as a threat, anywhere in the world?
There is a fairly extensive study on the effect of living under the threat of drone strikes on populations by the Stanford Law School.
It touches tangentially on the legal issues, and highlights the ambiguities in the various positions and justifications given for drone strikes within sovereign countries with which the US is not formally at war:
http://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Living-Under-Drones.pdf
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
