Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Aaaand someone who's never heard of extradition...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It is generally accepted that the more removed a person is from their actions, the more extreme those actions will be.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote: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?
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. ...
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: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.
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.quote: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.
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.quote: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?
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 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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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: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.
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.
quote:Although if you exchange one brutalization of a civilian for a thousand civilians killed in "collateral damage", you probably didn't make an improvement.
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).
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Although if you exchange one brutalization of a civilian for a thousand civilians killed in "collateral damage", you probably didn't make an improvement.
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).
quote: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. ]
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote: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.
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.
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: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'm not sure what limits the casualties from foot soldiers to single civilians vs thousands by drones?
quote:Viewing images on a telly is not personal. Not even close. And that is the main thrust of the point.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ease. Ever done paintball? How long does it take you and your mates to kill the opposing team?
quote: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.
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).
quote:How exactly do you think a fighter/bomber pilot views target images?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Viewing images on a telly is not personal. Not even close. And that is the main thrust of the point.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by GCabot:
How exactly do you think a fighter/bomber pilot views target images?
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote: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.
Originally posted by GCabot:
How exactly do you think a fighter/bomber pilot views target images?
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Viewing images on a telly is not personal. Not even close. And that is the main thrust of the point.
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.
quote: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.
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
quote:War up close and personal?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Viewing images on a telly is not personal. Not even close. And that is the main thrust of the point.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I'm slightly surprised we haven't seen drones used for terrorist attacks on the West already.
quote: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.
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?
quote:You posit an interesting scenario, but not one that has any basis in reality.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
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.
quote:Recent events suggest that one hardly needs a drone to carry out assaults against civilians far from a combat zone.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Recent events suggest that one hardly needs a drone to carry out assaults against civilians far from a combat zone.
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.
quote: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.”
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Recent events suggest that one hardly needs a drone to carry out assaults against civilians far from a combat zone.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Good question and one that I'm afraid the history of humanity has answered resoundingly.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
As I see it, it comes down to if you see war as ever being appropriate or not.
quote: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).
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because war has existed so long is not a reason that it should continue to.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
And, it has a demonstrably more negative effect. It is not for nothing that drone strikes are used in extremist recruiting material.
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.
quote:Forgive me for not understanding the ethical challenge here.
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.
quote:Actually, it doesn't because
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Again, history suggests otherwise.
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.
quote:The trend has been to reduce those deaths. Drones have the potential to reverse this.
It's only comparatively recently that the concept of avoiding non-combatant deaths has even been part of warfare.
quote: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.
And with their precision laser-guided weaponry, drones are perfectly capable of achieving that aim.
quote:Sidcup, to avoid confusion. It could do the garden centre as well.
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: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'm not sure what limits the casualties from foot soldiers to single civilians vs thousands by drones?
quote:And as the technology becomes more accessible, is it OK for other countries to do the same to us?
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?
quote:That's how they're advertised. One shot, one kill.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And with their precision laser-guided weaponry, drones are perfectly capable of achieving that aim.
quote:There is a fairly extensive study on the effect of living under the threat of drone strikes on populations by the Stanford Law School.
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?
quote:Some terror attacks on the west on civilian targets, without the high tech videogame killing method, might be justifiable retaliation via such reasoning? I worry that we have embraced the many coloured beast. Taken it to heart. Given it legitimacy.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:And as the technology becomes more accessible, is it OK for other countries to do the same to us?
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?
quote:I don't agree, because our leaders have always been perfectly willing to put "meat on the line" in support of their goals.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
quote:I don't see how that follows. If there is motivation to reduce non-combatant deaths then that motivation exists whether the attack is by troops, manned aircraft or drones.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Actually, it doesn't because
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Again, history suggests otherwise.
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.
quote:The trend has been to reduce those deaths. Drones have the potential to reverse this.
It's only comparatively recently that the concept of avoiding non-combatant deaths has even been part of warfare.
quote:Making more strikes is a tactical decision, not a hardware one. If we didn't have drones we'd just send manned aircraft to do the job instead, and if we didn't have any of those then we'd send a Spec Ops team.
quote: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.
And with their precision laser-guided weaponry, drones are perfectly capable of achieving that aim.
quote:I don't agree with your disagreement. I think that it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify returning body bags (remembering that in UK terms, it's up until only recently that bodies were buried close to where they fell). The spectre of having to attend military funerals in the UK haunts senior politicians.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I don't agree, because our leaders have always been perfectly willing to put "meat on the line" in support of their goals.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
quote:I think there's more hesitation in sending live human beings who could themselves be killed or injured than sending a machine controlled remotely by people no where near the people being killed. Though I would bend your point and suggest that personally killing and watching the face of the person whose being killed as life drains from them is a good requirement for killing people in war or non-war or whatever these things are.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]Making more strikes is a tactical decision, not a hardware one. If we didn't have drones we'd just send manned aircraft to do the job instead, and if we didn't have any of those then we'd send a Spec Ops team.
quote:He goes on to discuss how many technicians who contribute to killing of people don't really have to connect their roles with the killing of people. He knows he killed innocent people.
There's no physical danger from the enemy and that's what makes the job so tough. If you're in danger, if someone is pointing a gun at you, you can justify - in your own mind - shooting someone....You have to go home after a mission like everything is normal.
quote:I'm not sure there's any job he could do in the military that would be acceptable to him. I wonder what he thought he was going to be doing when he enlisted?
When I read the Bible, I learned that we're not supposed to kill people, but here I was, building the infrastructure for people to do just that.
quote:Again, it is unclear to me exactly to what you are comparing. A pilot in a manned bomber aircraft is going to have, at best, a similar view. It is not like they are going to be looking through the cockpit glass directly at the target—it is all sensor-based, just as with drones. If they are using munitions that do not require line-of-sight, then they will have an even more detached view of the target. The only exception would be close air support aircraft, which are not really comparable since drones are never used in this role.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
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.
quote:I am not sure why the issues that have arisen with drone warfare would invalidate all of just war theory. Just war theory was conceived in and for an era when combat was governed by mutually agreed upon rules. The problem with terrorism, drones, etc., is that they operate outside of the previously accepted boundaries of war. Therefore, it is simply inapplicable to these sorts of conflicts, because the players refuse to follow the rules upon which just war theory is premised. That does not mean that just war theory has no current value in terms of conventional conflicts between states, however.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
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.
quote:By this formula, should anyone with a modicum of morality be in the military. Or perhaps susceptibility to having one's morality exterminated or supressed is greater when 18 than when 28. His seems to have regrown. Like a cancer.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Not that it matters. The article mostly just persuades me that he probably shouldn't have joined the Air Force in the first place:quote:I'm not sure there's any job he could do in the military that would be acceptable to him. I wonder what he thought he was going to be doing when he enlisted?
When I read the Bible, I learned that we're not supposed to kill people, but here I was, building the infrastructure for people to do just that.
quote:It may be quite reasonable to object to the terms of engagement. Are we at war with ISIS ? But if that's your objection it doesn't matter whether the killing is accomplished by a drone or a bomb or a rifle. It's "war on terror" that you oppose, rather than drones as a technology.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...judging whether the use of drones to commit extra-judicial killings is acceptable.
quote:Is the argument being made here that worse things (terrorist attacks) happen if we don't do this than if we're successful in doing this ? That letting the bad guys win is worse than fighting the war ?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Discussing the thing in itself is difficult without pointing at another group and saying 'they're worse'. That may be so, but we're not discussing their behaviour. We're discussing ours.
quote:Same as it ever was. We don't send 18 year olds over the top of trenches and gas them. We just tell them to kill the little brown people and drink alco-pop.
The ancient Jehovah is still on the loose. Alas, he slays the innocent along with the guilty, whom he strikes so fearsomely blind that they can feel no sense of guilt.
We are dealing with an epidemic delusion which, having caused infinite suffering, will one day vanish and become a monstrous and incomprehensible source of wonderment to later generations. -Albert Einstein. 03 June 1916
quote:Sitting at a desk watching information being presented on a flat screen monitor is rather different from having that same information being presented to you in the cramped confines of a combat aircraft.
Originally posted by GCabot:
Again, it is unclear to me exactly to what you are comparing. A pilot in a manned bomber aircraft is going to have, at best, a similar view. It is not like they are going to be looking through the cockpit glass directly at the target—it is all sensor-based, just as with drones.
quote:Isn't this the difference between a crime paradigm and a war paradigm ?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Every single discharge of a firearm by the police is thoroughly investigated, even if the process itself is sometimes highly suspect. I'm reasonably confident in saying there'll never be inquests into the deaths of British victims of drone strikes.
quote:My first thought was Pakistan qualifies, and it does, but I think I see a flash of plaid through the thistle.
Originally posted by Russ:
To operate a crime paradigm, you need to be operating in a country with an effective rule of law.
quote:Terrorists are criminals, and therefore can be prosecuted in civilian courts and sent to gaol (or in the US, executed), or terrorists are enemy combatants and if captured, should be placed in POW camps for the duration, under the oversight of the ICRC.
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't this the difference between a crime paradigm and a war paradigm ?
quote:Who's the "we" in this last bit? (Presumably you're not including yourself.)
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Terrorists are criminals, and therefore can be prosecuted in civilian courts and sent to gaol (or in the US, executed), or terrorists are enemy combatants and if captured, should be placed in POW camps for the duration, under the oversight of the ICRC.
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't this the difference between a crime paradigm and a war paradigm ?
If we're fighting a war, we expect casualties where the enemy attack us. If we're chasing down a bunch of criminals, then we view victims of their violence differently.
It sounds to me like we want all the 'convenience' of fighting a war, using all the rhetoric of law enforcement.
quote:I think the Pakistani's would be surprised to hear that they have an effective rule of law in their northwest territories.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:My first thought was Pakistan qualifies, and it does, but I think I see a flash of plaid through the thistle.
Originally posted by Russ:
To operate a crime paradigm, you need to be operating in a country with an effective rule of law.
quote:Who's the "we" in this last bit? (Presumably you're not including yourself.)
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Terrorists are criminals, and therefore can be prosecuted in civilian courts and sent to gaol (or in the US, executed), or terrorists are enemy combatants and if captured, should be placed in POW camps for the duration, under the oversight of the ICRC.
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't this the difference between a crime paradigm and a war paradigm ?
If we're fighting a war, we expect casualties where the enemy attack us. If we're chasing down a bunch of criminals, then we view victims of their violence differently.
It sounds to me like we want all the 'convenience' of fighting a war, using all the rhetoric of law enforcement.
quote:I think the Pakistani's would be surprised to hear that they have an effective rule of law in their northwest territories.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:My first thought was Pakistan qualifies, and it does, but I think I see a flash of plaid through the thistle.
Originally posted by Russ:
To operate a crime paradigm, you need to be operating in a country with an effective rule of law.
quote:Well, why not include myself? That way I get to call them criminal murderers, and I get to justify killing them because my country's at war with them.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Who's the "we" in this last bit? (Presumably you're not including yourself.)
From what I've seen, the people who want to treat it as a war emphatically reject the rhetoric of law enforcement, and those who want to view it as a law enforcement issue don't think it should be treated as a war.
quote:Depends who's doing the attacking. If it's a country, or something that looks a bit like a country, then that would be an act of war. If it's an animal rights group protesting about sharks with laser beams, it's terrorism, and a crime.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So if an attack occurred on a military establishment within a drone-using country's homeland (say on the scale of the 11 Sept 2001 Pentagon building attack) is this a legitimate act of war in the current scheme of things or is it a criminal act?
quote:Sure. Hijacking a commercial plane and using it as a weapon would be a war crime. The others wouldn't.
[bq] Would it matter if the attack is done by a hijacked commercial airplane, a military bomber plane, a drone or suicide bombers?
[/qb]
quote:It has seemed to me that if a powerful nation does something, it is not a war crime because they can say it isn't a war crime and carry this off. Acts of violence are war crimes only if the group conducting them are weak.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sure. Hijacking a commercial plane and using it as a weapon would be a war crime. The others wouldn't.
quote:The alternative policy is the timeless one lived by Jesus 2000 years ago. He did neither of those things. However all those demanding, as on Premier Christian Radio, that "Something must be DONE by SOMEBODY ELSE (like the oxymoron of Welby's "just war"), before it's TOO LATE!!!!", about SCIS, SHOULD put their money where there mouth is and pay ransom for the minorities SCIS persecute.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It may be quite reasonable to object to the terms of engagement. Are we at war with ISIS ? But if that's your objection it doesn't matter whether the killing is accomplished by a drone or a bomb or a rifle. It's "war on terror" that you oppose, rather than drones as a technology.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...judging whether the use of drones to commit extra-judicial killings is acceptable.
quote:Is the argument being made here that worse things (terrorist attacks) happen if we don't do this than if we're successful in doing this ? That letting the bad guys win is worse than fighting the war ?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Discussing the thing in itself is difficult without pointing at another group and saying 'they're worse'. That may be so, but we're not discussing their behaviour. We're discussing ours.
That may not be true. Every success may radicalize a new Muslim, create a new terrorist.
But if its the policy you object to, you might want to make clear what your proposed alternative policy is. Suffer terrorist attacks in pacifist moral superiority ? Pay the terrorists to go away ?
quote:Yeah, but there is an odd coincidence of dates in this link. It is highly probable that my link is at the very least a multiplier to your link.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think the Pakistani's would be surprised to hear that they have an effective rule of law in their northwest territories.
quote:The problem is history. Our nations have a recurring history of ignoring the causes and attacking the symptoms.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Historically, wars are fought against nations. But, in the case of Al Qaeda they held no ground, but they committed a number of acts of war, culminating in 9/11.
quote:Really? So you mean that you yourself want the convenience of fighting a war? I wouldn't have thought you'd take that position. What is it about military action that you find appealing, if you don't mind my asking?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Well, why not include myself? That way I get to call them criminal murderers, and I get to justify killing them because my country's at war with them.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Who's the "we" in this last bit? (Presumably you're not including yourself.)
From what I've seen, the people who want to treat it as a war emphatically reject the rhetoric of law enforcement, and those who want to view it as a law enforcement issue don't think it should be treated as a war.
quote:I don't believe it is highly probable. I see nothing in the Wikipedia article on the war in Northwest Pakistan to indicate that US drone strikes are a particularly important cause of the war, nor that, had they not occurred, Pakistan would have had "effective rule of law" in the FATA. According to your link:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yeah, but there is an odd coincidence of dates in this link. It is highly probable that my link is at the very least a multiplier to your link.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think the Pakistani's would be surprised to hear that they have an effective rule of law in their northwest territories.
quote:
For at least some of the initial drone strikes, in 2004 and 2005, the US operated with the approval of Pakistan's ISI. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told The New Yorker in 2014 that he allowed the CIA to fly drones within Pakistan and that in exchange the US supplied helicopters and night-vision equipment to the Pakistanis.
quote:I was showing coincidental dates, not proof within the link. I should have been more clear. you can think they had nought to do with the destabilisation of the region, but ISTM, history will not agree.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't believe it is highly probable. I see nothing in the Wikipedia article on the war in Northwest Pakistan to indicate that US drone strikes are a particularly important cause of the war,
quote:Pakistan is a functioning country with rule of law, even if part of it is out of control. Is the US not under rule of law because Detroit looks more like Baghdad than it does New York? For a significant part of US history, there have been large swaths that were at war with the government, but the US would not have been classified as a lawless country when viewed as a whole.
nor that, had they not occurred, Pakistan would have had "effective rule of law" in the FATA.
quote:Fair point that some strikes were with permission.
According to your link:quote:
For at least some of the initial drone strikes, in 2004 and 2005, the US operated with the approval of Pakistan's ISI. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told The New Yorker in 2014 that he allowed the CIA to fly drones within Pakistan and that in exchange the US supplied helicopters and night-vision equipment to the Pakistanis.
quote:ISIS are my enemy. They're yours too. And probably my cats', for that matter.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Really? So you mean that you yourself want the convenience of fighting a war?
quote:Having functioning police in Islamabad doesn't mean you have "effective rule of law" in FATA. Whether drone strikes were helpful or not, the Pakistani government's approval suggests they didn't think a law enforcement approach was any kind of plausible alternative.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I was showing coincidental dates, not proof within the link. I should have been more clear. you can think they had nought to do with the destabilisation of the region, but ISTM, history will not agree.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't believe it is highly probable. I see nothing in the Wikipedia article on the war in Northwest Pakistan to indicate that US drone strikes are a particularly important cause of the war,
quote:Pakistan is a functioning country with rule of law, even if part of it is out of control.
nor that, had they not occurred, Pakistan would have had "effective rule of law" in the FATA.
quote:I didn't ask whether you thought you understood other people's motivations, or whether one thing might be easier for you to think than another.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:ISIS are my enemy. They're yours too. And probably my cats', for that matter.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Really? So you mean that you yourself want the convenience of fighting a war?
So what do I do about it? On what level is it not easier for me to think, "okay, let's make it straight forward for people who want to join ISIS to go to Syria: then we can blow the crap out of them with robots at zero risk to people I might meet and possibly even like."?
I understand the seductiveness of such arguments.
quote:Haven't you? I find that strange, because politicians referring to ISIS as criminals while waging war on them is relatively commonplace.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I just wanted to know who "we" is in "It sounds to me like we want all the 'convenience' of fighting a war, using all the rhetoric of law enforcement." because I haven't heard of many people who actually do both of those things.
quote:No, I haven't! Would you mind giving an example? One with whom you would group yourself so as to (finally!) form an actual "we"?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Haven't you? I find that strange, because politicians referring to ISIS as criminals while waging war on them is relatively commonplace.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I just wanted to know who "we" is in "It sounds to me like we want all the 'convenience' of fighting a war, using all the rhetoric of law enforcement." because I haven't heard of many people who actually do both of those things.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
typo ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:The lesson of Vietnam is that holding out against advanced technokilling is merely a matter of time.
Originally posted by rolyn:
It does seem that someone is a criminal on one patch of ground or a legitimate military target on another.
Rules of engagement are always fluid in warfare. Drone strikes provide easy propaganda points to any opponent. The only hope is that the opponent eventually comes to realise that holding out against more and more advanced technology is futile.
At present it is virtually impossible to know how, when or if that point will be reached.
quote:Thanks, that's a helpful illustration.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Look, this isn't difficult. Take this news story as just one of dozens of examples.
Are these men criminals, or members of an opposing army, or spies, or what?
The English legal system has them as criminals, hence their trial in a civilian court and the sentences handed down fully within the criminal code. Yet two of their fellows were assassinated by drone in Syria, for allegedly committing similar crimes.
quote:Would you feel better if the two men in question had been classed as enemy spies, found guilty by a military tribunal, and then shot?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The English legal system has them as criminals, hence their trial in a civilian court and the sentences handed down fully within the criminal code. Yet two of their fellows were assassinated by drone in Syria, for allegedly committing similar crimes.
quote:I think you'd probably expect to deal with the local law enforcement agency. That doesn't seem to be an option in Raqqa.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We have other wars, like those on drugs.
If I was caught with half a kilo of top-grade cocaine at a UK airport, I'd expect to see the inside of a prison cell. If I was carrying that same amount towards a South American airport on my way to the UK, would I expect a drone strike?
(Dave W. Clearly, some of us have lives...)
quote:Seriously? That's your analogy? The whole point of this part of the conversation, as far as I'm concerned, is to explore the disparity of treatment of UK nationals based on where they are, as opposed to what they're doing.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If a citizen of an Allied country had traveled to Germany on the eve of WWII and joined the German army, do you think the army of his country of origin would have considered him to be deserving of special protection against armed attack because of his citizenship?
quote:Of course not - but the huge difference is that he would have been taking part in a formal conflict under which he would have been covered by the various international and national laws of conduct in wartime (modulo the exceptions mentioned above which no longer exist).
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't think the difference in treatment is as novel as you seem to think. If a citizen of an Allied country had traveled to Germany on the eve of WWII and joined the German army, do you think the army of his country of origin would have considered him to be deserving of special protection against armed attack because of his citizenship?
quote:Because we can. Because it is easy. Because it is there, and not here. Because many UK and US citizens don't consider Muslims "true" countryman. Because it happens in places that are full of dirty, nasty foreigners who all hate us and all would kill us if they could.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They have not been reintroduced. So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
quote:I thought also it was a trial run. Try several assassinations, and see what the reaction is. We know that the media will mostly react favourably, e.g. 'Kill, kill, kill the murdering bastards', or something like that. But how will the rest of polite society react?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Because we can. Because it is easy. Because it is there, and not here. Because many UK and US citizens don't consider Muslims "true" countryman. Because it happens in places that are full of dirty, nasty foreigners who all hate us and all would kill us if they could.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They have not been reintroduced. So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
Pick whichever reason(s) suit,
quote:Interesting. It would seem to allow shooting of people in drone operating countries.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would guess also that the legality of drones would be extended from the legality of snipers in war situations. Quote, 'The prohibition on assassination does not preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy, whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere'.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/armylaw1992&div=55&id=&page=
quote:Yes, seriously, that's my analogy. Running off to join ISIS and take part in armed attacks is somewhat analogous to signing up with the Wehrmacht; in neither case would I expect possession of a UK passport to convey special protection, and I don't understand why you seem to think it should.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Seriously? That's your analogy? The whole point of this part of the conversation, as far as I'm concerned, is to explore the disparity of treatment of UK nationals based on where they are, as opposed to what they're doing.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If a citizen of an Allied country had traveled to Germany on the eve of WWII and joined the German army, do you think the army of his country of origin would have considered him to be deserving of special protection against armed attack because of his citizenship?
Then you wheel out WWII where we hanged traitors. The laws that allowed for that were later repealed, when they weren't needed. They have not been reintroduced. So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
quote:To be sure, though he'd have had to comply with a number of restrictions on his own behavior to avail himself of some of those protections.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Of course not - but the huge difference is that he would have been taking part in a formal conflict under which he would have been covered by the various international and national laws of conduct in wartime (modulo the exceptions mentioned above which no longer exist).
Originally posted by Dave W.:
[same as above]
quote:What on earth does being a UK citizen have anything to do with anything? Are you suggesting it's OK to shoot a foreigner who's driving around in an ISIS truck terrorising people, but not OK to shoot a Britisher?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So why are we killing UK citizens abroad?
quote:I'm not wild about military action full stop but I don't see that a useful understanding of the situation can be gained by picking reasons that suit.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pick whichever reason(s) suit,
quote:Why you don't understand is a matter for you.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, seriously, that's my analogy. Running off to join ISIS and take part in armed attacks is somewhat analogous to signing up with the Wehrmacht; in neither case would I expect possession of a UK passport to convey special protection, and I don't understand why you seem to think it should.
quote:I haven't been following this thread, and it's possible someone has already pointed this out.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Seems like we need a new thread on the inherent violence of drone warfare.
quote:Or, alternatively, a matter for you to explain (if you care to) since it's your position and this is a discussion board. What are your grounds for thinking so?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Why you don't understand is a matter for you.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Yes, seriously, that's my analogy. Running off to join ISIS and take part in armed attacks is somewhat analogous to signing up with the Wehrmacht; in neither case would I expect possession of a UK passport to convey special protection, and I don't understand why you seem to think it should.
quote:I don't accept the premise of your question; I don't believe that it does provide special protection.
But you need to consider why a UK passport does convey special protection when a UK citizen is found doing the same thing in Luton as some are doing in Raqqa. You've never come up with a cogent response to that.
quote:What's this supposed to mean? Being a UK national gives you special protection against extradition? Or a special right to extradition?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Aaaand someone who's never heard of extradition...
quote:I still think that what we're talking about is best thought of as a grey area between policing criminal activity on the one hand and on the other hand military action against a hostile country that is actively threatening one's own.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No one's saying these were good people. No one's saying that it was possible to go and arrest them.
But if belonging to ISIS is a capital crime, why aren't we executing people caught going to Syria?
quote:This keeps on being wheeled out as a reason. Except when we insist ISIS aren't a state.
Originally posted by Russ:
military action against a hostile country that is actively threatening one's own
quote:It seems that the following are options:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This keeps on being wheeled out as a reason. Except when we insist ISIS aren't a state.
quote:You're right, it does seem rather pointless. Still, I felt certain that if we just tried we could reach a common understanding, and so we have: we both agree that one of us is utterly failing to engage.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I have only limited time and energy to waste on you, Dave W. If you want to actually engage, then please do better.
quote:This is the bit I was trying to engage in. I didn't really get your last few replies, but I thought I'd made a reasonable argument as to why this wasn't necessarily inconsistent.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
gaol ISIS sympathisers here, order targeted assassinations of them abroad...
quote:I don't think the fact that these people are UK citizens makes a difference. If we shouldn't order a drone strike against someone from Birmingham who is up to no good in the Middle East, we equally shouldn't order a drone strike against his friend from Baghdad who is doing exactly the same thing.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So we have a situation in which UK citizens have joined ISIS and are actively recruiting for them via social media. In what circumstances does that mean they should be killed?
quote:Agree that their citizenship shouldn't make a difference. But where they carry out their activities does, for practical rather than moral reasons.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I don't think the fact that these people are UK citizens makes a difference.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So we have a situation in which UK citizens have joined ISIS and are actively recruiting for them via social media. In what circumstances does that mean they should be killed?
quote:I get this, but time and time again we see in warfare a fight that begins with the gloves on and often ends with the gloves off.
Originally posted by mdijon:
All war is bad but some acts are even worse. Defining a war-crime and having a sanction might restrain some of the extremes of evil that humans have to offer.
quote:When you say one-sided it sounds as if taking advantage of superior technology isn't fair. But I think that isn't what you mean judging by your other posts?
Originally posted by rolyn:
While Drone use does make the struggle against terror extremists look very one-sided, and unethical, this will no longer appear the case if/when the opponent acquires and deploys nuclear technology,(as much as we hope such a day never arrives).
quote:What would you say then of the use of Greek Fire by the Eastern Empire? A technological advantage if ever there were on. The invention of siege engines is another example.
Originally posted by rolyn:
While Drone use does make the struggle against terror extremists look very one-sided, and unethical, this will no longer appear the case if/when the opponent acquires and deploys nuclear technology,(as much as we hope such a day never arrives).
History will long wrangle as to who provoked who in the war on terror. War ISTM is a lethal game of raising the stakes. A game once started that is notoriously difficult to stop.
quote:I don't see this. Drones are being chosen by governments who aim for targeted assassinations, suicide bombers by terrorists who want to kill innocent bystanders. The are arguments about the morality and accuracy of both methods, but I don't see any sense in which the choices can be compared.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I'm sort of saying , probably in a convoluted way, that drones are a weapon of choice as is the suicide bomber.
quote:They are comparable insomuch as those doing the directing, and issuing of instructions have aims.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Drones are being chosen by governments who aim for targeted assassinations, suicide bombers by terrorists who want to kill innocent bystanders. There are arguments about the morality and accuracy of both methods, but I don't see any sense in which the choices can be compared.
quote:This would seem to bear all the necessary characteristics of a "drone" and "drone warfare"; a remotely-controlled robot used to deliver a lethal payload.
“We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was,” Chief David Brown said in a press conference Friday morning. “Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased … He’s been deceased because of a detonation of the bomb.”
quote:Having just watched this film, I second this. Eye in the Sky gives an extremely accurate depiction of the process behind a drone strike from start to finish, including from the view of the drone operators. It takes no political stance, and would help clear up some of the misconceptions many appear to have regarding what a drone pilot actually sees vis-à-vis the pilot of a traditional, manned aircraft.
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
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.
quote:As the article you cite freely admits, some license was taken for the purpose of making it a movie. No one would pay to go watch a film where the target was only ever visible in grainy footage, and doing so would have been counterproductive to the director's goal of ensuring that the audience saw the victims of the drone strike in question as people, rather than just statistical collateral damage.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, perhaps Not accurate enough.
quote:I haven't seen the film so I will not comment as to the accuracy of the drone pilot's POV. However, since it is only one part of the process, the rest is relevant. Especially in a discussion of the ethics of using drones, which this is.
Originally posted by GCabot:
No one would pay to go watch a film where the target was only ever visible in grainy footage, and doing so would have been counterproductive to the director's goal of ensuring that the audience saw the victims of the drone strike in question as people, rather than just statistical collateral damage.
And in any case, to the point I was making, it remains extremely accurate in depicting the process from the drone pilot's point of view, in illustrating what sort of information to which he or she will be exposed in any strike, regardless of the liberties the film takes in terms of depicting the accuracy of intelligence used by the higher-up decision makers, which is a completely separate issue.
