What's the issue with drones? (UAVs, not bees)

[ReadyAmyFire]

First, apologies if this should be in the Politics section, I was in two minds about where to stick it.

Mr. Obama is in my part of the world this week for this G8 craic, and my facebook is awash with people complaining about the usual stuff, economics, middle east, etc. But there are at least half a dozen people saying he needs to get the US military to stop using drones. I don't want to appear ignorant to people I know which is why I'm asking here.

I'm a student engineer and we've spent a lot of the past three years talking about UAVs, even designed and built a miniature one this year, and at no point has any lecturer mentioned that there were ethical considerations to their use, so all this talk of banning them has gone well over my head (pun totally intended).

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Firstly.

I was in two minds about where to stick it.

That's what she said.

Secondly, if the enemy has UAV drones, then they can see where all our guys are on the map, unless you've got UAV screen factor 150 or something.

This makes it a lot more difficult for the snipers to hit the weak point for massive damage.

 

[FireAza]

You have some guy, hundreds of miles away, joystick in hand, ending the lives of living human beings (who look like nothing more then little dots) with the touch of a button. It's a tad unfair and kinda disturbing how easy and dehumanizing it makes the act of taking a life.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, it's a bit odd. Beyond airstrikes with armed drones, they had airstrikes with planes with people in them. People killed by them are no less dead.

But drones are new and exciting and somehow different.

 

[DoPo]

Firstly.

I was in two minds about where to stick it.

That's what she said.

Secondly, if the enemy has UAV drones, then they can see where all our guys are on the map, unless you've got UAV screen factor 150 or something.

This makes it a lot more difficult for the snipers to hit the weak point for massive damage.

I...I have to agree on both accounts here. I mean, I was going to say "well they aren't bees and that's the problem - can you imagine them buzzing around a beehive?" and while this is clearly bad, I do think you bring up a better point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, it's a bit odd. Beyond airstrikes with armed drones, they had airstrikes with planes with people in them. People killed by them are no less dead.

But drones are new and exciting and somehow different.

They can be different.

Pilots are a resource, a valuable one that forced the invention of these things.

How long before these things get completely automated or streamlined to the point one person can control a whole group? 10, 20 years? What next would be a post scarcity effect on the air force.

Lives? Training? Pilots? Irrelevant. Have a factory mass producing these things and you will have air superiority over anyone who doesn't have drones. Meaning richer countries literally have an unlimited air force.

A pilot getting shot down is one less pilot. A drone shot down means nothing. An infinite military is a scary thing, and can turn ugly very quickly.

Sure, they could be different in the future, but currently that doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

[shootthebandit]

Yeah, it's a bit odd. Beyond airstrikes with armed drones, they had airstrikes with planes with people in them. People killed by them are no less dead.

But drones are new and exciting and somehow different.

They can be different.

Pilots are a resource, a valuable one that forced the invention of these things.

How long before these things get completely automated or streamlined to the point one person can control a whole group?

Google "taranis" its already in development

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

I don't really see being able to bomb a place while sitting comfy a thousand miles away being that different from a general ordering the taking of a hill, an action that will cost many lives, while he himself sits safe and cozy way behind the front lines. The only difference is technology. I don't think your average pilot has any more face time with the people he bombs than your average drone pilot. Sure accidents could happen such as bombing the wrong target or losing control of the drone but it's hardly like pilots haven't bombed places accidentally before because they fucked up with their navigation.

I guess in the end it comes down to slippery slope arguments and some sort of subconscious "warrior's code" that dictates that if you're gonna kill someone you should give them at least a little bit of a shot at killing you first.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't really see being able to bomb a place while sitting comfy a thousand miles away being that different from a general ordering the taking of a hill, an action that will cost many lives, while he himself sits safe and cozy way behind the front lines.

Very much this. The person deciding on the attack is far from the pointy end in any event. It didn't stop the people at the pointy end from following orders.

 

[shootthebandit]

Another point i should make us that technology is no longer a limiting factor in modern fighters the pilot is the limiting factor. Modern airframes can well exceed the G-forces the human body can handle and modern avionics and radar have very clever systems that can identify targets, with satlink (or a similar system) this information can be sent to a whole fleet. These aircraft can probably react a lot faster than a human pilot and make minute changes to the flying controls. Not to mention pilots make the aircraft heavier when there is no need for a seat, pressurised bulkhead, heavy oxygen bottles (or an oxygen generation system), air conditioning and not to mention all the redundances in the systems to allow for pilot safety. All this adds up and you will end up with a far more efficient and more capable aircraft

 

[shootthebandit]

I don't really see being able to bomb a place while sitting comfy a thousand miles away being that different from a general ordering the taking of a hill, an action that will cost many lives, while he himself sits safe and cozy way behind the front lines.

Very much this. The person deciding on the attack is far from the pointy end in any event. It didn't stop the people at the pointy end from following orders.

Theres a saying in the airforce though. In the army and the navy they send their lowest paid men to go and get killed and the highest paid stay in relative safety. Where as the airforce sends their highest paid men to go into combat and the lowest paid stay in relative safety

 

[Thaluikhain]

Another point i should make us that technology is no longer a limiting factor in modern fighters the pilot is the limiting factor. Modern airframes can well exceed the G-forces the human body can handle and modern avionics and radar have very clever systems that can identify targets, with satlink (or a similar system) this information can be sent to a whole fleet.

Actually no, or at least not in practice. They can see a target very well, but they can't determine its nature without seeing it visually, and nobody (currently, and in theory) dares to fire at a target that they don't know.

Also, G-forces aren't an issue (currently), as drones don't maneuver much, they just fly around high above waiting to fire missiles at people.

(As an aside, there seems to be an issue with high-G and high oxygen. "Raptor cough" is apparently a problem, but they just ignore it at the moment)

 

[shootthebandit]

Another point i should make us that technology is no longer a limiting factor in modern fighters the pilot is the limiting factor. Modern airframes can well exceed the G-forces the human body can handle and modern avionics and radar have very clever systems that can identify targets, with satlink (or a similar system) this information can be sent to a whole fleet.

1) Actually no, or at least not in practice. They can see a target very well, but they can't determine its nature without seeing it visually, and nobody (currently, and in theory) dares to fire at a target that they don't know.

2) Also, G-forces aren't an issue (currently), as drones don't maneuver much, they just fly around high above waiting to fire missiles at people.

(As an aside, there seems to be an issue with high-G and high oxygen. "Raptor cough" is apparently a problem, but they just ignore it at the moment)

1) these systems are incredibly good. Especially when these aircraft are equiped with "beyond visual range" weapons. They wont fire unless the target can be visually identified though which sort of renders them useless. Yeah they would still need a human operator to release the weapon

2) currently but UAV development is advancing VERY rapidly

 

[Thaluikhain]

1) these systems are incredibly good. Especially when these aircraft are equiped with "beyond visual range" weapons. They wont fire unless the target can be visually identified though which sort of renders them useless. Yeah they would still need a human operator to release the weapon

Yeah, that's what I meant.

2) currently but UAV development is advancing VERY rapidly

True, but you only need fast maneuvers when fighting other planes (I think), and they aren't used for that. Though, yeah, things will change in the future.

 

[Thaluikhain]

2) currently but UAV development is advancing VERY rapidly

True, but you only need fast maneuvers when fighting other planes (I think), and they aren't used for that. Though, yeah, things will change in the future.

Not really. If you can fire a missile at an airborne target from longer range than it can, he's the guy doing the dodging, not you.

Is that something that has been happening with drones, though?

 

[Quaxar]

You have some guy, hundreds of miles away, joystick in hand, ending the lives of living human beings (who look like nothing more then little dots) with the touch of a button. It's a tad unfair and kinda disturbing how easy and dehumanizing it makes the act of taking a life.

It's not actually much different from a pilot sitting in a jet miles away, joystick in hand, ending the lives of living human beings, who look like nothing more then little dots, with the touch of a button, is it?

Easy and dehumanizing kills started with the invention of ballistic weapons. A longbow can kill pretty conveniently from a distance, even more so a musket barrage, even more so a rifled gun, even more so a sniper gun, even more so long-range artilleries, rockets, airplane bombs and mines.
Really, a drone isn't anything revolutionary when it comes to an impersonal kill, you're just making it safer and cheaper for your own side.

 

[senordesol]

I think what scares people is the concept of 'bloodless warfare'. Which presents an interesting dilemma and dichotomy. Obviously a good commander will try to engage the enemy with minimal risks to his troops. A day of combat where all the enemy are dead and none of ours is a good day indeed.

However, the situation begins to sour when we strike at our 'enemies' like gods from on-high, raining death against those little white blobs on the computer screen while we enjoy the comforts of home far from harm. How quick will we be to start wars and how slow shall we be to end them where there is no risk to our precious blood? What terrible deeds of merciless prosecution will we perform; not because they were required, but because no one cared to double-check the target?

Now, I'm not against the use of drones myself -not yet- but these are certainly valid concerns.