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

[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.

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.

True, but in the case of a jet fighter, that little dot miles away would be another jet fighter. Who has a far better chance of being able to defend himself than some poor sap on the ground being blown to pieces by what's essentially a flying Terminator. And you've still got the issue that someone controlling a drone isn't putting himself in any danger, while a fighter pilot at least is. Obviously, that's the point of a done, but that's also what makes it really unfair.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

...

[sub]I wanted to talk about bees.[/sub]

 

[Comocat]

I think a big problem with UAVs is currently the US is really the only country deploying them regularly and widely. What happens when China or Russia decide to get in on the action? If our current policy now is kill that terroristy-looking Arab, what happens when China deploys UAVs in its territorial waters, or Russia deploys them in former Soviet states. Its diplomatically impossible to argue moral high ground when you've been wading in the much for years.

Also, war often has to be weighed with consequences and there really arent many consequences in blowing up a house with a drone thousands of miles over seas. Iran captured a drone once, nobody cared. Could you imagine if Iran shot down a US pilot?

 

[Sectan]

It's more the thought that if UAVs become autonomous, who's to say there wont be that 1 in 1000 chance you'll kill a civilian or a misidentified friendly soldier or local police officer. Plus the dehumanizing factor of shooting dots on your screen compared to looking someone in the face gives the whole thing an unsettling feeling.

 

[danm36]

Personally, I feel drones as a sort of extension to artillery and air-to-ground attacking in the way of dehumanizing the act of killing - I can't see his eyes, and as such, to me he doesn't have any and this demon dot probably has no family either.

The real worry is when we start handing control over to AIs and, more to the point, the effects should the Friend of Foe detection system fail, mis-interpret civilians as agents of war or if a virus were to infect the system. Still, I would love to see the development of AI when such tech leaves the military.

 

[Prosis]

The biggest problem is that launching missiles at specific citizens or locations of other countries would normally be considered an act of war. However, since America is the biggest kid in the pool, no one is calling us out on it. Drones are being used consistently and actively against numerous targets.

Imagine if, instead of drones, they were called flying death robots. Because that is what they are doing. It represents a new stage of warfare, when any person in the range of a drone can be declared guilty and killed. Sure, this could be done before with bombing runs, but countries would definitely consider a bombing run an act of war.

What if other countries, such as China or the Middle East, regularly launched drones to bomb American soil? It would be full war. Yet, for some reason, America's drone usage is "justified," as its targets are "threats to the world."

 

[so-it-goes]

The main argument against combat drones is that operating this machine by a joystick thousands of miles away dehumanizes the operator's target; this target isn't a physical presence, they're points of data on a computer monitor.

There's also a TED video on drones and artificial intelligence that addresses this issue.

Spoiler: Link to TED video

http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_suarez_the_kill_decision_shouldn_t_belong_to_a_robot.html

 

[OneCatch]

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).

It's not the fact that it's drones being used per se. There are issues that are unique to UAVs (the loiter time on UCAVs means that they're there constantly, which has been described as a form of mass psychological warfare against civilians.

But it's mostly the cold-blooded manner in which they're used - killing thousands of civilians in addition to alleged militants, classifying anyone male between ages of 18 and 60 as a 'militant', double tap techniques to kill first responder, etc.
The fact that they're often under the control of a civilian agency, and are essentially being used for assassinations (as opposed to abiding to the Geneva Conventions) is also disturbing.

But yeah, I'd object equally if these strikes were being completed by human-piloted F-15E's rather than automated airframes.

 

[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.

True, but in the case of a jet fighter, that little dot miles away would be another jet fighter. Who has a far better chance of being able to defend himself than some poor sap on the ground being blown to pieces by what's essentially a flying Terminator. And you've still got the issue that someone controlling a drone isn't putting himself in any danger, while a fighter pilot at least is. Obviously, that's the point of a done, but that's also what makes it really unfair.

Well, the dot could be a ground target as well. And if it's an A-10 against a bunch of tanks they're far more screwed than if it were a drone of any kind.

Anyway, if you call it an unfair advantage then by the same logic you should also oppose trenches, mines, camouflage, grenades, ... pretty much anything that isn't a 1 on 1 gentlemen's duel. But one of those could be a better shot so again it's an advantage. Maybe fight all wars with a single coin toss? Provided each side is weighed exactly the same and the toss is done by a special machine that will provide a constant motion.

My point being that war is quintessentially unfair and anything that makes it safer for the participants and less costly for the country is a positive thing. And if you can get 10 drones for the price of one jet you can use your budget more efficiently and can provide more resistance in case of an attack, thus having more of a deterrence factor for other nations. Of course you could argue that the more expensive a war the more deterred countries are to enter one, like the B-2, which is so ridiculously expensive it can't really be afforded to risk in combat.
But that's two kinds of approaches I guess.

 

[Lucane]

You have some guy, hundreds of miles away, joystick in hand, ending the lives of living human beings (who look like nothing more than 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.

I wouldn't say that's the biggest issue of it (It's basically the next logical step after a sniper rifle or guns in general over knives)*but it's a part of it,but rather how they can claim to justify the (kill list? people killed using the program I don't if there's a more proper name for that.) because in a battlefield it's easier to tell who an enemy combatant is they usually have a gun pointed at you but if you basically come on to the scene as a ninja. knowing who to target becomes a little bit more difficult to determine. Also ones that use explosives can likely have more non-enemy-combatant kills due to the nature of explosives destroying indiscriminately in every direction.

*: Using a Knife is dangerous because you have to be close to your target who might see you coming.
Using a Gun widens the distance but is of a greatly reduced risk to one's self.
A Sniper Rifle can almost be used in secrecy until it's too late against 1 or the first target.
A Drone so quiet you might not even hear it coming can be launched fairly close it's target with the operator halfway around the globe with virtually zero risk of the enemy countering directly themselves.(until Armies start fighting each other with Drones on both sides that of course.)

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

You know what, if the drone isnt blowing stuff up, then it would be planes blowing crap up. Either way, a drone is safer for our troops and also can stay above the target for longer and thus destroy all and sundry. Very useful.

Just be glad your not on the receiving end of the drone.

 

[Zantos]

True, but in the case of a jet fighter, that little dot miles away would be another jet fighter. Who has a far better chance of being able to defend himself than some poor sap on the ground being blown to pieces by what's essentially a flying Terminator. And you've still got the issue that someone controlling a drone isn't putting himself in any danger, while a fighter pilot at least is. Obviously, that's the point of a done, but that's also what makes it really unfair.

That's hardly a fair comparison, if you're talking about attacking ground targets you should be comparing to bombers which also kill without the poor sap being able to defend themselves. I assume drones have air to air capabilities, at which point the fighter has the same chances regardless of it being another fighter or a drone.

At which point then your poor sap on the ground still has pretty much no chance anyway. The most famous bomber in the world is the Enola Gay, which was responsible for the deaths of some quarter of a million people. It had 12 people on it, that made no difference because at the end of the day the orders came from hundreds of miles away. No people aboard or 12, you've still got the capacity to kill a lot of people.

*: Using a Knife is dangerous because you have to be close to your target who might see you coming.
Using a Gun widens the distance but is of a greatly reduced risk to one's self.
A Sniper Rifle can almost be used in secrecy until it's too late against 1 or the first target.
A Drone so quiet you might not even hear it coming can be launched fairly close it's target with the operator halfway around the globe with virtually zero risk of the enemy countering directly themselves.(until Armies start fighting each other with Drones on both sides that of course.)

Again I don't think these are fair comparisons. What about a cruise missile from a ship hundreds of miles away? Or a ballistic missile from a submarine. I bet it's easier to take out a drone command centre than a submerged submarine in the middle of the ocean.

Essentially I don't think there is any argument against drones that doesn't apply to various other forms of weaponry that we've been using for years. And unlike others I'd say removing the human element from the immediate battlefield is improving. At the end of the day whether or not to press the button will not be up to the pilot but be an order from above. However I think it's better if the person with the finger on the button is comfortable and with access to a huge amount of information, compared to someone who is under stress from the Gs, the oxygen and the constant feeling that the longer they're there, the more chance they have of dying.

 

[Esotera]

Check out the bureau of investigative journalism, they're the ones who have gathered most of the data behind this story, and it's a fairly decent resource for the statistics. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

The issue is drones have killed thousands of civilians & result in extrajudicial killings. If America invaded Pakistan and killed hundreds of people there would be international outrage, but if they use drones nobody can stop them as there's no precedent. Some of the targets have also been American citizens who have been denied their right to a fair trial, even if they are guilty. It also results in psychological terror for anyone living in the error due to the constant droning overhead.

Also the way things are going a couple of decades from now drones will be able to make autonomous decisions on whether to kill or not. That is distinctly not cool and we should instinctively rebel against that.

 

[4RM3D]

What's the issue with drones?

The Human Factor [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2815780/]

That sums it up. Also, you should check out this episode. It explains the issue with drones pretty well (for a detective series, at least).

 

[chinangel]

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.

The terminator theme is playing in my head

 

[Ishal]

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.

The "Drone" is also very cheap. The only thing it is is a basic chasis and airframe designed to support the function of the specific unit, (recon, precision strike, air superiority,) and the camera module for the controller.

Training a pilot, creating specific and advanced avionics controls, building and fueling the aircraft, millions of dollars right there. Drones cut that price tag substantially.

It will only be a matter of time before the larger PMC groups sign contracts with the drone manufacturers and then their (could) be problems.

 

[RJ 17]

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.

That's part of it, but people aren't against them because "they're unfair".

From my experience (that is, from what nay-sayers have told me) it's the fact that Obama uses drones as his own personal assassins. A lot of people think that terrorist - the drone fleet's primary target - should be captured alive and put on trial or something where as just ordering a drone to bomb a house skips all that and goes straight to the killing. In particular, there have been (I believe) two cases where drone strikes have been ordered against US citizens that have defected and joined up with terrorist organizations, prompting the debate "Is it right to just up and kill a US citizen with the US military if the US citizen has defected to join terrorists? Or should we try to capture said citizen BECAUSE they're a citizen and make them stand trial?" Those in favor say that as soon as you side with the terrorists you forfeit your citizenship and become just another enemy combatant, obviously people opposed believe that a citizen is a citizen and the government can't just go hunting down wayward citizens with the military.

Beyond that there's the collateral damage issue. With a drone strike, pretty much the only option is "Bomb this building." So you have your scout report saying that "this terrorist cell's Second In Command is in this building, we're sure of it." Call in the drone strike and KABOOM! No more Second In Command for that terrorist group. Buuuuuuuuuuut what about everyone else that was in that building? Isn't it presumptuous to assume that every single person in there was a card-carrying terrorist? Or couldn't there be civilians/non-combatants in there? Sure, drone strikes are effective, but many see them as being "sloppy".

Personally, I say blow'em all to hell and let god sort'em out. But I'm not going to deny that the nay-sayers do have perfectly valid points and complaints. For instance, as a constitutionalist, I believe that you shouldn't/can't order drone strikes on US citizens even if they go to (insert Middle Eastern country here) to become a terrorist. They should be brought in alive 1: for questioning, and 2: because they're still a citizen and should still be subject to a trial. Granted that trial should be held for the capital crime of Treason (along with whatever else they might have done as a terrorist), but unless they make an official statement renouncing their citizenship, they should stand trial like any other citizen gets to.