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

[Griffolion]

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.

You know it's not just the middle east that has terrorists, right? Many nations have internationally operating terrorist groups.

OT:

I guess it's a personal liberty issue? At what point do drones start to become a threat to civil liberties, privacy, etc. Also, it's a case of setting a precedent for whatever follows. Nobody will deny that drones are going to become far more integrated into military, and then domestic things. So the tension between pro and anti drone people needs to be resolved to a fair compromise that protects everyones interests as best as possible. Or else you'll get serious problems down the line. I'm not saying that Black Ops 2 has the most believable storyline, but a situation where someone could hi-jack a nations military strength with a virus is fairly scary.

 

[Tanakh]

...

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

Let's do it! Here in Mexico the drone bee in it's adult stage lives between 30 to 45 days in most of our climates because we have an extensive flowering period, how about where you live?

 

[Manji187]

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).

Here's some suggestions for (further) reading:

http://icrac.net/ (International Committee for Robot Arms Control; they focus on the development towards full autonomy)

http://dronewars.net/ (investigation/ reporting on the UK use of drones).

Also a pretty good source: http://www.ssrn.com/

Type "drones" in the quick search, then sort the results by "Date Posted, Descending".

Have fun.

 

[Lucane]

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.

I'm not trying to say drones are unfair or shouldn't be used but that it can be easily abused to kill questionable targets without decent proof everyone you sent it out to attack/kill was actually a threat/opponent if the order was to look for someone in an area that you can locate by appearance but isn't clearly a hostile they could end up targeting the wrong people but the effectiveness in reward vs risk (completing objective vs. repair bill/buying a new one) is fairly pleasing if money isn't a major issue.

 

[BabySinclair]

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).

First off, minor annoyance, why the hell is everyone still addressing him as "Mr. Obama"? Once elected president the title is "President," I don't hear people talking about Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Adams. Presidents Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Clinton are all still addressed as "President" or at least "Former President." Is it people just being unconsciously racist or something. Every gorram news channel calls him "Mister" with the exception of "Fox News" which I find to be hilarious. Anyways...

It's not the drones themselves people are worried about as much in my opinion; it's the policies concerning their usage that people are concerned with. Drones are being used to bomb targets suspected of terrorism or related activities by the US Army and CIA without any real oversight by the rest of the government or communication between the two. The same tactics could be used with jets and to a lesser degree offshore battleships with missiles though the latter usually has a higher payload. The point is people are uneasy with the idea of targeted missile strikes against targets believed to be involved with terrorism but the fact is that there have been numerous civilian casualties as a result. The only thing about them being drones that I can think of is some worry about the disconnect between the operator's actions and the realism of bombing a target.

 

[Ryotknife]

The only aspect about drones that is concerning is basically they are assassins without borders (or at least that is how they are kinda being used).

There is nothing inherently wrong with drones as a military technology in terms of dehumanizing war that can not also be applied to most militaristic technologies within the past few centuries or so. I imagine most people don't think "oh, I am blowing up a tank with 4 people in it" but instead "oh, I am blowing up a tank"

 

[Antwerp Caveman]

The biggest problem with drones, currently, is that they're operated by the CIA, a civilian authority, rather than a structured organisation like the army or the airforce, where there is a chain of command with a clear line of responsibility.

 

[ReadyAmyFire]

First off, minor annoyance...

Apologies, as mentioned I'm from Northern Ireland, and I'm not too savvy on the correct titles applied to foreign heads of state. I used 'Mr.' because he's male.

Many thanks to everyone who replied too, especially those who provided links for further reading, something for me to do tomorrow. Quite happy with the response I got to this.

 

[freakonaleash]

The U.S uses drones to attack targets without endangering any Americans, the problem is that these attacks have killed alot of civilians. I like the idea of attacking targets without putting anyone in danger, but I think the civilian deaths are too high to continue with it.

 

[Agayek]

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).

I'm not 100% sure on the context of the argument, as I've never honestly heard anyone say that the military should not use UAVs... on military targets. I've heard plenty about how there shouldn't be any UAVs used on/against US citizens (read: Christopher Dorner), but I've never seen anyone get upset simply by the use of UAVs.

Well, assuming they actually know how UAVs work. I've seen people say that robots shouldn't be killing people, but that's not really how drones work in the first place, so it's not really applicable.

 

[Fox12]

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).

There's nothing inherently wrong with drones, just how he uses them. For one thing, he regularly flies them over other nations, including ones he shouldn't be involved i. There was an emberrising case where one crashed, and he asked the nation to return the drone that was being used to secretly spy on them. He also uses them recklessly in military situations. There's nothing wrong with killing known terrorists using UAV's, but a lot of innocent people get killed in the collatoral. In one situation the United States saw a marriage procession, and thought there could possibly be a member of a terrorists organization. They shot a missile, turning the wedding procession into a funeral procession. It turns out there was no terrorist there. This creates blowback, which means that it turns the local people against the U.S., making it more likely that America will be attacked again. It actually makes America less safe. Another issue is that Obama doesn't believe these people should be charged with a crime, and that his judgement is enough to order an assasination, even if the person is a United States citizen. He's already killed a United States citizen overseas for being a suspected member of al-quaeda, as well as his teenage son, who was innocent and hadn't seen his father in years. The problem is that terrorism is a crime, terrorists are not a formal military organization. The situation escalated when it was suggested that the rules used to justify these actions overseas could be used at home as well.

The main issue is that politicians want to use drones to constantly spy on their own citizens, and potentially even arm those drones. If the government is as careless at home as they are overseas, it could be bad. The primary fear is that the United States is coming closer to becoming a police state that has surveillance systems in place to watch citizens at all time. They already tap our phone records without probable cause, which means you don't have to suspected of a crime to be watched. Furthermore they're developing drones no larger than a bird, which means they could be watching you and you wouldn't even know it. This affects all nations, not just the U.S., because he's already used them to spy on other nations. If he's willing to violate the privacy of his own people, he will not hesitate to do the same to other nations.

The republicans support this too. McCain, the man who ran against Obama, largely supports these measures, and so did
Romney. Some people, like Ron Paul, and his son, are against these actions, but most politicians tend to support it. The issue is getting a lot of attention because Rand Paul filibustered the issue in congress.

This may have been a little more in depth than you wanted, so sorry if it's confusing. Basicly people just don't want to be spied on. Hope it helps

 

[Legion]

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.

I don't see how it's much different from a mortar in that regards. Artillery is also a hell of a lot more dehumanizing in that regards. So is dropping a bomb from a plane when the enemy hasn't got anti-aircraft weapons.

This is the only issue I can really see with them:

The issue is drones have killed thousands of civilians & result in extra judicial 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.

The fact that they are seemingly not classified under the same as other forms of military action is disturbing. A person manning a drone should be considered the same as a pilot of a fighter craft in regards to the rules of engagement and such. The fact they don't seem to have the same kind of legislation in place in regards to their usage is the only fault I can really find.

It's not the usage of drones I find objectionable, it's the way that they have been and are being used.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

By the same token, so are bomber planes, except it's mere miles instead of hundreds.

OT: ...Bleh. Drones fill me with sad, and I have no rational comments beyond that.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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.

Their use for air strikes against targets in Pakistan may have something to do with it.

A Reaper can carry 3800lbs of weapons, including Hellfires and JDAMs, a number of these have been fired into populated areas, which is not against US military rules of engagement as the drones are operated by the CIA and the CIA define anyone within the blast radius as an enemy combatant (whether identified or not).

Basically they are being used as unofficial weapons of terror and assassination, which isn't stacking up problems for America and the rest of the western world at all.

 

[frizzlebyte]

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.

This is one of the many reasons I have a problem with drones. Anything that makes war easier and reduces the death toll is a bad thing IMO. Being able to send your robot armies to fight each other like a game of urban-warfare-chess takes away a lot of the reticence behind starting a war.

Another big issue is the effects on the drone "pilots" themselves. PTSD is several percentage points higher in that group than in the actual gun-toting soldiers, because of how much cognitive dissonance there is trying to justify killing someone who isn't a direct threat to them. One "pilot" in a news article I read the other day said he watched one of his "marks" bleed to death for several minutes after blowing up their convoy, and he still has flashbacks and nightmares about it.

OP: Hope this helps you out. If you want my opinion on civilian law-enforcement use of UAVs, which is another animal entirely, just say so. I've got a lot to say on that topic.

 

[ReadyAmyFire]

...the drones are operated by the CIA and the CIA define anyone within the blast radius as an enemy combatant (whether identified or not).

Basically they are being used as unofficial weapons of terror and assassination, which isn't stacking up problems for America and the rest of the western world at all.

Now this I did not know, is the CIA a civilian agency? That seems messy from a rules of engagement/laws of war standpoint.

What do people generally think then of the companies and people that develop and build these things? There's a good chance I'll find myself as part of this military-industrial complex. I remember when I thought engineering would be a pretty ethically neutral career choice.

 

[Shdwrnr]

I believe that this runs into the idea that advancing technology is our ethical responsibility. You can't claim that developing weapons capable of keeping your soldiers out of harm's way (by not having them directly engaged with the enemy)unethical any more than you can claim building a manufacturing robot that replaces a human worker unethical. By stifling the advances of technology, you resign a future human to unwarented suffering for the supposed good today.

The way the technology is used can be argued, but its creation must happen for the betterment of our species. We are inventors; we will invent.

 

[Fox12]

...the drones are operated by the CIA and the CIA define anyone within the blast radius as an enemy combatant (whether identified or not).

Basically they are being used as unofficial weapons of terror and assassination, which isn't stacking up problems for America and the rest of the western world at all.

Now this I did not know, is the CIA a civilian agency? That seems messy from a rules of engagement/laws of war standpoint.

What do people generally think then of the companies and people that develop and build these things? There's a good chance I'll find myself as part of this military-industrial complex. I remember when I thought engineering would be a pretty ethically neutral career choice.

The CIA is a frightening entity, and needs to be disbanded. Intelligence gathering is important, but the military should be the one to act on the intelligence. The CIA helped overthrow the Iranian government in 1953, and set up a dictator in charge. When Iran overthrew the government, surprise surprise, they came to hate us. People wonder why there is so much hatred against us in the region, but most Americans are unaware of the things our government has done without our knowledge. The Iranians remember though, and so do our other enemies. It's counter productive.

 

[BabySinclair]

Apologies, as mentioned I'm from Northern Ireland, and I'm not too savvy on the correct titles applied to foreign heads of state. I used 'Mr.' because he's male.

Sorry, it's been bugging me for a bit and I apologize if the first part of my response was inappropriate. The general rule of thumb that I use is their position as title; Prime Minister, President, Senator, Queen, and so forth.

 

[fix-the-spade]

What do people generally think then of the companies and people that develop and build these things? There's a good chance I'll find myself as part of this military-industrial complex. I remember when I thought engineering would be a pretty ethically neutral career choice.

That's a good question and I don't know, all the engineers I know work in retail electronics or motorsports, nobody ever questions them

I used to know a guy who worked at Rolls Royce aero blowing up jet engines (no really, that was his job) and when the military question came up he always insisted it was airliner turbofans he worked with.