Drones

[DQ12]

i can't put my finger on why i take issue with drones, but I do.  there's something fundamentally wrong with it.  i read an argument against drones that had to do with the idea that with war, there's always an inherent risk to human life on both sides.  even if the risk is disproportionate, there's always some risk.  with drones though, that risk is taken out for one of those sides. 

i'm not necessarily attaching myself to that argument, but drones just seem wrong.  there's just something wrong with them, but i don't know what.  definitely wrong though.

wrong. wrong. wrong.

[puniraptor]

To me it's more about how they are used in secret with no apparent oversight and outside of U.S. and international law.

[8manpick]

To me it's more about how they are used in secret with no apparent oversight and outside of U.S. and international law.

That too. It's like 'Wait, I didn't think we were at war with Pakistan?'

[Dugout DickStone]

You could say the same about suicide bombers/IED's in the "no risk to life" category.

They fought dirty so we answered and got real dirty.  But the no oversight is a legit complaint

[Dugout DickStone]

Lol at drones being used for traffic tickets.

Some states already use/have used aircraft to monitor speeding by air.  Multiple cities use camera's to take pictures and send tickets for running red lights.  This isn't any different, just wait until it's cost effective.  It will start with construction zones for "safety reasons" and slowly grow.

Lots of states want you to think they monitor speeding by air but they don't.  It's way too expensive.  And undependable, and dangerous.  Drones cost way too much for the state hypo to send up to cut traffic citations.  Red light cams are being phased out too because they won't stand up in court.

[jtksu]

1) I love Drones as a military vehicle.  Why risk an American life if we don't need to?  The "it's not fair if there's no risk" argument is silly.  Who's in danger when we launch cruise missiles from 500 miles away?  The other side, thats who.  eff those guys, I don't even know them.
2) They're way too expensive to buy, fly, and maintain to be used for something silly like traffic citations.  If anything, why not just fly a single helicopter with a crap load of camaras?
3) Outside of disaster relief/rescue, I can't think of a single reason to ever use them over the US.
4) Stop thinking of them as attack drones, 99.9% of what they do is survey.  The reason they're so useful is one can fly like 600 miles, loiter for 18 hrs, and return to base.  Imagine how many lives are not risked/missions made safer and more effective because of their use?
5) The CIA uses the crap out of them.  I really don't trust anyting the CIA does latey so I'll lump that in with all the other mumped crap those guys do and not with the legitimate usage by the Air Force.

[DQ12]

eff those guys, I don't even know them.

I think it's possible you and I have different views on things maybe.

[EMAWmeister]

It just seems like drones are being used very carelessly right now.  It's like "WELP. They're the ones putting civilian life at risk by being there. eff em".  I don't think that's good.

[Rage Against the McKee]

i can't put my finger on why i take issue with drones, but I do.  there's something fundamentally wrong with it.  i read an argument against drones that had to do with the idea that with war, there's always an inherent risk to human life on both sides.  even if the risk is disproportionate, there's always some risk.  with drones though, that risk is taken out for one of those sides. 

i'm not necessarily attaching myself to that argument, but drones just seem wrong.  there's just something wrong with them, but i don't know what.  definitely wrong though.

wrong. wrong. wrong.

The lack of a risk to human life is what I find appealing. I think it would be great if there were some way for the wars of the future to be fought with death robots on both sides, so that a war could be determined with almost no human casualties.

My problem with drones is that they are ungodly expensive and I think that the risk is very low with manned missions over a country like Pakistan, and if we are gunning for terrorists, I think a manned pilot would be more accurate. I definitely could be wrong, though.

[jtksu]

eff those guys, I don't even know them.

I think it's possible you and I have different views on things maybe.

I was being sarcastic dude.  All I meant was I would rather have "enemy" lives at risk than US lives.  Drones give us a distinct advantage in that aspect.  And the targeted killings are a bit unsettling because we have to trust that they're actually legitimate targets...  One thing we can definitely see is the relatively tiny amount of US deaths in combat recently.  We've been in the region for over a decade an (I believe) we actually had more people die on 9/11 than during the entire war thing we're doing.  I think people would surprised just how much time and effort is spent deciding on targets from the Air Force side.  99.9% of those dudes aren't in the business of killing people for the hell of it.  Also, the rules of engagement that we follow now are rediculously meticulous.  Once again though, can't vouch for those CIA strikes, some of those seem pretty mumped up but then again, I haveno idea about what they even do or what laws they're supposed to even be following.

[ednksu]

i can't put my finger on why i take issue with drones, but I do.  there's something fundamentally wrong with it.  i read an argument against drones that had to do with the idea that with war, there's always an inherent risk to human life on both sides.  even if the risk is disproportionate, there's always some risk.  with drones though, that risk is taken out for one of those sides. 

i'm not necessarily attaching myself to that argument, but drones just seem wrong.  there's just something wrong with them, but i don't know what.  definitely wrong though.

wrong. wrong. wrong.

I can see your issue if we were in a standard symmetrical war.  The inherent issue you have is that the forces the US are fighting were the first to change that paradigm by going to asymmetric war.  Think about this, how do you factor IEDs into your equation of human risk in warfare?  The limiting of human contact was started by the United State's opponents in response to their disproportionate power.

[ednksu]

A lot of people are acting like a drone has to be the size of a reaper or predator for traffic enforcement.  A trooper could easily launch a micro unit with a laser attached for traffic control.  Add a camera specifically designed for capturing a front license plate and you can easily deploy these.

[DQ12]

i can't put my finger on why i take issue with drones, but I do.  there's something fundamentally wrong with it.  i read an argument against drones that had to do with the idea that with war, there's always an inherent risk to human life on both sides.  even if the risk is disproportionate, there's always some risk.  with drones though, that risk is taken out for one of those sides. 

i'm not necessarily attaching myself to that argument, but drones just seem wrong.  there's just something wrong with them, but i don't know what.  definitely wrong though.

wrong. wrong. wrong.

Think about this, how do you factor IEDs into your equation of human risk in warfare?  The limiting of human contact was started by the United State's opponents in response to their disproportionate power.

I don't know.  There's not a good answer for it.  Like I said, I don't have the answer for why I think it's wrong, and I think it's partly because this is such a novel issue.  Flying remote control bomb-y airplanes with no pilots over other countries that we're not even at war with just seems objectively wrong. 

I just know that it seems wrong to me.  I hope I can figure out why I think that. 

[jtksu]

i can't put my finger on why i take issue with drones, but I do.  there's something fundamentally wrong with it.  i read an argument against drones that had to do with the idea that with war, there's always an inherent risk to human life on both sides.  even if the risk is disproportionate, there's always some risk.  with drones though, that risk is taken out for one of those sides. 

i'm not necessarily attaching myself to that argument, but drones just seem wrong.  there's just something wrong with them, but i don't know what.  definitely wrong though.

wrong. wrong. wrong.

I can see your issue if we were in a standard symmetrical war.  The inherent issue you have is that the forces the US are fighting were the first to change that paradigm by going to asymmetric war.  Think about this, how do you factor IEDs into your equation of human risk in warfare?  The limiting of human contact was started by the United State's opponents in response to their disproportionate power.

You have a point, but then realize that you're essentially equating drones with IEDs.  I wonder whether that will be effective at winning hearts and minds.  (For the record, I'm also opposed to IEDs)

I also think it might be of note that, regardless of "who started what kind of asymetry," it's important to keep in mind that we're the ones over there, and we're the ones with the 700 billion dollar "defense" (ha!) budget. I think it also might be of note that (conservatively) over a 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the Iraqi war. 

But yeah, screw those guys for not fighting fair.

You know why W was dead set on the WMDs, right?  Because we have the rough ridin' receipts.  We facilitated all of that when we took up sides with Iraq over Iran.  We assumed it's easier to reason with a despot who's only interested in power than to deal with a Religious zealot.  We even turned our head when he gassed his own people.  Of course, we couldn't turn our head when he invaded Kuwait, that would eff up our oil prices.  Also, we need to get those WMDs back.  Oh crap, they're in Syria now.  Weird.  We don't just hand out batteries of Patriot missles but Israel and Turkey sure as hell got them ASAP when Syria got all weird with it.

[felix rex]

Drone strikes are really difficult to get approval for. Mostly just surveillance and tracking.

Dlew- one ongoing ethical debate is whether the use of drones changes the nature of soft and hard targets. A pilot hits a camp in Pakistan then drives home to suburban Miami for the day. Is he, his office, his home now a legit target?

There's also the issue of mental adaptation. Similar to how planes revolutionized travel and its affects on the traveler. What sort of "jet lag" will a drone pilot face?

[steve dave]

you shouldn't be able to kill people that easily

[puniraptor]

Drone strikes are really difficult to get approval for. Mostly just surveillance and tracking.

Dlew- one ongoing ethical debate is whether the use of drones changes the nature of soft and hard targets. A pilot hits a camp in Pakistan then drives home to suburban Miami for the day. Is he, his office, his home now a legit target?

There's also the issue of mental adaptation. Similar to how planes revolutionized travel and its affects on the traveler. What sort of "jet lag" will a drone pilot face?

I read a really interesting article about drone pilots and PTSD and other mental effects. Its really crazy because they drive to work, clock in, then basically are in a war zone for 12 hours then punch out and go back home to the wife and kids. They don't have the permanent support structure around them that soldiers in the field have.

They spend  months and months observing people. Watching their habits, learning about their kids, their friends, their hobbies then suddenly one day the order comes down to launch the missile. Pretty traumatic. Then you get back in your minivan and pick up the kids from T-ball.

[felix rex]

you shouldn't be able to kill people that easily

The drones should use rubber bullets 

[TheHamburglar]

2) They're way too expensive to buy, fly, and maintain to be used for something silly like traffic citations.  If anything, why not just fly a single helicopter with a crap load of camaras?
3) Outside of disaster relief/rescue, I can't think of a single reason to ever use them over the US.

OSU has an "Unmannad Aerial Systems Option" in their Mechanical and Aeropace Engineering program.  The following is a quote from the head of the School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering:

"Unmanned aerial systems have become the hottest growth area in the aerospace engineering world with an expected 10-year growth rate of tens of billions of dollars per year as the technology is expanded for use in police, security and border patrol operations, agricultural applications and for inspection of pipeline and power transmission.”

[michigancat]

you shouldn't be able to kill people that easily

We shouldn't be killing these people at all.

But is it actually easier? There's obviously less risk to us, but that seems like a good thing. If you're worried about a fair fight, send in troops with muzzle loaders and bayonets, Civil War style.

[slobber]

you shouldn't be able to kill people that easily

The drones should use rubber bullets

and nitrous oxide.

[8manpick]

you shouldn't be able to kill people that easily

The drones should use rubber bullets

and nitrous oxide.

 

[CNS]

crop dusting drones

[steve dave]

you shouldn't be able to kill people that easily

We shouldn't be killing these people at all.

But is it actually easier? There's obviously less risk to us, but that seems like a good thing. If you're worried about a fair fight, send in troops with muzzle loaders and bayonets, Civil War style.

I think that if we couldn't kill people this easily at basically no risk to ourselves we would sit down and really think about who actually needs killing instead of just randomly blasting groups of suspicious bearded people.

[Cire]

I'm all for being able to kill people without easily being killed ourselves.  War's been this way since WWI.