[Dragon-Dancer]

jeff744 jeff744:

Personally I am against the idea of arming a drone at all, if you plan to take a life then you should be risking yours too, not sitting a thousand miles away playing an extremely complicated video game.

Personally I agree, taking a life should never be as simple and impersonal as clicking a button from the other side of the world. It sets a very bad precedent. It may be the way the face of warfare is going but that doesn't make it something we should be accepting blindly.

[EyeBrock]

jeff744 jeff744:

Personally I am against the idea of arming a drone at all, if you plan to take a life then you should be risking yours too, not sitting a thousand miles away playing an extremely complicated video game.

I'm sure the CF recruits a huge percentage of its warriors from NDP voters.

This is a pretty silly statement Jeff.

As for the original post. Fifty Years of International law hasn't stopped fifty years of atrocities, famine, dictatorships, oppressive theocracies. International 'law' has stood idily by to let the bad guys get on with it..

Armed drones take out threats to the US and the West in places where there is no law.

I would rather risk a drone than another single drop of US, Brit, Aussie, Canadian, Kiwi etc blood. Are you saying we should put our guys at risk when we kill the Taliban?

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This is the way war is going. Cyberwars and drones. May as well get used to it. In twenty years, drones will be as smart as people. In fifty years, hundreds of times smarter.

I don't know about that - I read Wired for War by P.W. Singer recently and it discusses this in detail.

There is a significant lobby to keep drones and other unmanned vehicles dependent on human control, for a variety of reasons. Some worry about weapons systems going rogue (AKA Skynet). Other groups want to keep humans in the loop to keep humans working (like the Air Force and Army, both of which want pilots/troops to have work). The Air Force had similar concerns when the first ICBMs were introduced...

Still others don't think the technology will be available for a lot longer than 20 years.

The one thing I do agree is that cyberwar and drones will likely be a large part of how the West wages war in the not to distant future. After all, when a robot is destroyed, there is no letter to write to its mother and replacing it is as easy as replacing a vehicle - just call the factory and order another one.

[bootlegga]

jeff744 jeff744:

Personally I am against the idea of arming a drone at all, if you plan to take a life then you should be risking yours too, not sitting a thousand miles away playing an extremely complicated video game.

I take that you are also opposed to airplanes, artillery and warships too then? Because all of those weapons systems can strike from a distance and not put CF members at risk too.

If so, you were born about 1000 years too late - the Age of Chivalry is long over. And guess what - when westerners fought Muslims during the Age of Chivalry, we often got our asses handed to us and lost thousands of lives. I have no desire to repeat such folly.

I fully support using unmanned systems to take out threats to our society. Why should we be forced to expend lives against an enemy who has no value on life?

To me a trade-off of a drone/robot for a suicide bomber or terrorist is one I'll take everytime.

[andyt]

I'm surprised the US right is against drones. Is that really any worse than destroying Iraq for mythical WMD and terrorists? Or all the civilians killed by NATO in Astan? Seems to me drones are a good thing, but some law should evolve around it about when and how they can be used.

[BartSimpson]

The opinions of the UN matter less and less with each passing day. I look forward to a time when we can dispense with this pathetic attempt to impose global rule on the planet.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

jeff744 jeff744:

Personally I am against the idea of arming a drone at all, if you plan to take a life then you should be risking yours too, not sitting a thousand miles away playing an extremely complicated video game.

I take that you are also opposed to airplanes, artillery and warships too then? Because all of those weapons systems can strike from a distance and not put CF members at risk too.

If so, you were born about 1000 years too late - the Age of Chivalry is long over. And guess what - when westerners fought Muslims during the Age of Chivalry, we often got our asses handed to us and lost thousands of lives. I have no desire to repeat such folly.

I fully support using unmanned systems to take out threats to our society. Why should we be forced to expend lives against an enemy who has no value on life?

To me a trade-off of a drone/robot for a suicide bomber or terrorist is one I'll take everytime.

+5

[Regina]

I have no problems with the US hiding behind a camera lens trying to kill those who hide behind women and children.

[DanSC]

Regina Regina:

I have no problems with the US hiding behind a camera lens trying to kill those who hide behind women and children.

Neither do I; in the context of a larger, congressionaly approved conflict that may or may not involve traditional forces.

Going after American citizens who say bad things about America on the internet, in countries with no approved conflicts, and then classifying any men over 18 who where killed in collateral damage as enemy combatants is where it gets dicey.

The trick is not risking lives to go after enemies without falling into the mindset of "Gee, I can kill anyone anywhere and never even leave the office! It's so convenient, why wouldn't I kill them?" I think my fellow countrymen and I are falling into that mindset.

[Regina]

This is totally separate from the idea of right or wrong in the sense of a legitimate target. What constitutes a legitimate target will always be an issue with someone. How they kill them means nothing.....dead is dead. It's the economy of effort, with the least amount of casualties and danger to our own that counts.

[jeff744]

bootlegga bootlegga:

jeff744 jeff744:

Personally I am against the idea of arming a drone at all, if you plan to take a life then you should be risking yours too, not sitting a thousand miles away playing an extremely complicated video game.

I take that you are also opposed to airplanes, artillery and warships too then? Because all of those weapons systems can strike from a distance and not put CF members at risk too.

If so, you were born about 1000 years too late - the Age of Chivalry is long over. And guess what - when westerners fought Muslims during the Age of Chivalry, we often got our asses handed to us and lost thousands of lives. I have no desire to repeat such folly.

I fully support using unmanned systems to take out threats to our society. Why should we be forced to expend lives against an enemy who has no value on life?

To me a trade-off of a drone/robot for a suicide bomber or terrorist is one I'll take everytime.

In order to get in range for your weapons you often need to get in range of theirs. The difference now is that their weapons often don't reach North America and those that do are generally tipped with a nuclear payload.

So, you will support it when the US no longer has to worry about any loss of soldier's lives and can invade any country they please because there is no longer a threat? How long until tanks no longer need an operator? Ships? No soldiers at all?

The loss of life prevents wars from occurring because you better damned well be sure it is worth your own soldier's lives before you start a war. Take away that and now you are basing it on the loss of a machine, much easier to decide that that little country that decided it liked its own lifestyle more than yours is now worth the invasion.

Machines also lack the emotion behind the gun, if they are given an order to bomb a house they will do it, even if just before they drop their weapons they see a bunch of children run inside. Eventually somebody will decide it is even easier if you remove the guy behind the controller completely and just automate the entire system and people will go along with it after news gets out about how the guys behind the controller still get PTSD. After all, why should taking another life cause you any trouble whatsoever, they should just remain a name without a face on a piece of paper.

Which wars against the Muslims do you count, the ones where they were stopped cold by losses trying to get into France or where the Christians decided they wanted the land for themselves and invaded, massacring every Muslim they met?

[bootlegga]

jeff744 jeff744:

bootlegga bootlegga:

jeff744 jeff744:

Personally I am against the idea of arming a drone at all, if you plan to take a life then you should be risking yours too, not sitting a thousand miles away playing an extremely complicated video game.

I take that you are also opposed to airplanes, artillery and warships too then? Because all of those weapons systems can strike from a distance and not put CF members at risk too.

If so, you were born about 1000 years too late - the Age of Chivalry is long over. And guess what - when westerners fought Muslims during the Age of Chivalry, we often got our asses handed to us and lost thousands of lives. I have no desire to repeat such folly.

I fully support using unmanned systems to take out threats to our society. Why should we be forced to expend lives against an enemy who has no value on life?

To me a trade-off of a drone/robot for a suicide bomber or terrorist is one I'll take everytime.

In order to get in range for your weapons you often need to get in range of theirs. The difference now is that their weapons often don't reach North America and those that do are generally tipped with a nuclear payload.

So, you will support it when the US no longer has to worry about any loss of soldier's lives and can invade any country they please because there is no longer a threat? How long until tanks no longer need an operator? Ships? No soldiers at all?

The loss of life prevents wars from occurring because you better damned well be sure it is worth your own soldier's lives before you start a war. Take away that and now you are basing it on the loss of a machine, much easier to decide that that little country that decided it liked its own lifestyle more than yours is now worth the invasion.

Machines also lack the emotion behind the gun, if they are given an order to bomb a house they will do it, even if just before they drop their weapons they see a bunch of children run inside. Eventually somebody will decide it is even easier if you remove the guy behind the controller completely and just automate the entire system and people will go along with it after news gets out about how the guys behind the controller still get PTSD. After all, why should taking another life cause you any trouble whatsoever, they should just remain a name without a face on a piece of paper.

Which wars against the Muslims do you count, the ones where they were stopped cold by losses trying to get into France or where the Christians decided they wanted the land for themselves and invaded, massacring every Muslim they met?

Given that insurgents do not own warships or planes, we often do not need to get in the range of enemy weapons. That is usually only a possibility when fighting another nation state.

You make it sound like those "little countries" are completely innocent and just going about they're own business, when the reality is that many of them are hosting/training/financing terrorist groups to fly airplanes into buildings, set off bombs in cafes and blow up school buses.

That is the very definition of assymetric warfare and just because a country uses asymmetric warfare to fight a much stronger power (AKA the West) should not give them any protection from the West's military arsenal. We should have the ability, no the right, to defend ourselves in a similar fashion and take a similar number of lives if need be. And yes, that means if they nuke us, we should be able to nuke them back.

After all, if terrorists are allowed to attack using methods that favour their size and strength, why isn't the West?

Or do you suggest we fight the way they do - by financing and training terrorist groups to go into their countries to target civilians using similar terror tactics?

IMHO, any nation that attacks another (regardless of tactics) opens itself up to counter-attack. Likewise, if a nation knowingly hosts/trains/finances a terrorist organization (like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan did), then I have zero qualms about flattening it by any means necessary.

While this case is about the US, I would have no qualms if Canada had its own fleet of Predators that it used on nations that chose to use asymmetric warfare against us.

[jeff744]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Given that insurgents do not own warships or planes, we often do not need to get in the range of enemy weapons. That is usually only a possibility when fighting another nation state.

You make it sound like those "little countries" are completely innocent and just going about they're own business, when the reality is that many of them are hosting/training/financing terrorist groups to fly airplanes into buildings, set off bombs in cafes and blow up school buses.

That is the very definition of assymetric warfare and just because a country uses asymmetric warfare to fight a much stronger power (AKA the West) should not give them any protection from the West's military arsenal. We should have the ability, no the right, to defend ourselves in a similar fashion and take a similar number of lives if need be. And yes, that means if they nuke us, we should be able to nuke them back.

After all, if terrorists are allowed to attack using methods that favour their size and strength, why isn't the West?

Or do you suggest we fight the way they do - by financing and training terrorist groups to go into their countries to target civilians using similar terror tactics?

IMHO, any nation that attacks another (regardless of tactics) opens itself up to counter-attack. Likewise, if a nation knowingly hosts/trains/finances a terrorist organization (like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan did), then I have zero qualms about flattening it by any means necessary.

While this case is about the US, I would have no qualms if Canada had its own fleet of Predators that it used on nations that chose to use asymmetric warfare against us.

For them to set up their asymmetrical warfare they have to go out on the road and put the weapon there, at any time a soldier could walk by, notice them and end that attempt. Meanwhile the Predator operator drives to work thousands of miles from the target, flies it there, drops the bomb and leaves. The only way to kill him is to actually enter the US to do it.

How does a predator stop the guy with a bomb strapped to his chest? It is designed to strike a target with almost no chance at all of a failure, they could even know it was coming for a year and all they can do is try to hide, if the guy with a bomb strapped to him is detected even a few minutes early it generally means a complete failure.

The issue isn't the right to strike, it is how to strike. If you are willing to use remote controlled drones it is a small step to make them autonomous. Once this occurs the only risk is thew cost of the drone, the weapons, and fuel. You have successfully put a value on human life and now targets that were a nuisance but not worth risking a pilot are now valid.

This is a moral slippery slope which could very easily make war very easy to wage because all people see are dollar signs instead of casualties with faces.

[Thanos]

andyt andyt:

I'm surprised the US right is against drones.

They're not against drones. They're against President Obama and anything he does. If President Obama uses drones to kill terrorists* then they're against a drone-using policy approved by President Obama. If President Romney uses drones then drones will overnight become fucking-A-number-one and you won't hear a fucking thing from any of them ever again about drones.

This is the extent of their thinking. Reflexive sphincter-like opposition to everything and anything President Obama does or wants to do. Nothing more. When your motivation is an absolute sheet hatred of a single person that you've decided is your ultimate enemy these are the things that you will do to satisfy that ever-ravenous hatred.

*Killing terrorists = a good thing, unless President Obama does it because it then becomes an "imperial Presidential over-reach that's illegal because it hasn't been approved by Congress". And that's because in the abattoir of the minds of contemporary American conservatives President Obama is actually more evil than terrorists are. This is who these people are these days. Vile, just vile beyond any and all limits that civilized men are supposed to adhere to.

[DrCaleb]

jeff744 jeff744:

The issue isn't the right to strike, it is how to strike.

...

This is a moral slippery slope which could very easily make war very easy to wage because all people see are dollar signs instead of casualties with faces.

Actually, the issue is not to strike. If they don't target and kill innocents over here, we are all about letting them peacefully living their lives over there. It's too expensive to start modern wars, so the West has to be sufficiently motivated to enter into one.

No dead innocent civillians leads to no drone strikes leads to no guy who thinks blasting caps are a fashion statement who then doesn't kill more innocent civillians.