Al-Qaida whining about drones

Status
Not open for further replies.
strawman

strawman

http://www.ecnmag.com/Blogs/2011/01/Precision-Guidance/Al-Qaida-drones-costing-fighters-territory

I found this interesting, although I'm curious about the complaints by amnesty intl. What is different from a drone doing an attack compared to a piloted fighter doing the attack? Presumably they complain about those too, which wouldn't make this complaint interesting or new, but perhaps they feel there's a difference?

At any rate, it could be misinformation, but it appears that drones are making a noticeable dent in Al Qaida.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Yeah, there is a lot of talk in the legal community about whether the use of armed drones qualifies as state sponsored assassination or whether they are considered legitimate tools of war. I really have no legal background so I'm not going to comment on it. No one really conceived of such weapons when we wrote the laws for this kind of thing and we should really make a ruling on it.

That being said, there IS something unsettling about pilots in Los Vegas driving to work, killing people on the other side of the world via remote control, and then driving home to spend time with their families every day. I remember reading an article about on soldier who did this in an issue of Popular Science a few months ago, but I can't find the article ATM.
 
Terrik

Terrik

I don't find it unsettling at all. Taking out the enemy without putting our own men and women in danger? I think it's an improvement.
 
Tress

Tress

AshburnerX said:
That being said, there IS something unsettling about pilots in Los Vegas driving to work, killing people on the other side of the world via remote control, and then driving home to spend time with their families every day. I remember reading an article about on soldier who did this in an issue of Popular Science a few months ago, but I can't find the article ATM.
Click to expand...
But it's not unsettling if we separate them from their family, ship them across the globe, and then have them in harm's way while they do the exact same job from a plane's cockpit?

Add me to the "it's not different from piloting a plane" crowd. If these are executions, then why would it be different if a pilot drops a laser-guided bomb?
 
Adam

Adam

Presumably they want the ability to reciprocate the deaths caused by the drones by being able to fight against human. In which case, I would point out that stock traders would have also liked the opportunity to fight back against the 747 flown into them.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Tress said:
But it's not unsettling if we separate them from their family, ship them across the globe, and then have them in harm's way while they do the exact same job from a plane's cockpit?
Click to expand...
That's it exactly, actually. These drone pilots aren't being forced to sacrifice nearly as much as other members of the military who do actual, physical fighting. Infantry has to move into a camp/base near the conflict in order to fight. Naval members need to stay on a ship in the water somewhere close to the conflict. Air Force members are usually on a base pretty far from the actual action, but at least they are physically there and away from their families for the operation.

I guess it wouldn't feel so awkward if the drone pilots were at least being asked to give up SOMETHING. Maybe it's just because that's what war has always been and it's just kinda weird that we're at the dawn of the push button age of warfare that it feels odd.
 
Mathias

Mathias

AshburnerX said:
That's it exactly, actually. These drone pilots aren't being forced to sacrifice nearly as much as other members of the military who do actual, physical fighting. Infantry has to move into a camp/base near the conflict in order to fight. Naval members need to stay on a ship in the water somewhere close to the conflict. Air Force members are usually on a base pretty far from the actual action, but at least they are physically there and away from their families for the operation.

I guess it wouldn't feel so awkward if the drone pilots were at least being asked to give up SOMETHING. Maybe it's just because that's what war has always been and it's just kinda weird that we're at the dawn of the push button age of warfare that it feels odd.
Click to expand...

Please just shut the fuck up. All the branches of the U.S. military are on the same side. There is no tit-for-tat ideology in that retrospect. If the technology exists to spare the lives of pilots then it should be used, just the same as if the android technology existed to spare the lives of ground Marines.

In the end the U.S. government sees all soldiers as dispensable, however, let's face facts. It's much, much cheaper to replace a dead Marine than a skilled Air Force pilot.
 
strawman

strawman

I'll have sympathy for them when they stop using remotely detonated IEDs and stop sending brainwashed kids into crowded markets with bombs strapped to their chest.

Also, keep in mind that the latency between the US and the middle east is very, very high. It's a very good chance that most of the drone operators are on ships near the area, not in the US. There are, of course, places in the US where training takes place, and no doubt one can control things from LA to the middle east, but there's a good 500mS round trip delay and a lot of bandwidth that must be maintained to get it there, that it would really be impractical to run most missions that far away.

Also, keep in mind that even in close range the latency is too high to really do air combat with even older high tech missiles and modern jet fighters. This tactic would not be very useful against China, Europe, Israel, Russia, NK, etc, etc, etc. The drones are really only effective against the particular type of non-state terrorism we're currently fighting against, and eventually they will start responding with the correct type of rockets to bring our drones down, so even in this case it's only a temporary situation.

Amnesty's complaint isn't without merit - we are specifically targeting people for death without a trial. This is what happens in a war, and Amnesty is against wars in general.
 
C

Chibibar

War is dirty. No matter how you slice it. It is just bad and well, cost a lot in terms of innocent bystanders getting killed, soldiers getting killed, and tools (weapons, vehicles and such) to do such wars.

I think the Drones allows the safety of one's troop to "win" a war. The Al Qaida are complaining, but are they following the "Rules of Engagement" like everyone else? The enemy can't demoralize the troops when they are not fighting face to face and the drones allow more "risker" missions since people are not put in harms way.

Is it fair? I don't know.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Chibibar said:
The Al Qaida are complaining, but are they following the "Rules of Engagement" like everyone else? The enemy can't demoralize the troops when they are not fighting face to face and the drones allow more "risker" missions since people are not put in harms way.
Click to expand...
This is probably the best point you can make. They really don't get to complain about what's being used against them when they aren't following the rules of war themselves.
 
Mathias

Mathias

I'm sorry I blew up at you, Ash, but really you're going to make an argument based off of the logic that other branches of the service are dying, so the Air Force shouldn't get a "free pass"?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Mathias said:
I'm sorry I blew up at you, Ash, but really you're going to make an argument based off of the logic that other branches of the service are dying, so the Air Force shouldn't get a "free pass"?
Click to expand...
I never said I WANTED them to have to suffer, I was trying to say that it felt weird that we're finally at the point where you don't have to make those sacrifices anymore. War is SUPPOSED to involve sacrifice, on both sides, to act as a deterrent to going into it in the first place. By removing the personal risk, I'm a little worried that governments will become more accepting of gunboat diplomacy once the people who actually pull the trigger don't have as much to lose.

I just completely and utterly failed at getting that point across.
 
C

Chibibar

AshburnerX said:
I never said I WANTED them to have to suffer, I was trying to say that it felt weird that we're finally at the point where you don't have to make those sacrifices anymore. War is SUPPOSED to involve sacrifice, on both sides, to act as a deterrent to going into it in the first place. By removing the personal risk, I'm a little worried that governments will become more accepting of gunboat diplomacy once the people who actually pull the trigger don't have as much to lose.

I just completely and utterly failed at getting that point across.
Click to expand...
Ah... I see what you mean now.

It would be "mecha wars" and such that we see on Sci-Fi or anime shows. Maybe each side will just use robots to fight a war and the one with the most resources wins! It is almost like the movie "Surrogate" which soldiers are remote control.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
9 out of 10 times when something like this is going on there is sacrifice that you don't know about. Special Forces are the ones who go in and scout these places out. The drones don't just happen onto these spots. Sometimes the targets are lased ahead of time so the guys in Vegas know where the bombs need to go.
 
B

Balkoth

/unlurk

The article talks about drone attacks in Pakistan that's why amnesty international is complaining, because the US military performs military actions in a third country. Even if it's an ally of the US it's legality is a bit tricky, no ? I don't think they could complain about the same happening in Afganistan or Iraq.

Back to the lurking :)
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

I think it's pretty obvious why they're complaining about the best thing that happened to their recruiting drive since Guantanamo... PR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top