Question: Why are drones different than manned flights

[Sgent]

I see a lot of people upset about drone aircraft carrying out bombing missions or other military missions. My question is why is this any different than a manned aircraft? How does having a pilot inside the plane make the targets less destroyed?

[firehorse]

1. For one, its a way to declare war without the president having to go through congress

And besides that, you have a guy in New Mexico driving to his job in the US, but killing people with no risk in other countries.

If if the lack of humanity of that idea can't sink in adequately, think of it this way.... how would you like it if other people sent drones to the US, the size of grasshoppers, spying on your life, or killing our civilians.

[trumad]

2. skin inthe game

I think when we have a human being in the air makes it harder to pull the trigger.

Some person with a joy stick sitting in Tampa....not so much.

[FLPanhandle]

3. Bull.

It makes no difference if the aircraft's pilot views a monitor and pushes a button from 20,000 ft away or 500 miles away. Same monitor, same button, same missile.

[AgainsttheCrown]

9. It does make a difference...

It's about risk. We can now kill troops in other countries with a limited risk (and the eventual goal is none). The Vietnam war loss public support because nearly everyone had skin in the game. We will never have a concerted effort for an end to wars if troops aren't in harms way.

And as Dan Carlin said: it may be pragmatic...but it's hardly prudent.

Commanders will push for stupid decisions like drone attacks in cities that could kills hundreds. They would be more careful about that decision with pilots that can be shot down.

[FLPanhandle]

16. It's not about troop casualties

Since ground troops are where the real death/injuries occur, not pilots.

The real difference is cost. One manned aircraft shot down is far more expensive than a drone aircraft. Drones are more about saving money than saving lives.

[Hangingon]

36. War is not about being fair - it isn't a game.

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. I doubt you ever had to pull the trigger

like a soldier in the field who have the most contact with murder/ war where you can smell death.

Each stage progressively desensitizes the human being to murder
from;
soldier- military a10 pilot- helicopter gunship- artillery - precession bombing- high altitude carpet bombing- video game drone killer.

[FLPanhandle]

15. Nope.

However, the decision makers who order troops & pilots into the wars have never been in harms way in any of your stages.

The troops are the ones just following orders from people who never "smell death" anyway. From the days of hand to hand combat until today, that hasn't stopped any wars.

[trumad]

43. lol

Tre Guy in Tampa has to worry about tourist drivers on the way home.

The Guy in the F15 has to worry about surface to air missles.

[FLPanhandle]

4. No real difference.

They are just new and the average Joe is automatically uncomfortable with anything "new".

Where the pilot sits is pretty irrelevant. The pilot of a manned aircraft or unmanned aircraft will do the mission that is ordered.

The people doing the ordering were never in harm's way in either scenario.

[firehorse]

11. ask yourself... if we put drones in other countries are you comfortable with drones in this country

And dig deep and ask yourself is it really ok to treat humanity as a video game. Don't you think if your job is to kill people, that you should at least carry the psychological burdens of these kills. This is what makes us human, gives us humanity, so that we don't treat others as a meaningless video game.

Just because we have the technology and we have the money to build drones and thus overpower others, does that mean ethically we should engage this power?

[FLPanhandle]

14. I'm sure someone said the same thing about bows & arrows

People used to bite each others throats out in hand to hand combat, then archers were able to kill from yards away.

Then the gun allowed more distance, then artillery from even more distance, then aircraft, then missiles, now drones.

Your argument was probably used at each technology change.

I suppose you prefer we go back to hand to hand combat?

[firehorse]

18. So inotherwords you believe whoever has the most power and technology should be able to

unconscionably use that power on whomever they choose whenever?

[FLPanhandle]

20. Welcome to the history of warfare.

From the Greek phalanx to American Drones. When has war ever been "fair"?

I suppose you think we should have given Hitler some B-17's since he didn't have any effective long range bombers? Or maybe we should have refrained from using B-17's on Nazi Germany, since we had "the most power and technology"?

[whatchamacallit]

23. All sheltered chickenhawks invoke that "history of war" bullshit

"Relax buddy, we've been killin' and murderin' forever..." :puke:

[FLPanhandle]

31. Ignore history if you don't like it...that's an approach I guess.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

[whatchamacallit]

34. Domestic violence has a long history too

"history" justifies nothing.

[firehorse]

24. we are not at war with the thousands of innocent civilians our drones have killed.

And you don't seem to grasp the long term consequences of how it affects us as a nation when we things that sow the seeds of anger and opposition by killing innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians than would otherwise have been the case if we didn't use drones.

And besides that, its warfare that is not gone through congress. If a video game player is recruited to kill people in Iraq while sitting in New Mexico, he bypasses a technical loophole because he physically is not a part of the military in the country where he is killing.

You also haven't addressed the question if you are OK with drones in your own back yard. Or are drones OK if they are used on brown people outside our borders? You seem ok with that, but are you ok with drones used on our own people, the way warrantless wiretaps were used here?

[FLPanhandle]

30. What a hodge podge of a response.

The topic is using drones vs. using manned aircraft. Spinning off into "warrant-less wiretaps" and toss in the "brown people" canards shows you are arguing from emotion instead of logic.

So, staying addressing your points that seem to deal topic at hand, such as "we are not at war with the thousands of innocent civilians our drones have killed". We've killed most of the "innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians" with ground troops and conventional aircraft. Do those not "sow the seeds of anger and opposition"? Do people only get angry if the pilot is 2000 miles away instead of 20,000 feet high?

Your argument seems based on the faulty assumption that no one is dead except from drones (even though the number is small compared to conventional weapon systems).

The issue isn't what weapon system the military uses, the issue is whether or not the military should be in the war at all.

[TexDevilDog]

25. Drones in the US doing surveillance.

Perfectly legal for the police to fly over your house and look around from a helicopter. Next the drone will be a little helicopter looking in your house. It should be legal as long as they don't touch your property.

Just don't leave the door open too long.

[Cid_B]

35. New plan...

Next time I deploy I will take the demographics of my unit and relay them to the local warlord. I'll send an evite and we can agree on a nice flat bit of ground to fight it out . I'll make sure to stay within the range of his AKs as our M4s have a bit more reach and we will not don our IOTV armor as not every insurgent has one.'


We'll get in a big line revolutionary war/red rover style and just shoot the shit out of each other. Last man standing wins...

Hows that for fair?

Seriously though, anything that kills/immobilizes someone who wants to kill me and mine with as little risk as possible is a big fat win in my book.

I'd love to hear what you think of a Soldier who isn't "burdened" after taking a life in combat. Should we all suck our thumbs and cry about it? Maybe a big hug circle?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. And, what's the difference between a "terrorist" setting a bomb and pilot dropping/guiding one?

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

[firehorse]

6. Ginette Paris wrote an essay years ago about the dangers of an Apollonian society

People used to fight up front with fists. It took courage to fight with fists feeling real pain and blood. Then weapons were made to remove people even farther from the close and upfront fighting. Guns and missile weapons were invented, thus removing man from engaging in humanity, having empathy and compassion for his enemy, removing honour and dignity and courage.

With every removal from humanity we turn into psychopaths with power. People are no longer one of us, humanity to identify with.

With drones, we've gotten the power of gods. We can sit protected in a new mexico office, killing at people as if they were part of a video game. The shooter can go home to his wife and kids, eat dinner with them, without ever having to be burdened with the responsibility of killing, seeing blood or, or experiencing any psychic wounds to the self.

Who are we, when we have no remorse but the power of sending meteorites to foreign lands as if we are Apollo, a God not of earth?

[AgainsttheCrown]

10. +1

Very eloquently put.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. +1 n/t

[whatchamacallit]

28. That's way too touchy-feely for the comfortable killers called Americans. +1

[July16th-20th]

7. Less guilt.

Or tastes great. You decide.

[ThomWV]

8. Because Drones remove the peril of war - that we would not fear war is unthinkable

and the reason it is unthinkable that we should fear war is that we have nuclear weapons. It is that pure and simple.

[saras]

17. Question: Why are drones different than IEDs?

They remove the aggressor from the scene.
They indiscriminately target civilians and bystanders.
They are peculiarly suited to threats and blackmail in a way that regular armies aren't.

The pilot in the plane doesn't affect the TARGET at all. It's the affect of the pilot on the CULTURE OF THE AGGRESSOR that's important.

In the real world, a major reason for ENDING wars was because the aggressor was no longer willing to lose their own population.

Or ask this - how would the Vietnam war have gone with drones? Think we'd be out yet?

[customerserviceguy]

19. Apparently, some here

don't consider drones 'sporting'.

Whatever wipes out our enemies, I'm in favor of.

[firehorse]

21. be careful then... because the state may one day consider you the enemy - warrentless wiretaps ...

anyone?

[customerserviceguy]

22. Are you suggesting

that the US government, or any political subdivision of it, might launch some sort of air attack on me, or any other American?

Hell, they only used tanks when it came to the Branch Davidians, anybody would have had a fair chance to surrender.

[firehorse]

26. How naive to think that drones will remain outside our border used only on brown skinned "enemies"

The xenophobes were also OK when warrentless wiretaps were done, until it was done on them. Not just Murdoch doing the hacking. Bushco did it on its own people. Its a slippery slope to drones remaining outside our border.


If you are ok with bypassing congress for warring outside our territories then you are ok with warring inside our borders on its own people.

[customerserviceguy]

44. I draw a distinction

between enemies that are foreign, and those that are domestic. We have police power over the latter, we often have no such recourse in the lawless parts of the world, like Pakistan.

[tekisui]

39. The US government has targeted and is targeting a US born

man in Yemen.

[customerserviceguy]

45. And if he had remained within our borders

They'd be using the FBI to get him, they wouldn't bomb from the air a building that he and his family/friends are in.

[tekisui]

47. So? How many dead civilians is he worth?

[customerserviceguy]

48. As few as possible

But I doubt we have many true friends in Yemen.

In any case, if you know the US is after somebody in a foreign land, then you take steps to keep away from that person. Whether that's right or wrong, it's just reality.

I figured that the raid on OBL's compound has led us to find a lot of ripe targets. At that point, the friends and family of AQ needed to see the handwriting on the wall.

[tekisui]

49. You and I won't get very far. I fundamentally disagree with summary executions

for anyone. Further, I strongly disagree with the strikes that miss their intended targets more often than not. People are not choosing to live near other the US has labeled 'extremist' or 'terrorist'. They just happen to be on the receiving end of a US bomb.

There is no justification in killing innocent people.

[customerserviceguy]

50. Well, perhaps we can agree on one thing

And that is the original premise of the OP, that there is really fundamentally no difference between the manned military aircraft and the drone. I would suppose that you would oppose both of them.

[tekisui]

51. Agreed. And Yes.

[Logical]

32. So poison gas? Landmines? You didn't put much thought into that post did you? n-t

[tekisui]

38. Drones are like cluster bombs in their indiscriminate killing.

[customerserviceguy]

46. Both drones and combat aircraft

can hit with at least a slight degree of precision, both in terms of target and of timing. The examples you cite don't have those advantages, so I guess you're right, I did not draw a proper distinction.

[tekisui]

37. We don't even know who is getting wiped out, most of the time.

[tekisui]

27. I would be just as much againt manned bombings.

But, one point is the question of legality. The WH is claiming it doesn't count as war when it is done by remote control. It is also a question of whether it violates other states' sovereignty.

It is also a way of carrying out assassinations without any oversight or check. The normalization and spread of drone strikes under Obama has been stunning. He has now ordered drones to carry out killings in at least 6 countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. He is setting the precedent that no matter where someone is, we can send in drones to act as judge and executioner, not to mention that we rarely even verify who was actually killed.

[firehorse]

29. Can you imagine someone like Palin, Bachman, or Cheney in the position of bypassing congress

with the power of drones. It's like giving nuclear weapons power to a child.

[Capitalocracy]

42. If Palin or Bachmann were president...

nuclear weapons power would be in the hands of a child.

[Upton]

33. The Obama Administration has lauched drone attacks..

in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia..

Isn't all this "hope and change" wonderful?

[TheKentuckian]

40. I'm not sure there is much of one. Use of drones or sending in ground troops are equally acts of war

Despite the pretense that drones don't actually count.

There is the factor that the drone pilot is in no more danger than I am and he/she is a combatant and I'm smokin cigarettes and watchin Captain Kangaroo.

I'll grant that our pilots are safe from counter attack almost as much but hell they do run the risk of malfunction or accident to give them some level of awareness that what they are doing isn't a game but mostly it is just like any other technological advantage or force multiplier and should be regarded as such in the eyes of the law.

Ordering a bombing is ordering a bombing whether it falls from a plane, is launched by artillery, fired from space, lobbed on a cruise missile, fired by a soldier, or shot from a drone controlled by a human or AI.

[Capitalocracy]

41. Good question.

It works both ways, too. A lot of people seem to think drone strikes are OK in countries where we wouldn't send manned bombing missions.