Discussion
The Don of Croy said:
I think on the BBC news last night they mentioned 350+ drone strikes in Pakistan since 1996.
That's 350 strikes against a sovereign state they're not at war with, nor employing sanctions against (or are they?) or that the UN security council has endorsed for combat actions.
IIRC drones are also used on the Canadian border!
Barry O makes it sound acceptable with his immaculate presentation, however.
It is odd how the supposed caring liberal left types seem to have such a hard-on for war isn't it? See also Blair. That's 350 strikes against a sovereign state they're not at war with, nor employing sanctions against (or are they?) or that the UN security council has endorsed for combat actions.
IIRC drones are also used on the Canadian border!
Barry O makes it sound acceptable with his immaculate presentation, however.
Justayellowbadge said:
el stovey said:
It must be a very strange, removed form of warfare. The operator sits in a portacabin in Nevada next to his mate, orbiting a funeral in Pakistan waiting for permission to fire a missile at some unsuspecting jihadist down below. He fires it and then goes home after his shift. A few days later they find out if they got the target or not.
Heard an interview with one the Brit pilots in Afghanistan. Seemed very clear the last thing it was was detached or video game like - they were acutely aware what they were doing.el stovey said:
Justayellowbadge said:
el stovey said:
It must be a very strange, removed form of warfare. The operator sits in a portacabin in Nevada next to his mate, orbiting a funeral in Pakistan waiting for permission to fire a missile at some unsuspecting jihadist down below. He fires it and then goes home after his shift. A few days later they find out if they got the target or not.
Heard an interview with one the Brit pilots in Afghanistan. Seemed very clear the last thing it was was detached or video game like - they were acutely aware what they were doing.They were who I was talking about.
The Don of Croy said:
I think on the BBC news last night they mentioned 350+ drone strikes in Pakistan since 1996.
That's 350 strikes against a sovereign state they're not at war with, nor employing sanctions against (or are they?) or that the UN security council has endorsed for combat actions.
IIRC drones are also used on the Canadian border!
Barry O makes it sound acceptable with his immaculate presentation, however.
http://www.astraea.aero/downloads/ASTRAEA_end%20_FINAL.pdfThat's 350 strikes against a sovereign state they're not at war with, nor employing sanctions against (or are they?) or that the UN security council has endorsed for combat actions.
IIRC drones are also used on the Canadian border!
Barry O makes it sound acceptable with his immaculate presentation, however.
That's what they are prepared to put into a press release, they've been testing them in UK airspace since 06.....
rohrl said:
It would be interesting to see how the US would react if another country were to use drones to attack a US citizen on US soil.
I think this hypocrisy is what annoys me the most, highlighted by the fact that the polls suggest public opinion is against using them on home soil. What is the ethical difference between using a missile to remotely kill someone who you believe to be a dangerous criminal in a country you are not at war with and using a missile on someone you believe to be a dangerous criminal on your own soil?It has been mentioned that terrorists could start using Quad Copters and the like for attacks: http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/quadcopters
el stovey said:
You get permission to fire on every target from your boss.
That's quite a flippant comment. There is a full system in place to make the decision whether or not to engage a target. Plethora of reports, intelligence sources, lawyers, etc.Other people have mentioned collateral damage, that's often not the case; there are people who's job it is to decide what type of missile/bomb to use for the situation, to minimise/exclude collateral damage.
That said, people can and will make mistakes, but it's much more than simply pressing a button on a joystick then going home for steak.
Rovinghawk said:
rohrl said:
It would be interesting to see how the US would react if another country were to use drones to attack a US citizen on US soil.
They used 747s with live pilots. The US got quite agitated over it.I was thinking of a situation in which a nation state such as Russia or China were to decide to overfly US territory with a drone to kill a US citizen they perceived to be a threat. This would be analagous with the use of drones by the US and it's hard to see on what grounds the US could complain.
rohrl said:
Rovinghawk said:
rohrl said:
It would be interesting to see how the US would react if another country were to use drones to attack a US citizen on US soil.
They used 747s with live pilots. The US got quite agitated over it.I was thinking of a situation in which a nation state such as Russia or China were to decide to overfly US territory with a drone to kill a US citizen they perceived to be a threat. This would be analagous with the use of drones by the US and it's hard to see on what grounds the US could complain.
Fronting up to each other wouldn't seem like a good idea to any of them.
Justayellowbadge said:
I'm sure Russia and China carry out operations on other nation's soil.
Fronting up to each other wouldn't seem like a good idea to any of them.
We know that Russia does. Litvinenko.Fronting up to each other wouldn't seem like a good idea to any of them.
I just wonder what the news reports would look like if they fired a missile into suburban USA. "It's an act of war" or "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
Its like Antarctica, we all have to agree to leave it the hell alone or it becomes a massive free-for-all.
Eric Schmidt was preaching about it recently saying he doesn't think the general population should have access to such things for privacy reasons (hahaha!) but it wasn't his place to comment on the government's use. Don't be evil my fuxking arse.
Eric Schmidt was preaching about it recently saying he doesn't think the general population should have access to such things for privacy reasons (hahaha!) but it wasn't his place to comment on the government's use. Don't be evil my fuxking arse.
Blue Oval84 said:
I was under the impression that whilst drone strikes cause some collateral damage, they are far, far more precise than a manned airstrike?
They should be when used correctly. Their ability to sit over a target for hours on end and just watch out of sight is a big plus point. Previously, the limited time gave a short window of time in which to either take out the target or call it off. With the drone it can follow someone until they are alone and out of the way and reduce the chance of killing innocents.
The flip side seems to be the much greater numbers of people drones can take out because of their numbers, cost and ability to watch and wait that wasn't availble with a fleet of fast jets.
Plus people are less keen to put manned armed jets over foreign airspace. Never seems to stop Israel mind.
Collateral damage is known to regularly happen with drone strikes. The Americans don't deny it. I don't agree with the Russian approach either, but at least is a more effective means of minimizing unintended deaths.
Collateral damage is known to regularly happen with drone strikes. The Americans don't deny it. I don't agree with the Russian approach either, but at least is a more effective means of minimizing unintended deaths.
ash73 said:
What's the difference, morally, between manned and unmanned airstrikes? Why does there need to be a policy for drones? Surely the issue is execution without trial, not the means?
If a known terrorist can't be captured alive and the 'host' nation refuses to hand them over you're left with a stark choice; either let them continue committing atrocities or kill them with an airstrike.
I expect the USA have tacit agreement from the Pakistan government, and if they don't there's nothing they can do about it anyway. If the drones are killing terrorists who cares?
If the drones only killed known undisputed terrorists it probably wouldn't be such an issue. As it is they tend to kill quite a lot of other people at the same time as "collateral damage".If a known terrorist can't be captured alive and the 'host' nation refuses to hand them over you're left with a stark choice; either let them continue committing atrocities or kill them with an airstrike.
I expect the USA have tacit agreement from the Pakistan government, and if they don't there's nothing they can do about it anyway. If the drones are killing terrorists who cares?
Victor McDade said:
The use of drones for surveilence here in the UK won't be far away. I think (hope) this is what Ozzie meant.
edit - Actually they've already been used over here - by Merseyside police.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/drones...
I seem to recall that the Merseyside police were found to have been operating the drone illegally, and then crashed it into..er...the Mersey.edit - Actually they've already been used over here - by Merseyside police.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/drones...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff