Oh - it turns out "we're" not so righteous either...

Emp_Fab

Barbaric acts of random murder aren't just carried out by muslim extremists.... 

Drew_TNBD

I don't really know how I feel about drones. I don't have enough information and I don't really trust the likes of John Oliver, Jon Stewart, and Alex Jones to inform me. But nor do I exactly trust governmental agencies to reflect the truth. And nor do I use the plot of Homeland in order to make a kneejerk response of "drones are bad 100% of the time".

Because it's quite possible that they're not.

But I don't know for sure.

UnclePsychosis

Going on and on and on about "drones drones drones" misses the point somewhat. Its humans that make the "fire" decision. I think a lot of people don't know that. 

I'm not sure that using a new high tech technology to kill people ("drones") is any morally different to using a more conventional high tech technology (like an F-16). 

Yes, having UAVs overhead is very scary, but the USA have the ability to launch surface strikes at you from hundreds (or thousands) of kms away, you wouldn't be aware of that happening either. Its the fact that these attacks are happening which is the scary part, not the use of UAVs to do it. Take the so-called drones away but leave the strikes and the children will (not surprisingly) still be scared of the sky. 

Niallmo

Drones/guns don't kill people. The people who take the decision to fire do. I'm way more concerned with that process than the actual means of killing.

ToneControl

I'm wondering when the Jihadis will start using drones

RocknRollDave

Looking at the thread title and wondering what took you so long it reaching that conclusion.

ToneControl

Niallmo said:

Drones/guns don't kill people. The people who take the decision to fire do. I'm way more concerned with that process than the actual means of killing.

I suspect that automated drones are already prototyped

Wolfetone

ToneControl said:

I'm wondering when the Jihadis will start using drones

Especially the large ones that can carry a decent payload. 

chillidoggy

The jihadis don't need to use drones:10 year-old suicide bombers are clearly much cheaper, and easier to use. Scumbags.

Drew_TNBD

ToneControl said:

Niallmo said:

Drones/guns don't kill people. The people who take the decision to fire do. I'm way more concerned with that process than the actual means of killing.

I suspect that automated drones are already prototyped

Ohhh well since you merely suspect it, I guess it must be true!

guitarfishbay

Drew_fx;473156" said:

ToneControl said:



Niallmo said:

Drones/guns don't kill people. The people who take the decision to fire do. I'm way more concerned with that process than the actual means of killing.





I suspect that automated drones are already prototyped





Ohhh well since you merely suspect it, I guess it must be true!

Drew the technology has been under development for years, but the full extent is classified and nobody really knows the extent of the success of it or full capabilities because it is classified. Automated guns already exist on ships and turrets, but autonomous stuff is less widely known about (capabilities wise).

The BAE Taranis has been in development for years, it is under human control but has some autonomous capabilities - or at least can be programmed to do some tasks (again, unclear what).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67dc7d9e-8e81-11e3-98c6-00144feab7de.html#axzz3OVMDP9Tq

"He acknowledged that Taranis can be programmed to fly on its own and even make decisions based on preprogrammed information. But he and everyone from defence ministry and air force officials to company executives stressed that Taranis would always be controlled by humans."


-----

The big pro argument for drones is less soldiers dead, because they're not in direct danger. The biggest cost in war is human life - drones can be made cheaper than fighter planes that need pilots and if a pilot is killed or captured the public response is understandably negative.

The big argument against is that if you can wage a war with little concern of suffering casualties will that affect decision making/make war easier/further dehumanise an enemy.

Grossly simplified and of course there are more pro/con arguments.

guitargeek62

You guys need to read up on current AI capabilities before making any assumptions about kill-decisions being handed off to Predator-type drones; we're not there yet.

Auto-AA-cannons on ships solve an entirely different problem, one that's *much* simpler (thanks to IFF).

Jalapeno

guitarfishbay said:

The big argument against is that if you can wage a war with little concern of suffering casualties will that affect decision making/make war easier/further dehumanise an enemy.

Not sure that that's true - the only difference is the absence of a pilot in-theatre, there is a "pilot" at the base station. I don't see as it is more dehumanising than a conventional planes dropping bombs really.  They aren't programmed cruise missiles.

Evilmags

Hopefully Rand Paul will win the presidency and put a stop to it.

Emp_Fab

My point really was that our perspective is distorted and engineered to be so, living in the western world and fed a diet of 'news' that portrays 'us' as the knights in shining armour, valiant and fair defenders of democracy and human rights and portrays 'them' as mentally disturbed maniacs hell-bent on destroying our way of life because they don't like things like equality and freedom.  Which is pretty much the horseshit Dubya and the neocons wheeled out after 9/11.  Nothing at all to do generations of us walking roughshod over the damned natives and helping ourselves to their land and resources, and now executing them from the sky with the same regard for whether they are innocent civilians as their attacks on us have.  'They' killed 12 people in Paris last week and the world erupts in outrage.  'We' probably kill that many of them before breakfast every day, and nobody knows about it.  Small wonder they're a tad miffed with us.

guitarfishbay

Jalapeno;473278" said:

guitarfishbay said:

The big argument against is that if you can wage a war with little concern of suffering casualties will that affect decision making/make war easier/further dehumanise an enemy.










Not sure that that's true - the only difference is the absence of a pilot in-theatre, there is a "pilot" at the base station. I don't see as it is more dehumanising than a conventional planes dropping bombs really.  They aren't programmed cruise missiles.

Public perception in war is massive. When 'our guys' die it is a major deal. If they don't die then there is likely to be less opposition to wars/military action. The dehumanisation in that case is passive - we care most when 'we' die. At the heights of infantry combat in recent years our losses often dominated the news and led to increased protest. Drones could change this dynamic.

ToneControl

only against other countries & enemies with no drones

otherwise we're on to drone fighters shooting down other drones
The drone wars I suppose

Sambostar

It is impregnated into us from a small age.  I was always taught about the first world, ie us, and the third world.  So many people still think Africa is a country.  All you can do is vote with the small freedoms you have.  Not use Amazon and burn a wood fire.  Fat chance of that though.

I believe in freedom of borders, I hate passports, but then, I don't want to earn peanuts, and live out on and shit in the street for it.  So confronted with the fact this will never happen because the transition is too painful and furthermore democracy is flawed, you cannot get eight people to agree on a consensus, let alone billions.  Look at Iran, every people's revolution ends up with people in power, just as bad as the last.

So let's not beat about the bush, time for a forty year plan and dictatorship.  Politicians will be honest about the casualty fall out from our cheap raw materials and everyone over working age will have to walk into a pit of fire.

If you are nationalist you are called protectionist, but the irony is that the plan is to make a huge nationalist and protectionist entity out of Europe with more weight t it on the world stage.

In Yemen, success rates of drone strikes are 1 in 16.  ie 16 babies, children and civilians to every targeted person.

Je suis Yemenese. As it turns out the two brothers were trained in Yemen.

We are buggered if we do or don't, so let's have a new national socialist order, we can make sacrificial slaughter out of certain ethnic groups in order to bring everyone else together, so long as they aren't gingers.

Are men with beards an ethnic group?  At least it will destroy the folk scene over night.

chillidoggy

Are Gingers an ethnic group?

holnrew

I think we need a "what?" button just for sambo

VimFuego

holnrew said:

I think we need a "what?" button just for sambo

TBF he did make (IMO anyways) sense with that post.