
I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on - nsns
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military
======
jusben1369
We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just
serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion.
I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox
News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride
ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all
sources of data we read.

We all know war is hell. We know using weapons to attack people creates
horrific, real human harm. So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on
humans _tells us nothing about drones_. It just tells us about the horrors of
war. Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific.
Do drones increase or decrease the inevitable horrors of war? I suspect they
decrease it with smaller more targeted bombs vs prior more traditional larger
bombs. Today if we make a mistake we bomb the wrong home and kill everyone. 25
years ago we bombed the entire village. Maybe they increase it because we're
carrying out a lot more sorties than we did prior when a jet and a pilot were
needed/at risk. However, I'm not sure and this article goes nowhere close to
helping with the discussion.

"The view is so pixelated it makes decisions tough" Can you imagine military
people who fight/fought on the ground in real combat and order in strikes
reading that? Surrounded by smoke and fire and deafening noise and hoping (or
maybe not caring) that the strike they call in hits the right target/s vs all
the nearby civilians also hiding and cowering in a village?

The military is aware of the impact on these operators. From a February 20013
article sighting a Defense Department study: “Remotely piloted aircraft pilots
may stare at the same piece of ground for days,” said Jean Lin Otto, an
epidemiologist who was a co-author of the study. “They witness the carnage.
Manned aircraft pilots don’t do that. They get out of there as soon as
possible.”

Lastly, imagine how you'd feel reading a similar opinion piece on Fox News
from a gun ho former operator talking about all the American lives he saved by
observing and taking out "the bad guys". What's even better with drones we're
not losing American solider lives and dramatically reducing the number of
innocent civilians killed vs how we would have approached the same problem
just 25 years ago.

War is hell. The issues are complex. Trusted new sources add to the debate.
Biased ones feed their viewership what they know they'll eat up and do little,
maybe even damage, the search for truth.

~~~
TruthElixirX
You're a sack of shit:

>I'm not here to argue for or against the drones.

Congrats on being a mediocre person who doesn't believe in anything or have
any opinions. This is the most offensive thing I think, even more than me
disagreeing with you. Just picking middle of the road bland boring
contrariness.

>We all know war is hell.

Apparently "we" don't because people continue to wage war.

>We know using weapons to attack people creates horrific, real human harm.

No, making it into a game complete with an Xbox controller abstracts the
realness from it.

> So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on humans tells us nothing
> about drones. It just tells us about the horrors of war. Given this is an
> article about drones it should be very drone specific.

It isn't about drones, its about killing people. Who gives a fuck if it is a
drone or a spoon. It is clearly an article about shitty wars being pursued by
shitty people, not about how technologically advanced drones are.

>Today if we make a mistake we bomb the wrong home and kill everyone. 25 years
ago we bombed the entire village.

What a false fucking dichotomy. How about not bombing fucking anyone? And who
the fuck is "we"? I didn't bomb anyone and will continue to not bomb anyone.

>"The view is so pixelated it makes decisions tough" Can you imagine military
people who fight/fought on the ground in real combat and order in strikes
reading that? Surrounded by smoke and fire and deafening noise and hoping (or
maybe not caring) that the strike they call in hits the right target/s vs all
the nearby civilians also hiding and cowering in a village?

Again, false dichotomy. It does not have to be grainy drone feeds or confused
soldiers on the ground. There are more options than A or B.

>The military is aware of the impact on these operators.

That doesn't mean they give a shit. I am aware of the drug addict a few houses
down. I don't care.

>Lastly, imagine how you'd feel reading a similar opinion piece on Fox News
from a gun ho former operator talking about all the American lives he saved by
observing and taking out "the bad guys".

I wouldn't care. I don't care about "American lives" and I don't care about
insurgency lives. I care about people regardless of nationality. I feel bad
for the jack asses on both sides that eat up the lies of their leaders and
kill each other in the name of nothing.

>What's even better with drones we're not losing American solider lives and
dramatically reducing the number of innocent civilians killed vs how we would
have approached the same problem just 25 years ago.

Its amazing how redefining anyone that is an adult male who dies as an enemy
combatant reduces civilian deaths as well.

>War is hell. The issues are complex. Trusted new sources add to the debate.
Biased ones feed their viewership what they know they'll eat up and do little,
maybe even damage, the search for truth.

Being a boring middle of the road stick in the mud does more damage than
anything.

~~~
jboydyhacker
Pointing out an opposing view, or the downside of the alternative to drones
(boots on the ground) does not make the author a sack of shit.

War will be around until humans work harder to understand each others
perspectives and evolve socially as quickly as we have with technology. You
can help us all to that end by not being name calling anonymously on the
internet.

~~~
TruthElixirX
He isn't a sack of shit for having an opposing view point. He is a sack of
shit for this middle ground all sides have a valid point and the truth is
somewhere in the middle bullshit.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
He actually doesn't take the middle ground. He's avoiding the drone vs anti-
drone argument to make a perfectly valid and legitimate point about the
Guardian article.

~~~
yardie
I read his response and he actually makes no point. Just reiterating "war is
hell" twice.

------
ck2
_The feed is so pixelated, what if it 's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt
this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if
we killed the right people_

If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed.

Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you
imagine if that happened even just once in the USA?

We need an international ban on armed drones before it is too late.

~~~
melling
There you go again ck2. One of your classic comments.

We used to napalm people. Lots of "wrong people" get killed in all wars.
Flying in B-17's and B-52's was pretty ugly too, we just couldn't record the
carnage on video. There's probably never going to be a war where innocent
people aren't killed. Precision weapons probably kill fewer people but if you
want a "clean" war, I don't think that's possible.

The real solution, of course, is to avoid wars, and violence, in general.
Supposedly, the world is more peaceful now than ever, even with Syria, the
train station suicide bomber is Russia today, etc.

Personally, I don't want to see the US be the world police. There's a high
cost in both money and American lives. Still, for the foreseeable future, the
world needs to address the problems and try to solve the remaining problems.
Otherwise, decades from now, people on HN will be complaining about how future
weapon systems are killing innocent people.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "There's a high cost in both money and American lives"

There's a high cost in both money and human lives - nationality should not be
a consideration.

~~~
sleepyK
But unfortunately, it always is. American life, and American citizenship is
more precious than any other life.

I know it's not the same issue, but throughout the whole NSA snooping
revelations, Americans have only been concerned by the legality of spying on
their own citizens. All of us foreigners are fair game.

This is similar. The value of an American life is much more than that of a
foreigner's life.

~~~
rgbrenner
Americans should be more concerned about the NSA spying on US citizens than on
foreigners. Here's why:

When the US government decides a US citizen's communication patterns makes him
a terrorist, the US government is free to knock down their door in the middle
of the night and whisk them off to Guantanamo, and NO ONE except the US
government can do anything to stop them.

When the US government decides a foreigner is a terrorist, they have to ASK
your government to cooperate, and if they don't, the US has to be ready to go
to war to kill/capture him.

The difference between the NSA spying on an American and a foreigner is that
only the foreigner has a government that can protect them from the US
government.

~~~
Bahamut
> When the US government decides a US citizen's communication patterns makes
> him a terrorist, the US government is free to knock down their door in the
> middle of the night and whisk them off to Guantanamo, and NO ONE except the
> US government can do anything to stop them.

While I dislike how the U. S. government has decided that who they classify as
terrorists superceding the rights of a US citizen, this is just wrong.
Communicating with terrorists on a typical basis isn't enough for the U. S.
government to do so - the only cases where I have heard of this happening is
when the US citizen in question has carried out actual violent terrorist
actions such as armed combat.

You have far less protection against the U. S. government if you are not a
citizen, since there is nothing protecting you against broad actions. You can
be assassinated in the middle of the night & your government wouldn't be able
to do a damn thing to pre-empt that. There are also far less protections as to
spying as well, but that has nothing to do with this article.

~~~
hackinthebochs
> Communicating with terrorists on a typical basis isn't enough for the U. S.
> government to do so

For the time being. Do you think how the surveillance apparatus currently
works is how it will always work in perpetuity?

------
fit2rule
I think that one thing we 'normals' don't seem to understand, is that when you
are in the business of killing, murdering, maiming other human beings, you're
no longer really part of society. Society is determined by the survival of its
members - start removing them, and you get a lesser society. That is obvious.

But we in the 'normal' society don't have a clue what those in the 'murdering
business society' really think about us. More often than not, you'll find that
the 'official killers' really don't care about human life - or else they
wouldn't be devoting their time on earth to the singular purpose of killing,
maiming, destroying life.

Its a simple fact that if you get up in the morning with the intention of
taking a human life, if ordered to do so, then you no longer belong to the
human race. You belong to something else. Not a single one of us in the
'normal society' can entertain the thought of killing someone, on a daily
basis, and not suffer consequences. How is it then for those who spend their
entire lives working to be the best possible killers they're allowed to be?

~~~
neals
You seem very opinionated about this. I haven't given this as much thought as
you have, but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil
must count for something.

Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?

~~~
fit2rule
Yes, I do. The reason is because I think that anyone whose job it is to
murder, maim, kill - officially, with sanction from the state - and who
_chooses to do this as a career_ is a very, very sick individual. We do not
need a military that can deliver a bomb on some individuals head at the drop
of a whim - we need an organization that _makes peace_ , for the state, far
more.

~~~
dreamfactory
The usual argument is that such people 'occur naturally' and the army at least
directs their activities outwards (it forms the distinction between grunt and
officer class in the forces). I don't agree with the premise but it's a nature
vs nurture question.

~~~
fit2rule
I don't buy the justification. We can choose not to kill people. We can choose
to spend our time educating people, instead. Those who join the military,
subjugate themselves to others, and stop making choices. This is a contagious
disease, not some 'normality' about human existence...

~~~
giardini
Your killer is a straw man - someone who seeks to only kill more, to become
the most murderous possible person (s)he can, a "Hannibal Lector" of vengeance
w/o the epicurean instinct. Then you've further demonized him/her. This is
paranoid idealization. But some notes:

fit2rule: "when you are in the business of killing, murdering, maiming other
human beings, you're no longer really part of society"

Soldiering sometimes requires killing. So soldiers are no longer part of
society? What about the executive branch of our government (which issues the
orders to soldiers)?

fit2rule: "we in the 'normal' society don't have a clue what those in the
'murdering business society' really think about us"..."This is a contagious
disease, not some 'normality' about human existence..."

Murderous thoughts run through the minds of people everyday. They don't
usually act on them but they are there. It's part of our nature: we've always
done it. Here's a famous quote:

"I am a man: I hold that nothing human is alien to me." \- Terence

For a history of killing and how the responsibility has shifted from the
individual to the government:

"Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist" by Richard
Rhodes.

fit2rule: "the 'official killers' really don't care about human life"

Categorical nonsense. People love their spouses, children, family and friends.
Soldiers are people as are Presidents. Even psychopaths love and protect their
children (usually). All will protect the ones they love from those who they
fear will cause harm.

fit2rule: "if you get up in the morning with the intention of taking a human
life, if ordered to do so, then you no longer belong to the human race."
..."Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason
whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human"... "anyone
whose job it is to murder, maim, kill - officially, with sanction from the
state - and who chooses to do this as a career is a very, very sick
individual."

You're out on a limb here- this is simply a rhetorical blast. I fail to see
how being a killer makes you inhuman. I don't know how you would treat someone
as "anti-human" \- possibly kill them?!8-\

~~~
fit2rule
Look around you. What is the rarest substance in all the universe? Life. Why
should we remove it from the face of the Earth, if we haven't yet engaged it
in conversation?

Every villager killed is a missed opportunity to educate, enlighten, and
liberate - both parties.

The point is this: there isn't enough evidence to support killing, and more
than sufficient evidence to support not killing. Yet, it still happens - and
the reason why is, the people have not woken up to the fact that they _are_
responsible for the actions of their State, and that they _do_ deserve
whatever comes to them when they let their State murder, maim, kill.

~~~
giardini
fit2rule:" What is the rarest substance in all the universe? Life. "

I would say "Intelligence." There's an abundance of life on Earth but not much
intelligence.

fit2rule: "The point is this: there isn't enough evidence to support
killing..."

There often is. If someone has wantonly killed before, (s)he'll do it again.
One can allow them to continue or stop the activity. I have little to no mercy
for someone intent on homicide. Such people are not usually willing to sit
down and talk their problems through.

fit2rule: "...the people have not woken up to the fact that they are
responsible for the actions of their State, and that they do deserve whatever
comes to them when they let their State murder, maim, kill."

Until now I didn't realize that you were laying out a justification for
terrorists, jihadis et al to strike against nation-states. Thank you for that
clarification.

------
tgflynn
The common trend we see with the US government is total lack of restraint. It
acts as a tyrant and a bully.

1) The government acquires drone technology. Rather than use it to kill a few
known terrorists it operates massive drone programs which result in the deaths
of 100's of innocent people in multiple countries.

2) The government develops advanced surveillance technology. Rather than use
it on a few identified potential threats it decides to scoop up virtually all
electronic communications of both its own and foreign citizens with regard for
neither the letter nor the spirit of the US Bill of Rights.

3) The government enacts ridiculously heavy penalties for "crimes" whose
negative impact is debatable then uses these laws and its virtually unlimited
legal resources to terrorize individuals who engage in activities it doesn't
like.

I would like to think that some of the better president's in this nation's
history: FDR, Kennedy, etc., would have acted to reign in these abuses but in
any case that isn't relevant to our current generations which seem devoid of
any concept of collective well-being or spirit of disinterested public
leadership.

The beast is clearly out of control.

~~~
rhino369
You only have to look at past wars to see this is clearly not a total lack
restraint.

During WWII, the US purposely burned down entire cities (not just small
villages, some of the biggest cities in the world) just to scare the shit out
of the other side.

In Korea and Vietnam millions of civilians were killed by artillery and air
raids on villages and cities. By some accounts nearly all buildings in N.
Korea were destroyed by bombing.

Even in Iraqi and Serbia, the US was bombing civilian targets like bridges and
power plants.

LOL at FDR being against drones. He was overseeing the purposeful destruction
of as many German and Japanese civlians as possible.

------
macspoofing
The entire concept of targeted drone assassinations is so surreal. Executing a
convict in the US civilian court system requires a trial with a high-burden of
proof, and the convict is afforded multiple appeals before the sentence is
carried out. But in this case all it takes for the state to execute a suspect
is the interpretation of some mid-level analyst. More perplexing, there are no
qualms around civilian collateral damage. In what universe is striking a
convoy carrying a suspect but also carrying innocent (or even if not innocent,
not deserving a death sentence) civilians, deemed acceptable?

~~~
kevinpet
> In what universe is striking a convoy carrying a suspect but also carrying
> innocent (or even if not innocent, not deserving a death sentence)
> civilians, deemed acceptable?

During war, as accepted by every politician going back to the dawn of
civilization. On the plus side, for the past several hundred years, we've
started to make efforts to minimize.

> there are no qualms around civilian collateral damage.

Really? That seems to be _all anyone is talking about when it comes to
drones._ From the perspective of anyone from more than a century ago, we're
obsessed with it (and conversely, from the perspective of today, Dresden and
Hiroshima would be war crimes.)

~~~
BrokenPipe
Even rape and slavery was accepted not long ago, not enough reason to continue
do it?

I'm seriously disgusted by some people capacity to accept brutality as normal
and worse defend it too.

------
Killah911
I've worked on building some AI for drones for the US, and I'm fairly certain
that advents in new technologies will mitigate most of the concerns in the
article. It will make for a seriously scary new world, where devices like this
exist at massive scale. Dictatorships will be even more brutal, and
oppressors, even more oppressive. The sociopath in control of these machines
will no longer have to worry about someone not carrying out orders properly
due to emotions or questioning their judgement.

All that aside, the one aspect I don't see getting resolved is the
psychological effects of someone relatively "normal" & smart watching the
horrors and carnage of war and then heading to the grocery store for some ice
cream after his/her shift. Unlike being in a miserable (i.e. battlefield)
place where your body is filled with adrenaline and a good chunk of your
mental resources are dedicated to keeping yourself alive and getting the hell
out of there alive. Having the time to reflect on the serious inequities in
the world that you've just been witness to can't easily be swept under the
rug. Even if the systems are mostly automated and pictures have a higher
resolution, provided that the person/analyst/commander behind the screen is a
somewhat sane and intelligent member of society, the psychological tolls might
be worse when you're experiencing carnage thru relative safety.

~~~
ryandrake
Just curious, you said you worked on building some of these systems, so how
did you personally square your morals/ethics with the fact that your
employment was probably helping to bring about this "seriously scary new
world"?

I took a similar job once, sold on the awesome technical challenge
(aeronautical mapping, gyro/sensor input, camera control, etc). But over the
time I worked there, I became more and more ethically conflicted about some of
the potential applications of the technology I was developing. Was it wrong to
continue working on this, given the potential for it to be abused? Personally,
I believe developers are a lot like doctors in that we have a power that most
lay-people consider to amount to magic, and with that power comes an
obligation to do no harm. On one hand, if I wasn't working on this technology,
they'd just hire someone else to do it, so leaving would not stop the program.
On the other hand, while one person can't have an effect, if we all made the
ethical choice, it might ultimately become difficult for these types of
programs to exist.

In the end I decided I wanted to be in the group that avoided such ethically
questionable projects, lucked into a great opportunity to move into mobile
development, and the rest is history.

~~~
Killah911
That's crazy, I ended up feeling the same way. At first just the cool factor
of building something like skynet blinded me. I had friends deployed in wars
and I often found myself being worried and told myself that what I'm working
will someday make sure that my friends' probability of coming home in a
bodybag will be reduced significantly. I also told myself that my code itself
was so early that it would never see any real action in any meaningful way.
But eventually what I was helping to build became too much to think about.

I moved on to hacking car ecu's and making them go faster. Utterly meaningless
compared to my previous job, but a good fun couple of years of what amounted
in my mind to toy-building after what I'd previously worked on. You can say I
joined your group as well. I can only imagine what the poor sobs in the
article go through, they don't exactly have the option to join said group. Not
to mention watching real people dying in near real time must have a crazy
impact that I can't ever compare to my own experience.

------
SpaceRaccoon
I watched a documentary by Vice recently about the Taliban in Pakistan. I do
not remember the exact words, but when asked about allied air superiority with
drones, an insurgent commander responded "Talking to people, I can get a few
people to join my side. With one drone strike, I can get a whole village on my
side." And herein lies the problem: for every insurgent a drone strike kills,
whether he deserves it or not, that drone stroke motivates many more to join
their ranks.

After a flood, the Taliban helped to rebuild villages in Pakistan. People felt
that the state did nothing for them, thus again strengthening support for the
insurgency. I feel as though, if the US instead invested the money from war to
rather rebuilding, infrastructure, healthcare, education, that the insurgency
would fade on its own.

People join the insurgency because they are motivated by hate and anger.
Attempting to eliminate it through extermination is futile: the collateral
damage only multiples the numbers wanting to fight. The way to win a war is by
winning hearts and minds, as the cliche goes.

------
wreegab
> "the video provided by a drone is a far cry from clear enough to detect
> someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited clouds
> and perfect light"

I wished she had pushed the questioning even further:

Even if it's a weapon, that doesn't mean the person is a threat. I mean it's
full of people carrying weapons in the U.S., they are not presumed a threat.

And even if the person is deemed a threat, maybe the he would surrender, but
now he is not even offered this choice.

~~~
TruthElixirX
How is a guy two continents away carrying an AK a threat in any sane fashion?
He sure as hell can't use the gun to fly over the ocean.

~~~
Theodores
He is a profit centre. Not killing him is a danger to the entire military
industrial complex. That would be a threat to national security.

------
gnaffle
I find amount of pro-drone comments here quite stunning, including the
complete lack of appreciation of how the economies of scale of drones will
radically alter the equation of whether these are a good idea or not.

"Now, all right we killed some innocent civilians, but that happens in war and
we're at a constant war against terror now so there you go. Lets not jump to
any conclusions about drones before all the facts are in!"

All I can say is that these people will probably shut up and at least moderate
their views as soon as the police in their country starts deploying drones en
masse.

------
coldtea
I thought this would be an anti-drone confession, but in reality it looks
mostly manipulative.

Most of it is the impact of using drones on drone operators and the soldiers
who have them on THEIR side. How about the impact of drones to the OTHER side?
You know, the one under attack? Even giving them both 50% share of the article
is a disservice to them, and here it's even worse. How about them breaking
international law? How about them being used for murder operations in a no-war
situation? How about them used already and even more down the road against a
country's own citizens?

Another part of the article is about how they have low fidelity screens and
radars and such. As if, if they had better tech (which they'll get down the
road) all would be well with them.

Not much touching the actual ethical, human, political and diplomatic
implications of their use.

~~~
scintill76
> soldiers who have them on THEIR side. How about the impact of drones to the
> OTHER side?

I think this is still a somewhat useful (even if unfair) approach. So much of
the conversation is already centered on how the "other" side effectively has
no rights because they're not in America and are suspected of terrorism, and
how drones are so much safer and cheaper for "our" side. I view this approach
as saying "OK, so you want to believe those non-American deaths really can be
written off as an 'unfortunate but necessary cost of war.' Let's see how
horrific this still is for our troops that have to run these things and watch
people die day after day; how IEDs still slip through screening and our troops
have to watch, from thousands of miles away, their own comrades bleed out on
the side of the road, through an oversight they may feel responsible for."

Most of the politicians are spinning this as something precise and safe for
our troops. It makes sense for the counterpoint to focus on how it's not
precise and has hidden human costs to the troops. And it is clear the author
understands the immorality of the deaths themselves, but that's not the focus
because there aren't many people willing to argue in that arena.

------
BrandonRead
Does anybody think there is space for a "CS Students against Weaponry"
alliance? I go to Umass Amherst, and there are tons of people who end up
working for Raytheon upon graduation. Sure, the 100k / yr is quite tempting
when you just came from community college and a retail job just years before,
but perhaps some education may stop students from agreeing to internships and
careers at Raytheon, etc. It's oftentimes good students who are mostly
oblivious to why their skills are being exploited. Maybe we could affect this
mindset and bring a larger student audience into the ethical discussion. It is
becoming harder and harder to distinguish your contributions to the indirect
damages caused to innocent third-parties. And with CS, it's not like there is
a shortage of jobs. But that may be a misguided view--it's obvious that
students take these jobs because they 'have to' or risk suffering anywhere
from 10k to 300k of debt, depending on the school and their financial
background. It's all very much a shame.

~~~
fit2rule
Educational institutions _are_ the battleground for mindshare between the
military-industrial and the peace-lovers. Don't ask the question whether you
should start a "CS Students against Weaponry" movement or not: just simply do
it.

You have to make peace, it doesn't just happen. Same with war, incidentally ..

------
anderspetersson
All this criticism against drones. Drones are awesome.

I've worked on the ground in Afghanistan on a Mechanized Infantry Platoon.
There's nothing more calming than hearing the buzz from a drone keeping an eye
on the terrain from above and reporting to the TACP while you're on the
ground. We where saved multiple times from running into ambushes and IEDs
thanks to drones. Sure, Apache's could do the job as-well, but when they run
out of fuel, and they do more often than a drone, you're on your own.

Sure, that's another mission from flying a drone to a compound in Pakistan and
dropping some explosive on it, that I can not comment on since I have not seen
the Intel behind those missions.

~~~
dchichkov
Best comment in the thread. So we should concentrate on development of
'guardian' and 'intelligence' drones, and leave the offense part to the
soldiers on the ground, right?

~~~
anderspetersson
I believe both types of drones are needed, if the "fly-to-pakistan-and-drop-a-
bomb-on-a-compound"-drones didnt exist, the SOF guys would have more to do,
and would take more losses, I guess.

I'm pretty sure the intel needed to carry out a drone-strike is insanely high.

Drones are also great when the insurgents flees on their motorcycles, as often
happens when the ground forces come in.

------
f_salmon
The drone program is probably the most efficient way to recruit new
terrorists.

Which is probably in the interest of the NSA. How else can they justify their
dirty work if their is no more perceived "treat".

------
rcthompson
How are the drones even relevant to the discussion? There are people
controlling _some device_ in order to kill other people. Why does it matter
that the device happens to be an UAV in this case? How is it different if the
device in question is instead a cruise missile? A rifle? A knife? A fist?

To me, the whole discussion about drones is a big misdirection that uses
people's irrational fear of "killer robots" to make detractors forget that
ultimately, there's a human pulling the trigger.

Who cares if Obama authorized a drone strike to kill a US citizen abroad? What
I care about is that he authorized an assassination of a US citizen, not that
he chose "drone strike" as the method.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I think complaints are not about drones per se, they are about the US _drone
program_. It doesn't matter whether it's an UAV, a manned aricraft, or a
rocket propelled chainsaw. What matters is that there's a program of
systematic murder of innocent people on the other side of the globe without
any formal declaration of war.

~~~
rcthompson
My point is that most of the complaining _is_ about the drones, and it
shouldn't be.

------
gibybo
These seem like compelling arguments against our "war" in the middle east, but
I'm not sure why we should be singling out UAVs. People die in wars. Sometimes
they are enemies, sometimes they are friends, and sometimes they are innocent
bystanders. Do drones really make war worse than it already is?

~~~
belorn
Depend on what has highest chance happening - That children dies because
people who should confirm what is a threat fail because they are too lazy (or
bad pixels, or bad weather / angle and so on), or children dies because
solders on the street become so extremely mental unstable that they shoot
innocent people just for laughs.

------
rdl
The only thing this shows is that the recruiting standards for the US drone
program are substandard, as the author was allegedly part.

1) Yes, absolutely UAV based jammers don't block all IEDs. Ground jammers like
WARLOCK also don't block all IEDs. One thing they did do was force a lot of
command detonated IEDs to go to command wire systems, instead of various
wireless systems, which meant we then had a man with a switch in his hand
within a few hundred meters (tops), who we then lit the fuck up before or
after the attack. Sure beats someone being in another city with a cellphone!

Just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it's worthless.

2) Yes, UAVs are offensive combat weapons, particularly the programs in Horn
of Africa and Pakistan. OTOH, I don't see a huge difference in getting killed
by a Hellfire from a drone vs. having guys from JSOC show up at your door.
There's a legitimate concern that UAVs lower the threshold to engage in
ongoing low intensity conflict, but in the cases where they do have the right
targets, I see no difference between drone, manned aircraft, or on the ground
trigger-pullers.

3) The vast majority of drones are pure Intelligence, Surveillance,
Reconnaissance (ISR) missions. DOD didn't even arm their drones for a long
long time, it was CIA (who operate in those places) who pioneered armed
Predators (then the other armed drones). Part of this is internal politics
(pilots = officers), part of it is that when you've got manned aircraft armed
with diverse weapons systems orbiting overhead, you can just use a
smaller/cheaper/lighter drone for pure ISR, then when you develop a target,
send the manned aircraft with a full suite of weapons to choose from to do the
actual attack mission.

4) The grainy image of a UAV camera, over a 4h monitoring mission, is probably
way beyond the standard of proof of a combat shooting in general. The UAV
defaults to "no shoot". A soldier in combat who is threatened defaults to
"shoot". You don't need high precision on a single image if you're able to
spend a long time watching, gathering supporting information (knowing the
area, vehicles that approach, etc.). This isn't law enforcement or civilian
self defense; it's war. It's totally legitimate to question whether we should
be _at war_ , but the actual conduct of the war is less debatable IMO.

~~~
midas007
According to someone familiar with current specops / USAF rules-of-engagement,
the rule is that _an officer always had to be present to authorize a kill_ by
a UAV. Period. If JSOC or others were/are doing something different, this
could be grounds for court-martial.

~~~
rdl
It is "present in the ops center" I believe , which is the same standard as
for ordering other strikes. I'm not as familiar with the backend, I just know
the launch/recovery of UAV part, and the terminal part.

------
cpncrunch
A little bit more background on Heather Linebaugh:
[http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/soldiers-in-the-military-
are-...](http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/soldiers-in-the-military-are-being-
gagged-for-speaking-out)

~~~
mzr
24 years old. I know this veers into hyperbole, but it seems we've both killed
and ruined a whole generation.

~~~
icegreentea
You should ask the "Greatest Generation" what they did. The door to door
fighting through Europe was in no way clean.

------
DanielBMarkham
It sucks to be part of the human element making life and death decisions about
armed robots being used in non-traditional war situations.

That's about all I got from this. And yes, it does suck. There was a third
claim, that the public is misinformed/misled, but I take issue with that one.
I think most people understand that somebody, somewhere is pushing the button.

This essay didn't go into the rationale for drone warfare, or the situation
that brought the west into armed conflict in the first place. So it's not
hitting on a lot in terms of talking about the geopolitical issues, it's just
a plea for more empathy about what's actually being done.

I share that concern. We should be more empathetic. However -- and this is a
big deal -- feeling more fully the terrible things we are doing does not in
any way make those things less necessary. Those are two separate subjects.

I think we are going down a bad road with armed robots, but I don't think
essays like this are helping the discussion much. Still, it was good to hear
this voice.

~~~
bliksem
"There was a third claim, that the public is misinformed/misled, but I take
issue with that one. I think most people understand that somebody, somewhere
is pushing the button."

True - though the mislead part I feel largely relates to claims of surgical
strikes and claims of minimal 'collateral' deaths and injuries.

" the terrible things we are doing does not in any way make those things less
necessary" What is being done is indeed terrible - though I have yet to see
the necessary bit backed up by any coherent numbers.

------
yeukhon
> The UAV's in the Middle East are used as a weapon, not as protection, and as
> long as our public remains ignorant to this

Honestly, it has always been seen as a weapon. The whole point of drone is to
carry out mission 24/7 as much as possible, because a pilot can't fly back and
forth without sleeping. Also, humans have emotions they don't always follow
orders.

> incredibly difficult for the best analysts to identify if someone has
> weapons for sure

I have always thought the military fly drones to carry out specific mission,
such as taking photos or launching an attack. And the latter is usually
confirmed by some "intelligence". I want to see how many drone attacks were
performed without a single human intelligence confirmation.

> But here's the thing: I may not have been on the ground in Afghanistan, but
> I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen for days on end

This is best seen in the movie Black Hawk Down (2001), based on true story.

~~~
frostmatthew
> The whole point of drone is to carry out mission 24/7 as much as possible,
> because a pilot can't fly back and forth without sleeping.

Humans are still required to fly the drones. The "whole point" is that drones
can accomplish the same mission without risking a pilot and at a fraction of
the cost of a manned aircraft.

~~~
yeukhon
Well, in the future we will replace human pilots with automated flying drones.
Sure we still have drones require human flying.

------
logotype
The story is contradictory "...I watched parts of the conflict in great detail
on a screen..." and "The feed is so pixelated"

~~~
cbg0
He didn't mean he was watching it clearly in 4K resolution when he said "great
detail", he was trying to convey that he had a good understanding of what was
going on on the ground even though he wasn't on the ground.

------
smegel
I don't find this very insightful.

Drones kill civilians? Yeah, we know. Collateral damage is a reality of war.

Drones are weapons? Is that really a revelation?

I think there is a lot to criticize about the drone program, but it shouldn't
read like this.

------
forktheif
Again with the drone bashing.

Civilians got killed by manned aircraft too. A-10s launching Hellfires at a
wedding party, or AH-64 Apaches gunning down farmers in a field. It happens.
And whether the pilot is sitting in the aircraft or a thousand miles away
makes no difference. It's the same imperfect people making the same imperfect
decisions based on imperfect information.

~~~
classicsnoot
The issue is not that it happened. The issue is not that people died. The
issue is that Drone Warfare allows rich people in power to remotely kill
people they deem as threats whilst selling a story of reduced casualties on
both sides. The casualties of this kind of war will be human at first...

~~~
votingprawn
> allows rich people in power to remotely kill people they deem as threats
> whilst selling a story of reduced casualties on both sides.

Don't expensive manned aircraft with (the same) expensive precision guided
munitions allow rich people to do exactly the same thing?

A manned aircraft could perform these missions with the same level of
"collateral damage" and minimal risk to the pilot.

~~~
classicsnoot
Absolutely, yes. It requires many years and oodles of cash to train humans to
desensitise themselves to the degree it takes to be a good fighter jock [I
have a few family members who have flown. They are brilliant. Flying is an
amazing endeavour.]. I am sure it takes a fair amount of time to achieve the
same level of "discipline" in an RPV team, as well. [Here follows a bunch of
things that are personal observations.]I personally believe that both of these
categories of specialization are symptomatic of a deeper mental illness in
humanity. I am not really interested in less death or more death as some kind
of assessment of a things value. Death, in all things, is unavoidable. We, as
humans, see ourselves as individuals because it is empowering. In reality, we
are largely indistinguishable from each other when one takes a broader
perspective. Both fighter jets and military RPVs are cool as hell, but they
are both death implements, or deathplements if you are grammatically frisky.

I heard an interesting interview on NPR with a retired CIA chap. He was legal
council to some alphabet soup within Central. He pointed out the irony of the
controversy over the "Enhanced" Interrogation Techniques" and the relative
quiet on the part of the American public about the Dispassionate Remotely
Piloted Death Eagle Master Plan[This is the official name of the CIA's RPV
program. look it up.]. I found it poignant. he has a book. I believe the title
is Company Man.

------
njharman
This topic can be summed up as war is hell. It is brutal, bloody and evil.
UAVs, nor anything else alters this.

Modern democracies know this well and try to hide the horrors of war from
their citizens. To have the freedom to wage war for as long as possible (or as
long as needed) before public outrage forces them to stop.

Citizens are at fault for not knowing history and not paying attention.

~~~
ItendToDisagree
For the nth time...

"We are at war with Yemen?"

How can citizens be at fault when they don't even have a representative choice
in the matter?

The whole "war is hell" thing is trite as all get out. As a metaphorical
answer: "If war is hell... Don't court the Devil."

------
salient
This is only going to get worse if they make drones autonomous, which this TED
talk shows they have a lot of reasons for why they will want to make them
autonomous, unless there's huge public outcry demanding a ban:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI)

------
nationcrafting
Scary as current drones are, they are nothing compared to how crazy things are
going to get very quickly.

Think of completely power-autonomous drones, the size of a wasp, swarming by
the millions in the sky. The swarming feature alone would render most people
helpless against an attack, or their sheer presence. To this, add distributed
intelligence features, and networked control. The swarm becomes something akin
to an intelligent, flying, all-seeing liquid.

Then think of the drop in price that will enable this to become the dominant
method of surveillance, policing, and military operations. There will quickly
be nothing stopping dictatorships from buying billions of them, making them
ubiquitous and all-pervasive. Killing, threatening and controlling billions of
people suddenly becomes quite cheap, efficient, easy and cost-effective. Don't
like those people demonstrating in your city? Send the swarms.

------
stcredzero
_> One example comes to mind: "The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a
shovel, and not a weapon?"_

This is precisely what the Oculus Rift folks and the people working on the
helmet that goes with the F-35 are working against. Biological senses are
freaking amazing. The outliers on the upper end of the scale are downright
incredible. Synthetic substitutes need to be really well engineered to be
comparable or surpass them. (Which is precisely what happened with RADAR. Did
you know that modern radio telescopes developed from technology we used to
eavesdrop on Soviet EM emissions reflected off the moon? Did you know that the
energy gathered by all of the radio telescopes, ever, is less than that of a
single snowflake hitting the ground?)

------
bsaul
it's not the first time i see reports about war traumas for drone pilots and
analysts. I hope this won't be used later as an argument for fully automated
drones. I much prefer having a least _some_ people traumatized by being in war
than none.

------
artellectual
I think it's pretty clear that, the US army looks out for one nation only the
U S of A, they are definitely making it clear that humanities best interest is
not their long term goal. They look out for their own, I think we all live in
a world where we all look out for our own. The US army are no better than the
terrrorists who took the innocent lives of Americans. Honestly the US is just
a big bully and what it all comes down to is media, they've brain washed the
entire nation to make it seem like all these drone attacks are ok, they're not
severe, they're not as bad as it sounds, justifying it through fancy words the
common people can't understand. The fact is its usually worse than it sounds
but most people just choose to switch off from it because no one wants to
think about these depressing things, and by switching off their brains they
are empowering the politicians that pull the triggers.

It's never ok when innocent people die, innocent civilians of the US don't
want innocent civilians of other nations to die. The fact of the matter is
it's not these civilians who are pulling the trigger.

The way I see it we all follow a pattern. In the US you have 2 big political
parties, democrat and republican. I mean no one ever questions why we let
these dickheads stay in power? Why isn't there a third, fourth or a fifth
party? They have fabricated a world and a media were they have basically brain
washed the entire world. I mean honestly do u think having 2 parties take turn
in power is a democracy? What it all comes down to is to not give them the
power. I think in every nation all around the world not voting is as powerful
as voting. Breaking that pattern and having that critical thinking, to call
the politicians bullshit, and impeach the shit out of them when they fuck up
and lie, that conviction to get up and do the right thing. But that will never
happen, because it's too hard, because we've all been brain washed, becuase
everyone is busy living their lives.

I think the American people have forgotten that their government exist to
serve them not the other way around, when you pay tax your paying for a
service, when you not getting the service you asked for, you should get up and
do something.

------
charlesju
I believe a highly relevant podcast is the incredible one by Dan Carlin called
"Hardcore History". The episode below is one history fan's opinion of how we
were able to justify mass killing of civilians in acts like the Atomic Bomb,
Bombing of London in WW2, and the Fire Bombs against Tokyo.

[http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLIT...](http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---\(BLITZ\)-Logical-
Insanity/Second%20World%20War-World%20War%20Two-World%20War%20One)

------
sinwave
The title of this article is a bit misleading - I was expecting some fresh
facts about the drone program. What I got instead was some heavy pathos and
not much substance.

------
Houshalter
So this affects people's lives and involves politics, but I can't help but
feel like it's an engineering problem that could be solved. Measure how
accurate information is from drones and how confident they are, calculate
(even if roughly) how much is gained or lost by taking action. And then do
whatever maximizes expected utility.

I feel like merely having access to another tool should never make things
worse unless the leaders are incompetent.

------
pearjuice
What stuns me the most about drones is how unfair they are. The targets are
mostly the Middle-East and they have absolutely no chance to take them down.
And then they wonder why they attack innocent Americans working in an embasy.
How are you supposed to fight something you cannot see? You don't, so you
attack something of the enemy, no matter what, because it is the last option
to hurt him.

~~~
votingprawn
Couldn't the same argument be made against any other attack aircraft?

------
classicsnoot
There are a lot of comments, so i apologize if i am parroting a wiser person,
but this thought has been occupying my head for some time and i crave the
sweet relief of discourse.

Drones are here to stay. Maybe like nuclear weapons, they will be something we
try to eradicate later, but for now, we must accept and incorporate them, as
companies/governments will make it happen regardless of our
[read:citizenry(...of the world, of course)] concerns or opposition. In light
of this, it is me earnest and sincere belief that control of the sky over our
heads is up for grabs. Bothered by kill bots flown over your head by sme
assholes in Nevada? Start building aerial jammers, yo. Think those pigs in
your 'hood are corrupt? Set up video surveillance and make it open/free access
online. Take pictures of cops using their mobiles whilst driving. Say nothing
unnecessary at traffic stops; be happy to join them for a free ride to the
station and a front row seat to how paperwork is an unbiased weapon in the
hands of informed folks. I am so sick of soccer moms and military assholes
telling me what is "safe", what "security" means, and how freaking precious
our nation is. There is no one coming to save us, not in the US, not in
Europe, and especially not in China (India... well we will see). But that is
cool, because we have Internet. Seriously, in a stand up arms race, who is
going to win, they people paying 100 million per drone or the people paying
1000 per drone. We dont need ordinance. We don't need permission. We have all
the know how required [the OP/author sounds like a soldier of conscience if
there ever was one]. This is not some Occupy circus. It is not a call for
revolution or insurrection. It is just one person, trying to point out the
facts...

We, as the armchair scientists and tech inclined folk of the world, have the
balance of insight, experience, funding, and motivation on our side. what is
more, we need not kill anyone. we dont need to blow anyone up. Most
importantly, we get to be honest, and we get to work by choice.

We as people need not sit idly by while politicians and constables decide our
fates and the fates of our brothers and sisters around the world. i long for a
day when my country, because we kick ass, carpet bombs africa and the middle
east weekly with well made books, toothpaste, and ruggedized tablet computers.
I do not think this is a fantasy, but i am very aware of the other options.

...shit, this isn't the meeting at the docks...

------
kingkawn
Side note, I am excited for the application of all of this drone technology
into things other than killing. War seems to be one of the few things that the
US is unapologetically willing to go into debt to fund. Lots of cool
possibilities with high resolution sensor technology.

------
kevinpet
This article could just as well describing how war is conducted since we
switched from all cotton to cotton-polyester blend utilities uniforms. It lets
the reader assume that in some way drones are worse than non-drone warfare,
without advancing any argument in that direction.

------
joshfraser
Sometimes they can't tell if someone is carrying a weapon or not. Consider
that for a moment. Even if they are carrying a weapon, why should that be
enough information to issue a death sentence for them and everyone in their
near proximity?

------
rasengan0
Drones remain viable because they cost money. You have to buy them and use
them.

Who is profiting from death?

Saving troops on the ground is great marketing and saves political capital.

Tribalism wins; WE GOOD, you Bad.

Someone always makes up the math: X innocent goatherders = 1 US grunt

Such a sad petty waste of and for humanity.

------
kyleblarson
The Nobel Foundation must be facepalming a lot these days after O's peace
prize.

~~~
wavefunction
I would say they deserve the damage to the "brand," if not so many previous
awardees had similarly questionable contributions to "peace."

------
spiritplumber
The public should also know that all this long range drone stuff can be done
for cheap.

Also, they pixelate the feed on purpose, to remove hesitation when hitting the
trigger.

~~~
wetmore
>Also, they pixelate the feed on purpose, to remove hesitation when hitting
the trigger.

Any proof for this?

~~~
spiritplumber
No, it's something I heard from a guy doing UI design for this stuff. We were
comparing notes / discussing what's the minimum resolution to pilot a remote
vehicle.

------
linuxhansl
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." \-
Peter Ustinov

------
chmike
what wories me the most with that UAV analyst problem is that there is only
two solution. Minimize or even stop these operations or automate them with
computers. I'm "curious" where this later option could lead us.

------
bearwithclaws
Any cache or mirrors? Can't seemed to view the site.

------
TruthElixirX
>Recently, the Guardian ran a commentary by Britain's secretary of state for
defence Philip Hammond. I wish I could talk to him about the two friends and
colleagues I lost, within one year leaving the military, to suicide. I am sure
he has not been notified of that little bit of the secret UAV program, or he
would surely take a closer look at the full scope of the program before
defending it again.

I doubt he gives a shit, and the reason we are in this mess is because most
people think people like him do give a shit, they are just "misinformed."

~~~
rwmj
The unfortunate truth is that any leader who orders soldiers to go to war
should know that innocent and guilty people are going to die, women will be
raped, property destroyed and looted, and so on. In WWII there was a
deliberate policy of incinerating populated cities, but even if we don't go to
that extreme the outcome is going to be grim. I hope any defence secretary
both knows this, and considers it, but also considers what happens when you
don't deploy soldiers/drones/etc.

~~~
TruthElixirX
>but also considers what happens when you don't deploy soldiers/drones/etc.

Nothing happens. Nothing. The reason those people are pissed is because of the
U.S. government constantly fucking with them and poking them. Over throwing
governments, secret renditions, locking up loved ones in Guantanamo with no
trial indefinitely. I'd be fucking pissed too.

~~~
rwmj
I meant in the general case for war.

Obviously not much happens in the short term if we don't interfere in the
affairs of Pakistan and neighbours. In the long term they might rebuild their
terrorist training camps, but .. meh so what. Only a few people have been
killed by terrorists, it's not a big deal and not a fundamental threat to
civilisation.

You couldn't say that there would be no consequences for not engaging in the
1930s. Many more countries could have been overrun by fascism for decades.

------
brian0624
I can't believe this goes on...

------
apunic
Any tl;dr?

~~~
lisper
The article is not that long, and worth reading in its entirety.

