
Living Under Drones - mgunes
http://www.livingunderdrones.org/
======
alexeisadeski3
I just don't get the controversy.

Anything which is permissible for a piloted bomber to destroy is surely okay
for a drone to destroy as well, yes? Why the focus on drones per se?

Yes, civilian deaths are bad. Yes, war is bad. Yes, perhaps the wars in
Afghanistan and Pakistan should be ended tomorrow. So why don't we discuss
those?

Drones seem utterly irrelevant:

1\. Do drones cause _more_ civilian casualties than traditional air strikes?
If anything it seems that they inflict fewer. Thus focussing on this aspect
actually _hurts_ their case.

2\. Do drones terrorize civilians _more_ than a traditional infantry
occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? I honestly have no
idea, but the answer doesn't seem obvious.

3\. Do drones make the US _less safe_ than a traditional infantry based
occupation? Again, I've got no idea.

4\. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's
enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an _increase_ in respect for human
life.

~~~
coldtea
> _1\. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes?_

Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for
different kind of attacks. If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller
plus not needing pilots and not having any casualties on the operating side,
etc, they will also be used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much
more difficult to approve and costlier.

Technological changes are enablers and multipliers -- they change what we can
do and how often we can do it.

> _2\. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry
> occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq?_

Yes, since suddenly you have essentially small planes taking over the area and
killing people, especially when they can be used to occupy and have almost
zero casualties from the occupying site.

> _4\. This point is silly. In war you needn 't get clearance before killing
> one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for
> human life._

There's also the fact that those are not even used in a properly declared war,
and are even used against sovereign countries.

~~~
mpyne
> Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for
> different kind of attacks.

"Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for Afghanistan)
and 2003 (for Iraq). Do you really think that fighter jets are just roaming
around randomly in Afghanistan bombing random things? There are plenty of
aircraft, sure, but they are doing missions like CAS (close air support of
ground troops) or delivering bombs to precise targets.... the same kind of
thing drones are doing. Except drones carry smaller bombs than 500lb JDAMs,
which helps drones reduce collateral damage (and civilian casualties) from the
equivalent strike directed by a manned attack fighter.

But either way, being used for "different kinds of attacks" is not even close
to illegal. If anything using drones with lower-payload ordnance to perform
different missions instead of manned fighters with cluster bombs or JDAMs is a
noted _improvement_ in the U.S. military's efforts to reduce CIVCAS and
collateral property damage.

> If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller plus not needing pilots
> and not having any casualties on the operating side, etc, they will also be
> used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much more difficult to
> approve and costlier.

Drones are, sadly, not getting any cheaper. They are cheaper to train pilots
for, that much is true. But again, "it's not quite as sporting" isn't an
argument against drones.... the same argument was used about long-range
artillery in the Russo-Japanese war (some British fogies actually said they
would never personally use artillery if they couldn't personally see the
aimpoint, an attitude which didn't last long on the Western Front). The
Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a brutal,
__evil __weapon in WWI... that 's right, the _shotgun_ , the "OMG drones!!" of
1917.

~~~
coldtea
> _" Traditional" air strikes haven't been going on since 2001 (for
> Afghanistan) and 2003 (for Iraq)._

So? If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant.
They haven't stopped because drones, just because that part of the whole
operation was over. You usually do those at the first stage of a "war", not at
the "ocuppying force" stages.

> _The Germans used the same argument to complain about Americans using a
> brutal, evil weapon in WWI... that 's right, the shotgun, the "OMG drones!!"
> of 1917._

Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race?
If anything I'd like to see those things controlled and restricted, like with
do with other kinds of weapons with international treaties.

There's an hypocrisy involved in all this, that usually the persons saying
it's all OK will be all tears and patriotic songs if it's even a person on
their land that gets the same treatment, wheres the lives of 100s of innocent
people on foreign lands are somehow not worth much.

~~~
mpyne
> If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant.

Yes, they will come back if they're needed. The reason they're _not_ needed is
because drones are available.

> Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race?

It's said as in shotguns were not the horrific inhumane weapon they were made
out to be, in comparison to all the more innovate and brutal ways we've
figured out how to kill each other in the decades since. At least the shotgun
stood a good chance of putting someone _hors de combat_ instead of killing
them outright; rifle ammunition was and is designed explicitly to cause
massive trauma leading to death.

> wheres the lives of 100s of innocent people on foreign lands are somehow not
> worth much.

The Taliban kill far, _far_ more Muslims than the West could hope to match.
The same was (and now is) true in Iraq. The lives of innocents abroad _are_
worth something, which is one of the reasons why America risks her own blood
and treasure: Having a reasonably stable and secure Afghanistan, without
Muslims killing Muslims every day, is flat-out good for America too.

Likewise for nearby Pakistan, a possessor of nuclear weapons (and victim of
recent Taliban attacks at Karachi airport); the insurgency there isn't just
bad for the innocent peoples of Pakistan, it's bad for the rest of the world
including America.

------
gw
Between this and the Salon SWAT story from earlier today, it's hard to not be
completely ashamed at the depravity that Americans like myself are actively
financing with our taxes. It's telling that the best data we have on these
innocent deaths comes from a non-U.S. organization (Bureau of Investigative
Journalism).

~~~
ekianjo
I've always thought that one of the best way to address those issues would be
to have a simple tax sheet to decide where your tax money goes - one of the
best ways to vote with your money. Want to support drones programs ? Tick the
box. If you don't, while you can't stop the program by yourself, at least you
are not financing it.

~~~
Rangi42
People would probably underfund boring but necessary programs like the
interstate highway system and industrial regulations, and would mostly check
boxes for a few highly visible programs that fit with their politics (NASA,
the EPA, new fighter jets, etc). I expect that a lot of programs would end up
being designated as "necessary", with choices allowed for only a few which are
deemed inessential. And of course, drones would end up being classified as
necessary.

~~~
ekianjo
Implementation/execution is another story. I would call "necessary" everything
that falls into everyday life needs (and that could be clearly defined and
spelled out and agreed in the first place) - and it would be relatively easy
to define "optional" -> warring outside of your own borders is probably hard
to justify as ultimately necessary.

------
lucb1e
This sounds like it comes straight from a movie. The Hunger Games, book 3 (no
spoiler) mentions a bomb that goes off twice: once to kill the people, a
second time to kill the people that have come to the aid of those injured. Now
the video mentions doctors won't go near a place where a drone struck because
drones do the same.

~~~
lotharbot
> _" a second time to kill the people that have come to the aid of those
> injured"_

This is a fairly old tactic.

For example, the Columbine school shooting (15 years ago) involved several
(badly wired) bombs that were intended to go off in crowds of survivors and
rescue workers.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html)

~~~
mpyne
And the tactic in this case is in response to what coalition troops learned on
the battlefields of Afghanistan, namely that the Taliban recover their own
dead and wounded after drone attacks, they don't let ANP, ANA, or locals
interfere and possibly capture their wounded leaders alive. Whoever is firing
the second shot would still need intelligence that the rescue party is a valid
military target though.

Unfortunately Gen. Sherman's quote about war is just as applicable in 2014 as
it was after the American Civil War.

~~~
_broody
Forget about the rescue party, there isn't even ever bulletproof intelligence
to justify the _first_ drone strike, due to the way targets are acquired. This
is well documented, and a serious source of controversy.

[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-
ns...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-
role/)

Doubling down on the carnage by killing medics/family/bystanders who hurry to
the rescue of the victims whenever the CIA makes a mistake is just sick, sick,
sick.

------
Yardlink
I'm constantly bewildered by how Americans keep complaining about the
government they elect. I live in a country without democracy so you can
understand people complaining, but not in America. Just stop voting for the
same parties that keep pissing you off! During his first election campaign,
Obama publicly promised to do drone strikes in Pakistan. It's not a surprise
that it ended up happening.

~~~
adamc
I did. It doesn't really help unless large numbers of people do that. Don't
take HN or any message board as being a representative sample.

------
coin
Is there any good reason to disable mobile zoom on this website?

