[lhc-]

I'm not sure how you can argue drones minimize foreign civilian casualties, given the constant reports of drones bombing weddings and social gatherings based on the location of a cell phone. That's basically just repeating direct propaganda.

[rhino369]

It's not constant reports, but it's happened several times. But a land invasion gets many more killed. So do regular aerial bombardment.

What is the better tactic?

[zo1]

>"What is the better tactic?"

Short of a complicated and "nuanced" response, I'd suggest:

How about not invading a sovereign nation? Worst case, the UN could block-off all in-out with that country. Trade, travel, communication. All of it until they abide by UN laws.

[darawk]

But that isn't because they're drones. People have a visceral, irrational reaction to drones because they feel autonomous and impersonal. But ultimately there is a human pressing the button to fire those missiles.

It's really no different from a fighter jet dropping the bombs, there's just no risk of casualties on our side. Yes, those casualties are bad, and we should be agitating against them, but it isn't the drones that are the problem.

[M_Grey]

Except that we seem far more willing to commit drones, rather than manned craft.

[rhino369]

Is that accurate? The USA has been willing to use regular manned aircraft for bombing in plenty of situations that are more dangerous than Pakistan and Yemen.

There is basically zero chance the taliban can shoot down an F15. Drones are used because they are cheaper and the better tool for the job.

In fact, Drones only work in areas where the opposing forces have virtually no ability to shoot down aircraft. Because drones are sitting ducks. In a shooting war against any country with anti-air capabilities, drones wouldn't stay in the air for long.

[darawk]

So, you're arguing that we should have to risk lives because we'd be less willing to commit them?

That seems like a profoundly misguided argument.

[Jtsummers]

Is it? In [0] (from 2015) the number of US citizens who had been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan was around 2.5 million, or about 0.75% of the population at the time of writing.

Why do we continue to send these men and women over there? Because no one knows them. The risk to someone the average US citizen knows is near 0. This lack of connection allows people to make the decision to commit these anonymous soldiers to a war on the other side of the world.

This is only exacerbated by drone warfare. Now, we'll be committing even fewer of our own citizens lives to the risk of war. Materiel is easily replaced in comparison, and the losses are more easily covered over.

One of the reasons that we, finally and way too late, pulled out of Vietnam was the draft. The idea that you, or your brother, or your son, or your cousin could be drafted and thrown into a war that none of you wanted.

Now it's an all-volunteer military. While we may be wary of war, it's far less of an emotional and ethical strain on the people of this country when they go into their voting booths.

[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-trag...

[darawk]

I don't disagree that this is an interesting and troubling trend to keep an eye on. The lowered cost of war absolutely has all the effects you describe, and that is, in a global sense, absolutely a scary thing, with disconcerting implications.

However, it is philosophically untenable to take the position that we should be forced to risk a life in order to take one. That is an anachronism that only feels justified out of a misplaced sense of moral fairness. What we should be doing is focussing on better procedures to prevent civilian casualties. Drones actually represent a great opportunity to employ very stringent procedures to prevent such things. Much more so than a fighter jet or troops on the ground. You can easily do things like have multiple people sign off before a missile is launched, employ machine learning to enhance images and attempt to classify and predict common sources of operator error, etc..

[Jtsummers]

I was irked that you were downvoted, hopefully my upvote bring you out of the gray.

===

You make solid points, I don't disagree with you entirely. I do want to clarify: my point of view is not based on a sense of moral fairness. War is probably always going to be unfair, otherwise it's an even match and even more pointless. If I were for fairness I'd want the war to be local and not just in other countries, but I don't want that.

What I want is for it to end. The ability to cover up the human costs by distance from the front, distance from the people fighting (on either side), means it's too easy for us to allow it to continue. I don't want US men and women in harm's way. I want them out of harm's way, and for us to stop killing people who (mostly) just want to live their lives. Some level of military action will probably be necessary somewhere in the world, as entangled as we are, at any given time. But going to more automated and unmanned systems allows us to continue to be far more violent than circumstances actually require, with little cost to the elected and appointed officials directing this violence in our name.

[sqeaky]

If I get you correctly another re-phrasing could be: If we put a human soldier into a situation that is dicey, like a mix of civilians and terrorists we didn't expect, we are obligated to get that human out even if it risks more soldiers and local civilians. But if we put a drone in the same dicey situation we can just accept the loss of that drone and self destruct it without harming any soldiers or civilians.

[nitrogen]

Do you operate, build, or design drones for a living?

[M_Grey]

It is, but it's also not what I said. I'm saying, in relation to the comment chain, that drones do lead to more foreign casualties because of how we're willing to use them, i.e. casually.

Do you have an argument that doesn't involve rephrasing mine?

[darawk]

It is equivalent to what you said. If you are criticizing the way that we use drones, that's fine and you have no argument from me. Criticizing the use of them at all because of their lower cost is silly.

[M_Grey]

What you're missing (or "missing") is that how we use drones, and drones themselves are inextricably linked.

[nitrogen]

So, you're arguing that we should have to risk lives because we'd be less willing to commit them?

I say this as someone with many family members who have served: absolutely yes. War must have a steep cost or we will be far too eager to wage it.

[darawk]

So, should we take away their body armor too?

[nitrogen]

This is a straw man and a deflection.