[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.

[darawk]

Thanks for the upvote.

I basically agree entirely with you. However, I think almost everyone would. If you asked Obama or any of the generals running these drone ops to sign off on what you just said, I think they'd gladly do so. They'd then likely go on to say that the war they're waging is one of these unfortunate necessities. Further, that the civilian casualties horrify them, but they're doing what they can do stop them while still accomplishing the (in their minds) paramount goal of eliminating terrorist threats.

What it seems to me to come down to ultimately is that it's ok to use drones when you come down on the right side of that moral calculation and not when you don't. Which, of course makes the drones an irrelevant part of the equation in the first place, since that is the fundamental moral question of all use of force.

Maybe the answer is to un-depersonalize the nature of drone strikes. Maybe their video feeds should be publicly available after X amount of time when they've used their weapons?

[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?

[darawk]

Nope.

[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.

[darawk]

No they aren't. Certain paths may get easier, but it's just up to us to choose the right ones. There is nothing about drone use that entails the killing of civilians, any more than any other form of killing. The fact that it makes it less personal, as i've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, can be an advantage and a disadvantage.

If you care about a goal that actually matters, like reducing violence, you'll push for better verification procedures when a target is going to be struck. Not a reduction in drone use in general, and not an attack on the concept of drones.

Drones present a unique opportunity thus far in war to have stringent procedures in place that control the pulling of the trigger. They represent an opportunity to dramatically reduce civilian death, and increase responsibility for those that abuse their status as drone operators to murder civilians. On a battlefield, it's almost impossible to evaluate killings ex-post. Not so for a drone operator. They are perfectly safe, every single input available to them will be available to any tribunal who wishes to review their actions. They do not have the excuse of feeling threatened, or the heat of battle, or anything like that.

Drones are going to be a good thing for civilian casualties, IF and only if we guide them in the right direction. And that isn't going to happen if we keep naively complaining about their use in blanket terms.

[grzm]

Can you elaborate? Inextricably is a pretty strong word.

Edit: I'm not implying a position. With a strong assertion I'm interested in how one arrives there.

[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.

[darawk]

No it's not. It is precisely equivalent to the argument you're making. If you think there is some moral imperative to impose costs on war, then it is incumbent upon you to draw the line. Why body armor but no drones? Both of them are cost reduction mechanisms. Why is one ok and the other not?