[blisterpeanuts]

It's not a question of "ease". Military pilots take orders; COs tell them how high to jump, and that's what they do. Either they follow orders or they are relieved of duty (and possibly face court martial).

Some drones are operated by a division of the CIA and are out of military control, however. This is probably the most worrisome aspect of the program.

However, as long as 99% of their targets are bad guys, Americans are going to continue supporting the program. It's zero risk for American pilots, and everyone likes to read about more dead terrorists with their morning coffee. More points to whoever's in charge.

Governments like Yemen's will also support it because #1 it does their dirty work for them, and #2 they can blame an evil foreign power. Win-win.

[fraction]

"However, as long as 99% of their targets are bad guys, Americans are going to continue supporting the program."

The problem here is that 100% of the targets are bad guys while seemingly a very low percentage of the casualties are. Americans continue to support the program because the media does not do it's job. Instead they act as a mouth piece, a cheer leader, instead of doing actual journalism.

The War on Terror, much like the War on Drugs, is a utter failure. It has ZERO chance of being successful because of tactics like this.

[viraptor]

> Military pilots take orders; COs tell them how high to jump, and that's what they do.

Do you really think that the disconnection doesn't have an effect on some level? Whether it's the number of people signing up at all, being ready for a mission, or actually following orders?

How many people would follow the order of shooting from a controlled plane to unsuspecting people in a convoy -vs- an order to take a knife and kill an unarmed not resisting person in front of them? The end result is the same. Giving them enough distance just makes it much much easier.

[blisterpeanuts]

Undoubtedly the video game quality of the drone program abstracts the carnage and makes it easier for the operator to sleep at night.

[hansjorg]

I recently stumbled upon an excellent, but slightly dark, browser game which explores these kind of themes. You play the role of a military drone pilot going about his everyday menial tasks.

Unmanned:

http://unmanned.molleindustria.org

[lmm]

> Military pilots take orders; COs tell them how high to jump, and that's what they do. Either they follow orders or they are relieved of duty (and possibly face court martial).

Even so, and despite all the training, some do refuse orders. They're also at least theoretically obliged to refuse illegal orders (i.e. war crimes), at least in my country.

[jackgavigan]

Different countries have different definitions of what constitutes a war crime, depending on what international treaties they are parties to. Bombing wedding parties would come under what is often referred to as the Principle of Proportionality, as laid out in Article 51 of Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions and Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The United States is not a party to either treaty.

[mistercow]

Since when is the US not a party to the Geneva Conventions?

[dragonwriter]

Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are later agreements that added to the 1949 Conventions, the United States is not a party to either Protocol, though it is a party to all four of the 1949 Conventions.

[mistercow]

Ah I see now. Thanks for clarifying.

[codfrantic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18535330

[Kliment]

Sure, and those who refuse get replaced by new ones who won't. Doesn't take long to "fix" that "problem".

[bluedino]

>> It's not a question of "ease".

I think the previous commenter was speaking on the level of disconnect between a drone pilot and their intended targets. It's much, much easier for someone to go through with clicking a button and watching an explosion on a screen than it is to say, murder each of those people if they were in the same room.