[biohacker42]

I think his point is that the only thing new here is drones. The numbers themselves are old and that is what we should be correctly outraged about. The exact type of weapon used is not relevant. (Except for things like white phosphorus, obviously.)

[jacquesm]

I think drones are a major game changer. They increase the distance between the humans on the receiving end and the humans on the 'giving' end to such an extent that there is now a major disconnect. Regular fighter jocks at least put their own lives on the line as well, drone pilots could literally do their jobs from the other side of the planet while eating donuts.

It doesn't matter much to a victim what weapon they get killed by, dead is dead. That doesn't mean we should not outlaw certain types of weapon (white phosphorous is an excellent sample for that, but drones would qualify as well imo).

My guess is the parties that 'have' the drones would never agree to give them up on the insistence of the 'have nots', it's too much of an advantage. War becomes a simple decision, none of those pesky losses to explain to the homefront. Only some energy and steel lost, there's plenty of that to go around before the homefront will realize there is a cost to war.

[philh]

The military's job is (essentially) to save some people's lives by killing other people. It is a distasteful job, but (most people agree) a necessary one. Therefore what the military needs to be good at is killing targeted people with minimum loss of life to others. "Others" includes members of the military.

If drone guns result no more loss of civilian life than other methods of attack, but with less risk to the operators' lives, they make the military better at its job.

If there are too many civilian casualties, the solution should not be "make the military less good at its job". It should be "make the military's job less necessary".

[biohacker42]

There is a difference between fighter pilots and drone pilots but not between drone pilots and who's ever job it is to push the launch button on any one of many missile types we'd had much, much longer then we've had drones. So war = bad, drones = red herring.

[anigbrowl]

I disagree. Almost always, missiles are targeted against fixed military installations. Of course there are tactical missiles fired between aerial and ground targets, but again these are optimized for and usually deployed against hardened military targets like tanks or gunships.

The problem here is not one of drones firing at columns of tanks, but the fact that they are being deployed as anti-personnel devices targeted at guerrilla leaders. I am OK with targeting such people (and as it happens, I support the idea of fighting and defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, but I'm very disappointed with the implementation). The kind of drones we use now are basically lightweight planes, and given the physics of fixed-wing flight, that means fly-bys and high-yield single-use weapons.

If your intel is good and you have found an isolated Taliban training camp, then OK. But if it's poor, you're throwing a lot of destructive power at the wrong target. Whereas a sniper team might employ a scope or long-range microphone and observe the presence of many women and children or singing and dancing (conclusion: might be a wedding party), a drone on flyby can identify the existence of a target, but is poorly equipped to identify the nature of the target...which is one reason we've blown up a lot of wedding parties in the last few years.

Realistically, we can get away with it to an extent because the US is a big powerful country that can throw its weight around (and is allied with other relatively big and powerful countries). But a 50:1 kill ratio for civilians:bad guys is piss-poor - even if you assume a degree of dishonesty and propaganda on the other side, a ratio of 25:1 or even 10:1 is still piss-poor and exactly the sort of thing held up as an example of moral failure in history. By depending so heavily on tools which do not allow easy discrimination of military and civilian targets, we weaken our freedom to act effectively and early in other contexts.

I hope it's clear that my argument here is economic rather than political.

[jacquesm]

In fact the 50:1 ratio will probably create 2 new fighters for every one killed. Most people have families and don't like seeing their relatives blown up. Do not put people in a position where you've taken away their every reason to live for.

[jacquesm]

excellent point. thank you.

[yummyfajitas]

The exact type of weapon used is not relevant. (Except for things like white phosphorus, obviously.)

It isn't obvious to me why incendiaries (such as phosphorus or molotov cocktails) fall into some special class of "bad" weapons. Could you explain?

[anigbrowl]

For one thing, the use among civilian populations of white phosphorus as a weapon (rather than as part of a smoke screen) is of dubious legality; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

[yummyfajitas]

I think the legality is pretty clear. Protocol III of the Concentional Weapons Convention bans incendiaries under many circumstances, but the US has not adopted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventio...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/C1C4BFCF736BF820C1256402003...

Some activists also wish to call it a chemical weapon, but by that logic lead bullets are also a chemical weapon (since lead is toxic).

[anigbrowl]

Britain has. Using or taking part in an action which uses American WP munitions could (theoretically) be a court-martial offence.

[biohacker42]

Bombs don't do a good job of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, so that's bad.

Bombs which don't so much explode as burn you alive are even worse.