The moral inequality of drone strikes.

[wtmusic]

I often see support for American drone strikes based on the premise that anything which provides greater safety for American soldiers is a good thing. But like many other mechanized improvements in the art of war, an unwelcome side effect is their inability to discriminate. The strikes are shifting risk from our soldiers to the civilian population of Pakistan, and we need to take a very hard look at any moral framework where this is acceptable.

As is usually the case, this dilemma (it seems to me) boils down to a very simple equation: if there are more civilian casualties than US soldier casualties, we are being too cavalier with the value of civilian lives. Whatever form it takes, boots on the ground, better intelligence - we need to be more certain. Anything less is putting the value of an American life on a higher plane than the value of a Pakistani life.

The inequity of this arrangement is lost on no one: the families of the dead, the Pakistani people, and by association the entire Muslim world. And while in the short run it may be expedient, in the long run it will always, always be a loser. As is the idea that al Qaeda murdering hundreds of innocents in a marketplace justifies us essentially doing the same.

On the other hand, if more US soldiers are losing their lives than civilians, we are being too cavalier with their lives, and must take greater steps to insure their safety.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. the 21st century landmine.

it cares not who gets in its way.

[phantom power]

2. NPR ran a very good program on the "drone war"

One of the things that stuck with me was that they are finding the operators of these drones are experiencing PTSD. It turns out that killing people by remote control is not any better for human mental health than more traditional methods of killing people.

[wtmusic]

6. I'd be surprised if the rates are the same

Seeing devastation up close has to have an added impact.

[phantom power]

7. They do get to see it up close, although it's via camera.

I don't recall if they compared rates. But they mentioned that one contributing factor is that operators have a disturbingly clear view of what they are doing. Modern remote sensing is often indistinguishable from magic.

[closeupready]

22. But of course stateside drone controllers are getting post-traumatic stress disorder.

Knowing that you are deliberately unleashing lethal weapons which are designed to literally vaporize people and also knowing for a fact that many of these bombs are fucking up and killing innocent children - how could any normal person NOT have nightmares about that eventually?

IMO, and I have said this before, we will look back on this turn in rules of engagement woefully, for many different reasons.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Would a piloted strike fighter be any better at target validation?

[wtmusic]

4. Probably not

And that's why neither are a good choice, IMO.

If we're going to succeed in an anti-terrorist war, we're going to have to do it on the ground.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Then the drone issue is a red herring.

And Pakistan doesn't want our troops on the ground.

[wtmusic]

10. A fighter pilot is at risk

so the drone issue is not a red herring. But assuming that pilot casualties would still be far less than civilians, and via intelligence or whatever we're still unable to improve the situation - we shouldn't be there at all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. So now you're arguing that drones are an improvement.

[wtmusic]

17. Define "improvement"

If you're basing it on American casualties alone, you'd be correct.

[Lasher]

11. Well let's just say for the sake of argument that we have troops on the ground.

Is a predator strike less discriminating than artillery, small arms, mines, or grenades? I don't think so.

[wtmusic]

15. Small arms are more discriminating than a Hellfire missile. nt

[The Green Manalishi]

8. Not realistic

"putting the value of an American life on a higher plane than the value of a Pakistani life"

Any politician who DOESN'T put the value of the life of an American many dozens, hundreds or even thousands of times higher is going to be dead meat at election time, and the same would hold true for any person in position of power in nearly any culture at any time in history. Not a value judgment, just the reality of politics.

"The whole of the Balkans is not worth the life of one Pomeranian Grenadier"
-Otto Von Bismark.

[wtmusic]

19. You assume the American public values winning at all costs

If that were the case, public opinion would support nuking Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran in short order.

It doesn't. That's the reality of politics.

[The Green Manalishi]

42. No,

I did not state, nor can my comments be extrapolated as such.

I did state that one can't create a numerical equivalence, at least not that would be accepted

In other words to say, as was implied, '100 Americans killed, about 100 Pakistanis, I guess we've got the right balance of aggression to restraint, since neither is higher than the other" isn't going to fly.

As for me - get the hell out, NOW, not just Afghanistan and Iraq but Korea and anywhere else we've got troops NOW and let the everything else fall into place as it will. Not realistic, either, of course.

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. Get use to it. We will not stop using them.

imo

[RyboSlybo]

12. It's War... Drones or no Drones...

Civilians will always lose their lifes...

Move along... nothing to see hear...

Dear leader is escalating the wars.

This is what we voted for... is it not?

[wtmusic]

13. All is fair in war?

Move along, nothing to see here :eyes:

[RyboSlybo]

20. I'm not saying all is fair in War...

I'm saying War is War...

It's not roses and butterflies...

I just find it comical that any of you actually think our Gov or millitary gives a rats ass about civilian casualties during a time of war... let me clue you in on something... they don't care.

[Old and In the Way]

16. When the calculus of war means no human risk for us,

what's the motivation not to wage it? Using robots against human targets sets up some ugly ethical dilemmas for us.

[wtmusic]

18. Exactly. nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

21. Do you think other countries like lets say China,

will not to pursue UAV's and other robotic warfare technology if we decide not to use and design them?

[wtmusic]

25. I'll bet you weren't even around for the Cuban Missile Crisis

but that frame of mind is what came very close to destroying the world. Literally.

[SIMPLYB1980]

26. Did we give up or nukes over the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[wtmusic]

27. In fact, we did.

Most historians argue that it was directly as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the US-USSR saw the potential of nuclear war and agreed to strategic arms limitation.

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

[SIMPLYB1980]

28. Arms Limitation.

Again did we give up our Nukes?

http://nnsa.energy.gov/2286.htm

[wtmusic]

30. Ron Reagan scuttled SALT

with his unwelcome return to McCarthy-era paranoia.

Paranoia seems to be a key player here.

[SIMPLYB1980]

35. Do you see a time in the near future where we will

give up our nuclear weapons? I don't, and it's doesn't have a damn thing to do with McCarthy-era paranoia.

http://gizmodo.com/5382764/the-dark-sword-uav-+-chinese-knockoffs-can-be-better-than-the-real-thing

The Chinese military has apparently been copying American UAV designs for a while now. After they got bored simply rebuilding Uncle Sam's models, they decided to design a few of their own. And they blow ours out of the water.



Above is the Dark Sword, the Chinese military's newest drone. Not only does it look a lot cooler than any American model, it's apparently much more maneuverable and highly capable in air-to-air combat. This is on top of the Chinese having carbon copies of the Predator and Global Hawk UAVs ready to go in their arsenal.

[wtmusic]

37. Probably not in the near future

but the only alternative is a second Cold War.

It's interesting that you say it doesn't have a damn thing to do with McCarthy-era paranoia, then trot out a photo of a Chinese UAV design. :D

It has everything to do with paranoia.

[SIMPLYB1980]

40. Do you deny that the Chinese have UAV's?

It's not about paranoia they have them. That's a fact. So do the French.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b27FVTleDsQ

SIDM French UAV in Afghanistan

[Old and In the Way]

44. Does it matter?

You seem to miss my point. When one side employs robots instead of humans, there is no longer a counter-balancing cost to wage war, in human terms. Doesn't matter which country...same ethical dilemma.

Of course, if the next war is fought entirely with robots on both sides, then maybe we've made progress!

[SIMPLYB1980]

45. I do not agree with you. They are just tools.

Like every other weapon system.

[Lasher]

23. Reduction of US casualties does not equal increased Pakistani civilian losses.

If you are to support your claim that "The strikes are shifting risk from our soldiers to the civilian population of Pakistan..." you need to demonstrate that potential for collateral damage is greater with this tactic than it is with others.

[wtmusic]

24. I admit that is intuitive.

Hellfire missile strikes paint with a broad brush. When we kill a militant in a house using one, we also kill everyone else in the house, and we usually have no idea who else is in the house at the time.

With troops on the ground using small arms how could we not have less potential for collateral damage?

[Lasher]

34. That depends.

A sniper could take out a single target if there's an opportunity for an isolated clear shot. But so could a Predator strike. If a rifle squad were to attack a militant in a house, a firefight would likely ensue. In that case the soldiers would probably attack anything in there that moved, with small arms on full automatic, and with other resources such as grenades. The house would be painted with a very broad brush indeed.

With a Predator it is more likely that an attack would be unanticipated by an enemy. And therefore, it would be more likely to catch the target in the open. Regardless, as it was noted upthread, a rifle squad on the ground is not a realistic alternative in these regions of Pakistan.

I was hoping you would come up with credible statistics to support your assertion.

[wtmusic]

36. Statistics are unavailable

and like the Hiroshima debate, we'll never know for sure.

The Geneva Conventions prevent attacking any non-combatant, the definition of which is anyone who is not "actively engaging in hostilities". That would rule out any targeted assassination as a war crime, and only permit capture of non-combatants on the ground.

If the combatants fire from a house, all bets are off.

[Lasher]

41. 2006 study by Johns Hopkins University on war deaths in Iraq

Of post-invasion Iraqi deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Source of violence was gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion ordinance (14%), air strike (13%), accident/unknown (14%).

Some were caused by the US and others were caused by insurgents. All were a consequence of the US invasion. These are statistics and they are available.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf

[Romulox]

29. I reject the premise of the OP. The war itself is immoral.

Young men and women do not have the duty to sacrifice their lives in proportions that allow you to feel secure in your own morality.

The onus is upon you and I to bring these soldiers home if we are uncomfortable with the the risks this war brings to both them and the civilian populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

But by no means do you have the moral superiority to sit home and dictate how many of these people or those people should die to assuage your stateside morality. Bring them home. :hi:

[wtmusic]

32. I can't argue with that.

The OP is based on the assumption that the war itself is valid, and I'm not convinced that it is either.

[gratuitous]

31. Well, according to some quaint old documents

Armies are supposed to mitigate collateral damage to civilian populations as far as practicable. Indiscriminately bombing houses without regard to all the people living there would appear to be a war crime. But since the United States is special, we can just toss a couple hundred or couple thousand dollars at the survivors and call it good.

To say nothing of the people we pay to do these remote control exterminations. If they have a problem with it some time down the line, that's their look out. After all, they voluntarily signed a contract when they were of legal age, so it doesn't matter if the government they signed on with turns out to be an amoral organization.

[wtmusic]

33. I was hoping an Obama administration would be the start

of a renewed interest in international law, but apparently it's on the back burner.

[Greyhound]

38. The drones are, in and of themselves, not the problem. Rather, it is how we are using them

that is so stupid. The drones are the future of aerial combat, that is inevitable, but using them for assassination is the wrong mission for many reasons.

[mistertrickster]

39. You want a "fair" fight? I don't. nt

[hayu_lol]

43. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq...

it is very difficult to tell a civilian from an enemy fighter. They are equally ragged, both wear turbans, and both probably wear sandals. Both generally also have beards.

As a result, our troops really do not know if they are shooting enemy or friend. The 'enemy' in this case, likes things this way.