The Drone News and Discussion Thread

...and for finding information that can't be reached any other way. In fact, the same (or very similar) arguements could be made concerning Aerial Recce as with Special Forces.

Keep Rolling On

On drones and collateral damage. This particular issue has been part of the driving reasons in the guided micro-munition/minaturized munitions.

There are munitions that are being tailored to be used in a urban landscape to try and knock out enemy combatants and minimizing damage to non-participants.

Instead of dropping 500lb guided bombs or launching a hell fire missile they are firing small guided rockets or minature 10lb guided bombs. There is an intense interest from the military side of the house for smaller foot weapons that can still be used to provide fire support.

I don't approve of excessive collateral damage in general but even a infantry intensive operation will produce collateral damage. The trick is trying to limit the scope and scale of the collateral damage while keeping weapons useful.

While I recognize that the drones are a truly useful and effective weaons and observatin platform I believe we should be much more careful in their use.

Who watches the watchmen?

Let's see, drones over America...

I live in a state that is home to both headquarters of the KKK, former home to The CSA and their baggage (including Waco and Tim Mc Veigh), several Christian Identity movements and ranches, hell. In the town I go to college there is the White Revolutonary headquarters which is basically the international little black book of Neo-Nazi and Skinhead groups...

So my state would be a great oppertunity to use domestic drones. We have dug in mountains, heavy forests, off grid psychos who don't care if the government is overthrown. Troop movement would not be hard, but why send in a team of 6-12 men to scour hundreds of acres when you can fly a bomb with a camera overhead?

The head of the WR lives in downtown, near the college. A team could take him out, but in a college town of 24hr traffic, I doubt it would be quiet. They could just bomb his house, except could they get just his house and not the neighbor's too? Modern contractors build them so close together now a days...

I favor troops over machines in general. But somehow I just think we are too polarized in all the wrong ways. Better to have a combonation of the two with the majority of weight towards the manpower over a glorified RC plane with a bomb. No decision is a good decision. We can only pick the lesser of evils.

A machine cannot discern evil, malice, or opposition. I put my trust in men.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Well they could just drop a concrete bomb on his head, but I get what you mean.

Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.

Maybe I missed some major advancement in the technology but aren't most drones still remotely controlled by humans? If so you could play Devil's Advocate and say they'll be able to tell who they're attacking.

Drones can only "see" as clear as their view. That's why something like the Ozark mountains would be such a problem. Currently ATF use helicopters with heat sensors to fly over, but people here have learned if they dig into the rock facings, the heat sensors are shit.

The CI militias learned this trick from the bootleggers, meth labs, and weed growers that sprouted all over the area. Dogs are better than computers in these craigs.

I know Afghanistan has similar problems with dealing with terrain interference. That's one reason we started drones so heavily, we didn't want to send our troops into death traps. (Watch the movie 9th Company to see very skilled and accurate battles and recreations of what the Soviets learned in Afghanistan's hills.)

It's such a case by case judgement call.

EDIT: If any government, mine or another's felt it needed to take out a leader in a high density civilian area, I would much rather them take the Israeli model and blow up his bed or phone than send in an SF team or a drone.

edited 3rd Sep '12 7:50:04 PM by Gabrael

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

That works both ways, with people inside the Pakistani government aiding terrorists. It's the entire reason we didn't tell Pakistan we were going to nail Bin Laden until the choppers were already loitering above his compound. Apparently similar things had happened in the past, where we had an operation set up and ready to go, and shortly after telling the Paki government about it, the targets vanished.

Almost like.. They were.. Warned?

Piece of advice: from what I've heard, the term "Paki" is considered an ethnic slur, similar to "Jap" or "Chink", so it might be best not to use it.

edited 3rd Sep '12 10:07:40 PM by RavenWilder

Mostly in the UK. In the States, not so much. At least, I've never heard it when I lived there.

Nah, that's not my point. The way I interpreted your words, you seemed to be suggesting that the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism against the United States was a recent thing, a product of the post-9/11 era and I disagreed with that statement, citing the examples of Iran and Libya. Certain other countries like Chechnya, and groups like Black September, were also mentioned by others.

It seems I misinterpreted your statements so, for that, I apologise.

That's precisely the reason why. According to international law or, at the very least, the dictates of our PR machine, a drone must still have a human in the loop in order to establish a clear line of responsibility.

edited 5th Sep '12 11:15:35 AM by HouraiRabbit

Wise Papa Smurf, corrupted by his own power. CAN NO LEADER GO UNTAINTED?!

Is there a law with regards to "human as last decision maker"? I only know how that applies to landmine bans but I'm not sure I know what applies to air strikes (it's not like being human operated lowers the amount of collateral damage).

But, I just find that presenting a decision of "drone strike or some other military option" is very much begging the question and ignoring the big picture. I raised the point of the Cuban terrorist but let me raise another example: the IRA. It was well known in Canada and the UK that the American authorities actively ignored the IRA in the USA and at worst were actively giving them arms/bombs. While Canada was trying to negotiate peace, America was helping terrorists. We didn't have drone strikes back then, of course, but neither did we contemplate special forces invading.

Now, the main reason that was, is of course, it's the United States. They want to support terrorists f-ing up your country, you just kinda suck it up or fund terrorists to hit back because the country is too powerful. Then really, I think the better discussion than "to drone strike or not to drone strike" is more like, what is a better way to get rid of state-sponsored terrorism?

Well, that's a bit different from how the drone strikes are being used in Pakistan. The Pakistani government is actually working against terrorists operating in the western part of the country, but is limited in its efforts by poor control of the region and corruption within the government. If the Pakistani government were actively sheltering terrorists, then sending in drones to kill the terrorists would undoubtedly be a declaration of war against Pakistan, in which case the benefits of the drone strikes would have to be weighed against the casualties such a war would produce.

Well, yes it is like being human operated lowers the amount of collateral damage. Because humans are still by far the best decision makers, and all machines do is support their decision with the info they need. It just makes better sense militarily as well as morally, to use humans. Maybe that'll change in the future - way in the future.

Quick fact check: there's no evidence or even substantial hearsay that American authorities (as in the government) were supporting the IRA - only private groups like NORAID. Indeed quite the opposite - if the US government found evidence of people supplying the IRA they were punished. Provide a cite if you believe otherwise, but neither the bits of Wikipedia I read nor my own experience growing up in the UK supports you there.

I'm not sure what you mean here - that UK special forces oughta invade the USA and conduct assassinations? As stated above, us in the UK got a decent amount of support from the US government in going after IRA suppliers, so it was unnecessary. If we had evidence someone was doing that, we'd get the US to arrest them. This is something we often cannot get the Pakistani government to do (although I think it is happening sometimes).

Always a good question. Though the Pakistani government is not (officially) a state sponsor of Taliban / Al Qaeda terrorism (except the bits that are, but not officially). But we can't sit on our arses until we eventually have a solution to state-sponsored (or any other form of) terrorism - in places where the terrorists cannot be stopped by local forces we need to consider alternatives. Someimes, sadly, drone strikes are one of these alternatives.

edited 5th Sep '12 1:04:34 AM by betaalpha

Hey now, are you sure about that one? I mean sure, there were Irish charities and a large immigrant population that may or may not have funneled money back to the IRA but to suggest that the United States actually had a policy of aiding them. I just don't know, man.

EDIT: Derp, missed the part where betaalpha already explained it.

It's still an undeveloped area of international law but discussion papers on the issue have stressed the importance of a human operator, not for the purpose of limiting collateral damage, but for establishing a clear responsibility for the weapon system. Since a drone is not "alive", there are legal questions over whether it can be considered a combatant under The Laws And Customs Of War. If there is a human operator it becomes a weapon system and the operator, despite being removed from the battlefield, would still technically be a combatant with all the responsibilities that entails. Admittedly, I lifted this article from Wikipedia citations and skimmed it but it seems like a solid overview of the legal issues.

edited 5th Sep '12 11:25:41 AM by HouraiRabbit

Wise Papa Smurf, corrupted by his own power. CAN NO LEADER GO UNTAINTED?!

@ Hourai Rabbit

I've seen plenty of references of a large number of private American groups, "charities" and other organisations that actively funded and helped supply the IRA. The American authorities didn't stop that and so I put it under the category of "at best, the government did not effectively stop terrorist operations" on the scale of things that was previously stated to deserve drone strikes.

As for international law, that strikes me as unnecessary. I mean, someone ordered a drone strike, that seems like a clear line of responsibility to me.

@ betaalpha

But does it make a difference? The US hardly went after IRA people, let's be honest. They didn't put much, if any effort, into arresting people. I mean to be punished by the US authorities you had to have been dealing arms in the face of the police, which would have been problematic for them NOT to stop.

The idea is that the American authorities didn't put in the effort to stop the IRA, so why not send in British forces to do the job for them? I mean, the Pakistani government is not aiding the Taliban and is actively fighting them. So in fact, by your logic, it would make far less sense to send in drone strikes against their will.

If they wanted the help, they would ask for it and if they aren't asking for it, it's a serious breach of sovereignty and incredibly damaging in the good will between US and Pakistan to conduct these operations, whatever they may be.

Plus, if I may risk a derail, one of the points that Pakistan is angered about is that they believe NATO operations in Afghanistan pushed the Taliban and various terrorist groups into their country in the first place by creating a gigantic flood of militants into their country. I mean, let's face it, because of NATO, Pakistan has the world's largest number of refugees.

Also, I don't think I've seen any indication that a machine is somehow magically worse than humans with regards to air strikes. If an air strike is called in, it happens. Only people on the ground who called it in can call it off, which makes no difference whether the air strike mechanism is human operated or not. And I say this because by far the worse friendly fire air strikes in Afghanistan were conducted by USAF pilots hopped up on speed bombing Canadians by accident.

edited 5th Sep '12 10:18:38 PM by breadloaf

Whether America actively sheltered IRA supporters or just looked the other way where they were concerned, the fact is America was fully capable of taking those guys down; they just didn't want to. The situation in Pakistan is that the government wants to get rid of these terrorists, but often lacks the means to do so effectively.

Honestly, I've gotta wonder why they haven't tried making the drone strike program a joint American-Pakistani enterprise: America supplies the drones, while both American and Pakistani military personnel control them (each side keeping a close eye on the other, of course).

So, your point is that because the Americans could have taken down those groups but didn't this makes for less justification of taking action within your own hands? Isn't the whole point of doing it yourself is because the other guy is unwilling?

As for why Pakistan does not do it, as much as we like a black and white world over in luxurious north America, the situation in Pakistan with regards to overall stability is exceptionally complex. The problem is that there is no straight up "Taliban" operating in Pakistan. It's this greyish mixture of different tribal groups, all of whom with different allegiances, in a complex cultural network. You step in and start calling someone Taliban so you can hit them, some mix of groups will stand up for them.

And then what? You bomb them too? Then other groups stand up for them. Then you bomb them? You're throwing it into a civil war where millions could die. The situation has never been that good and drone strikes have been making it substantially worse for Pakistani security. Only recently, since the NATO invasion of Afghanistan, did these militant groups swarm into the region and are causing death and chaos across all of Pakistan. The drone strikes don't help and by inflaming the local populace in the area, it's causing terrorism levels to spike in Pakistan.

So they're trying to slowly cover ground, build relationships with the locals and use military forces to slowly take full control. Swooping in Fuck Yeah America style and bombing and killing people, many of whom aren't even regarded as terrorists by the people in the area, simply doesn't make anything a damn bit better. Yeah, the ISI is a problem for Pakistan but ultimately, the military is the more public face with a lot more boots to put on the ground.

The main reason I'm against drone strikes is because they're totally ineffective and have negative gain. Look, Americans are willing to go nuclear over drone strikes, what do you think Pakistanis are like? If you kill even one civilian it's total and complete bullshit to them forever.

edited 5th Sep '12 11:26:20 PM by breadloaf

My point is that, if a country provides a safe haven for a terrorist (even if they do so tacitly), then entering said safe haven to capture/kill the terrorist makes you an enemy of that country. However, if a terrorist is a wanted criminal in both your country and the country where they're hiding, then entering that other country to capture/kill the terrorist may be in bad form, but it's not an act of aggression against that country.

That part of the world has been trouble for a long time — back to The Raj, where the Indian Army and the Indian Political Service were in action.

International Law? Someone has to pull the trigger, be "in the loop" — that is why even the Militaries want someone there, at least until International Law becomes clear.

edited 5th Sep '12 11:59:57 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

The problem is "what we say vs what we do". Even if the American government looked the other way, it's not like they were officially harboring IRA backers: The official stance was more "we'll get them... sometime".

edited 6th Sep '12 1:03:44 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

By the way, here's The Other Wiki's article on the subject — the other major source of arms was Gadaffi's Libya.

Keep Rolling On

Bumping because the 2012 Elections thread keeps getting derailed with this topic.

I've been wondering what daily life is for a drone operator.

I mean, it seems to me that you walk into an office acknowledging that hey, collateral damage is going to happen. That plus the fact that you're removed from combat and the fact that you're not anybody who'll be getting any press seems to lend itself to becoming pretty callous. You kill somebody you shouldn't have, it's a drone, nobody's going to go after the operator, nobody can press charges against a machine or shine a spotlight on it.

"Oh, I screwed up, I took out a couple of people because I didn't aim right. well, doesn't matter right? I mean, nobody's even going to know my name...Haven't done anything for the past couple of hours, damn this job is boring. Maybe next time I'll try and get more with the next bomb. Oh, this time I hit the wrong group of people? Well, it's not my fault. I got these orders from higher up. Maybe I'll launch another bomb at the guys who are left.."

Is there any sort of check to that kind of thinking?

edited 25th Oct '12 5:35:11 PM by mailedbypostman

I highly doubt that they would think like that.

I'd like to believe that too, but do we have anything that suggests that? Do we have anything that suggests anything about them? Do people know drone operators? What is a drone operator's life like, is something I want to know about.

edited 25th Oct '12 5:39:33 PM by mailedbypostman

I can tell you that as someone who has a few friends who are drone operators, they don't treat it like that at all.

I actually almost took an assignment being the flight chief for a security detail at a predator detachment. I'm friends with our head shrink on base, and one day in the gym we were talking about the assignment. She got really serious and told me that if I got the position, to set aside and hour or two to talk with her in her office about some of the problems they deal with, and the help that they often need.

She essentially painted a pretty grim picture for me. Staying up for 18 hours straight, quietly moving a camera on a guy, following him throughout his day, first making sure to get positive ID, and second to try and find a spot where there won't be collateral damage to pull the trigger. She said that for them, it's absolutely soul-sucking. Staying with someone throughout their day until they go inside their house and go to sleep, getting some sleep themselves, and being up in time to catch them on the drone walking out of their home to start another day, to quietly stalk them to either kill them or gather intelligence. She said that it's almost as bad after 3 days of following a guy and being told to pull off and scrub the mission as it is to get the go-ahead to pull the trigger. All that energy just bundled up, the apprehension about having to pull the trigger and worry about collateral damage, I can imagine exactly how tough that is.

So from the opinion I got from the head of psychiatric health for a military base, and my own opinion from speaking with friends of mine who do it for a living, it does quite the opposite of cause callousness. It doesn't dumb down war for the operator, it just makes it really intimate for a small handful of people, instead of something larger in scale and visibility.

^

Your interpretation of what goes through the mind of an operator is pretty bass ackwards. Watching a guy interact with his family and friends, go to work, have meals, do just about everything, it's essentially the same process as getting to know somebody in a one-sided way. You learn so much about them. And those cameras? You can read a guys newspaper from average loiter height. It doesn't create any more mechanical distance or detachment than a snipers scope does, and I'll tell you, the stereotype about snipers being callous individuals isn't true at all.

edited 25th Oct '12 8:05:32 PM by Barkey