Some comments on the use of drones

Someone replied to an article about the usage of drones:

"Although the drones that carry out these targeted killings are called
"unmanned vehicles," there's always someone at the controls."

I'm glad someone is saying this. Standard media coverage implies that drones act on their own. There are many automated functions that a drone can carry out, but there is always someone remotely at the controls.

The debate over drones is a false debate. A drone is just another weapon. The debate should be over wars in general and the use of targeted strikes within allied or neutral countries. Whether by drone or any other means is irrelevant."


While I agree with some of what this person said, I still feel that drones have an effect which
is distinct from many other weapons systems. I decided to reply, and ended up writing quite a bit.
I felt it was reasonable to share it here:


"I have less problems with drones in concept as I do in practice. I'm much more worried by
rash action on bad intelligence. See here:

"The administration's desire to move away from using detention centers,
as well as the legal mess that is Guantanamo Bay, has favored the use of
drone strikes against suspected terrorists, Boyle says."

What that says to me is "We saw bad intelligence was having a bad PR effect at home, so we decided to act first, and never allow any accidents to get out to begin with." Blow them all up, and you don't have to worry about any kind of due diligence checks on what these people have to do anything, or whether or not there are civilians in that building you just bombed, or whether or not we ought to give detainee's rights as far as defending themselves against, very often, largely unsubstantiated accusations of their involvement in terrorist activities. Drones expedite the process such that there is even less oversight than detaining people, and such that there is NO opportunity of fixing intelligence mess ups.

Besides that, drones in general are poor substitutes for people there, on the ground. You can only see so much through a grainy, toilet paper tube of a camera. Everyone starts looking the same in a thermal image.

In addition to that, a person killing though a camera simply can't, and never will, act like a person, doing it in person. Distance and dehumanization will make average people do otherwise abnormal things. This has been true since the first person crafted a javelin and said "wow, this is much easier than using a sword." Pilots and bombers in WWII often found themselves so incredibly distant from what they were doing, even once the war turned to carpet bombing and you'd expect even the most callous individuals to cringe at the thought of men, women, and children burning alive beneath them. How often does an artilleryman ever wonder where his stray rounds go? Probably not as much as someone who can see where they hit, or can experience them with all his senses.

In fact, the individual interviewed says "he didn't feel distraught like he did after his first shot. He felt numb."
And of course, this happens to any soldier fighting in any capacity given enough time. Anyone is broken eventually. However, "telecommuting" to the battlefield accelerates this process. Numb...by round two.

Maybe some people think this is a beneficial trait for a soldier, but I know I sure don't want a desensitized soldier fighting on my behalf."



The article can be found here: http://www.npr.org/2013/05/05/181403067/the-hidden-cost-of-the-drone-program