Skip to main content

View Diary: "Drone Rule Book": It Doesn't Exist, Except on the New York Times' Front Page (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That explains why it's more efficient. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1

    Not why it's easier.  An F-16 can hit the same targets a UCAV can, and compared to the operating budget in any given AOR the difference in cost between the two profiles is negligible.

    •  more efficient (4+ / 0-)

      is easier and less expensive, and less risky. you answered your own question.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 08:27:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        artmartin

        I pointed out the obvious fact that drones are less costly and in some narrow respects more efficient.  That, however, does not show that they making taking on "dubious" missions easier.

        •  rewind (8+ / 0-)
          it's not necessarily the technology

          it's how it is being used. and it does seem to be easier to use it for these dubious pu[r]poses.

          You seem to be focusing on one interpretation of the last sentence, while disregarding the rest.

          I don't think it actually matters whether the existence of drones encourages targeted killings. Instead of comparing drones to bombers, it might be better to compare them to assassination teams. Who decides that an American citizen can be killed, regardless of the means? What is "due process" in that context?

          Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:23:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's a certainly a debate to have. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheLizardKing

            Which is why this fixation on drones is a bit frustrating.

            •  Mr. Cortez, you pretend drones (6+ / 0-)

              are used in the same way a fighter jet is used.

              They are not.

              Manned fighters and bombers are used as tools of a declared war (AUMF) or "peacekeeping action" (NATO). We don't just fly them over any country. To do so without permission would be considered an act of war by all involved. These weapons of war have a legitimate use even if they are overused and abused. Thought is given before they are used.

              Drones are used as covert weapons to kill and to spy and apparently with very little forethought. They are used everyday in secret with no oversight on countries that we have not declared war on. They are already responsible for atrocities though they haven't existed for long.

              It is the difference between a bayonet used by a soldier in the heat of battle in a declared war and a sniper rifle shot by a spy from 600 yards away to secretly assassinate someone in a country that they aren't supposed to be in. They are both weapons and both used to kill, but they are different.

              If you don't get all that, then you just don't want to get it.

              But when we have a war on a tactic that never ends and the whole world is the supposed battlefield, things do get fuzzy.

              •  Your response to a war on a tactic... (0+ / 0-)

                ...is to attach vague political implications to a particular platform that is technically and operationally no different from any other strike or reconnaissance aircraft in the present generation.  You don't show why this is, you simply state that it is and leave it at that.

                •  Technically and operationally very different (5+ / 0-)

                  These drones can be seen and heard buzzing over entire regions of the world constantly, regions of the world with whom this country is not at war.

                  You hear them when you try to sleep. You hear and see them when you work in the fields or go to the market, or send your kids to school.

                  These are terror weapons, and any discussion of them that doesn't address this psychological dimension is pretty pointless.



                  Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

                  by chuckvw on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 11:04:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I must point out the obvious, maybe I missed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CIndyCasella

                  something in this thread but drones use whom again? Some kid in Iowa sitting behind a computer screen, right?  What real danger is he/she in? Not getting his pizza delivered before his shift ends?

                  Drones do not equal aircraft carriers or jets or even CIA operatives within a foreign country.  

                  Soon, or most likely now, we won't need those kids playing video games in Iowa to do the dirty work, we'll have it all automated with computers.

                  Then tell me the nature of war wouldn't have changed, for the worse.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 11:54:47 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Compared to what? (0+ / 0-)

                    Are UCAV operators at less risk than fixed wing aviators?  Certainly.  Then again, how much risk do the flyboys take on these days anyway?  Injury and death in the course of these duties is rare and getting rarer.  UCAVs aren't a fundamental shift, but a continuation of a trend that has already significantly decimated the risk faced by operators in certain specialties.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site