Not much to explain beyond the subject line. Many people protest the ongoing attacks from remotely-piloted drone aircraft operated by the US military, but there doesn’t seem to be nearly as much agitation about attacks from manned aircraft. Why the distinction? As I understand it, decisions about who/what/where to attack are made in the same ways, regardless of the attack platform. If the intelligence is faulty to begin with, then an attack launched by a manned aircraft kills just as many innocents as an attack launched by a remotely-piloted drone.
Perhaps drones are featured more in the press than manned aircraft.
Perhaps there are more missions flown by manned aircraft.
I would trust a combat pilot to decode to shoot or not vs. some CIA contractor who has not been in a shooting war to make the better decision.
It seems to me there is the implication that a person wishing to impose havok should be placing themsleves in harm’s way. A pilot takes on the potential of being shot down, a drone operator is at a safe distance from the fray. This feels like cowardice to some folks.
I am certain the first people who faced opponents armed with atlatls felt the same way.
I may be mistaken, but I do not believe they are controlled by pilots, and I am under the impression that are flown by non-military folks like the CIA.
Drones tend to be used to kill people in states not currently at war with the US. Sending a piloted aircraft into Pakistan and accidentally killing a wedding party of 20 would be considered blatant disregard for sovereignty and effectively an act of war. A drone doing it doesn’t seem to be considered the same way but lots of people think it should.
Pretty much this. Imagine how Americans would react if a country we were not at war with was sending flying death robots into our country to bomb and kill people.
As with so many things, it’s all about scale. RPAs make it so much cheaper, easier, and “safer” to put bombs on targets, that instead of blowing up a wedding once every 10 years, we can do it every 3 months.
I don’t think there is a significant distinction on this level, as people have long protested air strikes of all types. I think the primary difference is in the fact that we’re watching a new(er) phase of warfare or power projection unfold, and so it’s receiving more media attention.
Going a bit deeper, it’s sort of dehumanizing warfare, as crazy as that sounds. I’ve read articles about perpetual unmanned proxy wars, where as long as human lives of the 1st party nations weren’t lost, then we’d likely see a perpetuation of conflict (not that this doesn’t already happen).
And though they make military sense, there is just the unconventional, detached, weirdness of it. Regardless of if they are controlled by a human, it’s still a flying remote machine, shooting missiles. That’s some crazy shyt, straight out of science fiction or cartoons, and it’s only likely to be replaced in weirdness by lasers (the glowing colorful beam ones, not the invisible stuff (which is even worse)).
It just makes these attacks so cheap and easy that naturally, more of them happen.
Plus, the idea that if someone is willing to kill for a principle, they should also be willing to die for it. A bomber pilot is at least exposed to a little bit of danger, at least theoretically. A drone pilot is just as safe as the average civilian.
[QUOTE=Grey]
Drones tend to be used to kill people in states not currently at war with the US. Sending a piloted aircraft into Pakistan and accidentally killing a wedding party of 20 would be considered blatant disregard for sovereignty and effectively an act of war. A drone doing it doesn’t seem to be considered the same way but lots of people think it should.
[/QUOTE]
This.
[QUOTE=leahcim]
It just makes these attacks so cheap and easy that naturally, more of them happen.
Plus, the idea that if someone is willing to kill for a principle, they should also be willing to die for it. A bomber pilot is at least exposed to a little bit of danger, at least theoretically. A drone pilot is just as safe as the average civilian.
[/QUOTE]
And this.
I also agree with the points that Krouget made.
If any other country used drones the way we do, the State department would be ‘protesting’ furiously. What does the USA do when China or Russia decides to kill a ‘terrorist’ in another country with a drone? It is undemocratic and destroys any credibility we try to build with regard to human rights, and not even US citizens are safe.
Personally, if a target is important enough to send a drone, then they are important enough to send a strike team a la Bin Laden. If we are not willing to risk assets on the ground to apprehend or kill them, then they are not the threat the administration claims.
I can get behind the idea of “drone strike policy promotes more frequent violation of foreign airspace than manned aircraft.” But the idea that someone ought to be deliberately put in harm’s way during the course of a mission when technology or tactics obviate the need to do so is a throwback to some sort of antiquated notion of honor, or some sort of notion that I’m supposed to give my enemy a sporting chance.
IIRC from history class, British soldiers had similar complaints about American revolutionaries in the 1770’s: instead of standing in a line on an open field and trading volleys with lines of British troops, the rebels engaged in guerilla warfare tactics, hiding behind trees and rocks and sniping at the British.
The Continental Army fought in the manner of the day, standing up in rows and firing in volley like honorable men.
It was sneaky backwoodsmen who sniped.
It makes it too easy to order the killing of foreigners. It lowers the threshold level of threat too far, in my opinion. That is, whereas before, we would make sure to perform due diligence on the target, make sure he’s there and is an important target, now we can target people practically willy-nilly. If an air force pilot gets shot down on what turned out to be a ill-advised, high risk, low impact mission, heads would roll. If a drone gets shot down, who cares?
There’s a Star Trek episode where two planets have been at war for centuries, but the war is fought by battle computers doing simulations. When they hit a simulated target, the actual citizens at that target would line up and report for killing. Because they took all the horror and blood out of warfare, there was no reason to stop it, hence the centuries-long war.
In the case of drone attacks, we’ve taken the horror and blood out of warfare from our perspective, so there’s no reason to constrain it. Instead, through our mistaken attacks on parties, we’re grooming this and next generation’s anti-American terrorists, since, of course, they still get to experience the horror.
