Cracked recently had an article by a drone pilot. It was an interesting read.
It used to be that conducting an air strike was a Very Big Deal.
Now it’s… Tuesday.
You left out “nearly undetectable and that there is no defense against”
Rhodey: The future of air combat… Is it manned, or unmanned? I’ll tell you in my experience, no unmanned aerial vehicle will ever trump a pilot’s instinct.
In reality, a UAV can theoretically operate well beyond the capabilities of a human pilot’s “instinct”.
I think people are opposed to ALL air attacks (at least all people on the receiving end). It gives the impression of a stronger, more technologically advanced force basically attacking, at will and without warning, an opponent who often cannot provide any meaningful effective defense.
Drone attacks are perceived of particularly egregious since there is zero risk to the operator, beyond perhaps burning themselves on a cup of coffee. There’s a sense that it’s very mechanical and impersonal. It’s less fighting a war than being systematically eradicated.
The attacks being performed by drones would be unethical whether they were conducted from half a world away by robots or on foot with nothing more than a butter knife. The difference is only that people like Smapti will let you get away with blowing up a wedding but even they would probably get cold feet at somebody doing the same thing one throat at a time.
I have no data, but I get the sense that ‘manned’ attacks are very rare.
While drone attacks do seem kind of weaselly, I will say that I oppose all attacks on sovereign nations. I think me feelings are fairly common.
This is an important point. Remember when people criticized the First Gulf War as the “Nintendo War” because of the incessant footage of bomb strikes that made the war look cool, maybe even fun?
Well, drone strikes are next evolution of this concept. Conducting an air strike is like playing a video game now. We blow people up in real life almost as often as you might do so fictionally on your X-Box.
Actually I think it is the other way round. Drone attacks get a pass from the world community compared to manned aircraft. Imagine how upset Pakistan (for instance) would really be if manned aircraft were patrolling their airspace and bombing civilian targets. For some reason, the US gets away with it because it is “only” a drone. We aren’t really violating their airspace because there is no pilot. Rediculous of course, but countries seem to be willing to make a distinction between a drone and an manned aircraft when their rights are concerned.
Of course it is harder for a country to detect a drone than a manned aircraft so some of this is due to practicalities. But it certainly isn’t hard to detect a drone-locals can call them in when they hear them for one thing, and certainly they are easy to destroy.
So I think drones are getting a pass, but I don’t know why.
Perhaps US aircraft not violating their airspace lets the local government save face.
5 Myths About the Revolutionary War Everyone Believes
#3. The Americans Won the War With Frontier Savvy and Guerrilla Tactics
I was in the Air Force. I was a flyer for 15 yrs.; Enlisted tech, not a pilot, but I obviously worked with pilots.
Actual pilots really resent the drone controllers being called ‘pilots’. It’s being escalated because in an effort to address the shortage of drone controllers there is talk of giving them pilot accommodations; ribbons and medals.
I am STRONGLY against this. Sitting in a easy chair in front of monitors, with back-up co-workers, refreshments and latrine near by is OBVIOUSLY NOT THE SAME as being deployed away from family and country and flying over known and unknown armed combatants!!