I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military

by nsns • 13 years ago

910 475 13 years ago

Recently, the Guardian ran a commentary by Britain's secretary of state for defence Philip Hammond. I wish I could talk to him about the two friends and colleagues I lost, within one year leaving the military, to suicide. I am sure he has not been notified of that little bit of the secret UAV program, or he would surely take a closer look at the full scope of the program before defending it again.

I doubt he gives a shit, and the reason we are in this mess is because most people think people like him do give a shit, they are just "misinformed."

rwmj3• 13 years ago

The unfortunate truth is that any leader who orders soldiers to go to war should know that innocent and guilty people are going to die, women will be raped, property destroyed and looted, and so on. In WWII there was a deliberate policy of incinerating populated cities, but even if we don't go to that extreme the outcome is going to be grim. I hope any defence secretary both knows this, and considers it, but also considers what happens when you don't deploy soldiers/drones/etc.

TruthElixirX7• 13 years ago

but also considers what happens when you don't deploy soldiers/drones/etc.

Nothing happens. Nothing. The reason those people are pissed is because of the U.S. government constantly fucking with them and poking them. Over throwing governments, secret renditions, locking up loved ones in Guantanamo with no trial indefinitely. I'd be fucking pissed too.

apunic• 13 years ago

Any tl;dr?

lisper• 13 years ago

The article is not that long, and worth reading in its entirety.

hmsimha• 13 years ago

Sorry I lost you at 'Any'. tl;dr please?

ck22• 13 years ago

The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon? I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people

If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed.

Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA?

We need an international ban on armed drones before it is too late.

dreamfactory7• 13 years ago

Not to justify any of this business, but why on earth wouldn't they apply 'beyond reasonable doubt' in their own minds when summarily executing somebody in the first place?

ck22• 13 years ago

Because everyone hides behind "just following orders" up the chain.

It is also somewhere along the line of why police feel it is okay to try to shoot suspects on a busy street and often shoot the wrong innocent person and mess up their lives.

vinceguidry• 13 years ago

One of the best books to read to get a feel for how America commits its war crimes is Kill Anything that Moves about the Vietnam war.

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American-eboo...

dspeyer3• 13 years ago

That sort of standard works when the executor has massively more power than the executee. For the US versus an ordinary criminal, we can do it. Facing something that looks more like a war, applying standards of justice generally results in losing.

jaekwon6• 13 years ago

The more civilians you kill, the more enemy you make, the more you need the military.

neals8• 13 years ago

I think the innocent victims that we make today will get us on track to developing better drones with more resolution and less errors and doubt.

I imagine a perfect drone without any human controller, doing it's business by AI, actually making the world a better place.

[edit] lots of hate and naive comments. Fact remains that human progress has always come through sacrificing some of us for the greater good. Innocent people have always died and will keep dying until we get to a point where robots take over for us.

I am not being sarcastic. I stand by my opinion.

fit2rule25• 13 years ago

What a disgusting point of view. The only thing that would make the world a better place is if the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it.

For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to charge their phones, making it possible for them to communicate, to educate themselves. But instead: BOOM! There goes some kids leg.

What a pity that the desire to create such technology is not, instead, being directed by the government towards truly peaceful technologies..

pygy_3• 13 years ago

Tell me you were being sarcastic. Please.

dleibovic• 13 years ago

To me, that is a perverse thought. I cannot justify the killing of innocents today to make the world a better place tomorrow.

duairc• 13 years ago

Would would a perfect drone make the world a better place? What would be better about that world?

rossjudson• 13 years ago

I'm upvoting your comment because you should have to deal with its dehumanizing effect. You imagine the victims of drones to be, perhaps, no different from those voluntarily participating in medical trials.

classicsnoot13• 13 years ago

No one ever wants to portray death as a technical aberration because it is an icky feeling. Also, people love to be self righteous and condescending because it adds millimetres to their imaginary pedestal. Just to rile them up more, which guy campaigning for president in 2008 had killed more Americans by hand, McCain or Obama? The answer is shocking, but not unbelievable. My grandfather was a naval aviator. He told me about a dear friend who was smashed to bits immediately after take-off because the deck crew had installed his control surfaces backwards. Was he a person, or a lesson to future deck crews? was it a tragedy, or a teachable moment?

If you are like me, you are easily able to divorce the appalling human costs to obtain the raw data of cause and effect. I have had to force myself to temper my observation, given that most people do not want you pointing out unique anatomical facets whilst a person lays bifurcated. Pay them no mind, fellow freak. It was our lot that were the first barber-surgeons and grave robbers, and it is through our collective twisted perspective that we will continue to stick our little babby fingers in the wall socket of the unknown.

jaekwon6• 13 years ago

The key difference is in the violence. People sacrifice themselves voluntarily for the slim chance of gain and the real chance of progress, all the time. There's no reason to think that killing is a necessary or efficient method of finding progress.

Methinks you just like killing people. That's pretty psychopathic. Don't you have any friends?

yummyfajitas3• 13 years ago

You act as if the alternative to drones (20 year old kids with guns) never kills the wrong person.

Yvain's essay asking "what if drones came first" is highly relevant here.

http://squid314.livejournal.com/338607.html?thread=9878703

ihsw• 13 years ago

The 'kids' part deserves emphasis. In recent times the military has been lowering its admission standards, and as such all manner of emotionally immature and mentally unstable are being allowed in. This isn't new, but it's been on the rise.

The soldiers we're sending over there aren't trained professionals, they're glorified mall-cops with sub-machine guns. The ones with special training are involved in special operations and they're few and far in-between, and personally I'd prefer we maintain a group of highly specialized individuals rather than an army of meat shields.

14573895• 13 years ago

The alternative to drones is counterinsurgency. For example, the wedding party in Yemen, if it were a target of actual importance, would have been captured and interrogated, with suspected insurgents detained for further questioning. The problem is that we don't have the manpower or the political latitude to do that in all these regions, so we send in killer robots instead and hope we hit the right people. This is a recipe for high false positive rates, even with the best equipment, because the HUMINT and SIGINT that underlies target identification is shaky to say the least.

cmdkeen8• 13 years ago

No - the alternatives are air-strikes and artillery.

Drones have the advantage of loiter time, they can spend ages in situ gathering intelligence and analysing whether to shoot or not. This does generate the mental health problems for the analysts the articles describes - the same as for snipers, they watch the person they are going to kill.

Aircraft and the infantry that call in air strikes and artillery do not have loiter time, usually the enemy know they're out and about (certainly in Afghanistan) and thus they are "reactive".

bdg• 13 years ago

As a human analogue to the drones, it is not unrealistic to imagine that phones, shovels, or other objects have been mistaken for guns by an observer in a tense situation (for example: a SWAT raid). Granted, one is clear visual cues that are confused by a human mind in the heat of the moment, while the other is bad quality readings. We're talking about two different implementations of the error.

This drone project could go one of two ways (ending the project is highly unlikely). The first way is upgrading the video quality, but this brings a number of issues with it such as latency (quite important in combat as any on-line gamer will tell you). The second is to provide AI to the drones... which frightens me when we can't get a voice recognition phone system to work. Google cars are just driving now after years of research (not flying, evading, identifying IEDs, identifying shovels, and engaging targets strategically on any given battle zone)... I don't expect the drones to fair better at this task because they're funded by the gov.

The only way the drone program would be pulled for a while is if the back doored encryption protocols were routinely exploited. We won't see an end to drones, or any end to proliferation at home or at war, and I'm skeptical we'll see drones get "better" any time soon.

14573895• 13 years ago

The crucial difference is that drones are used in contexts where they have a very high false positive rate. It doesn't matter how accurate your missiles are if you are operating in an area where it is impossible to accurately identify targets. Considering the total lack of oversight and regulation on these secretive programs, it is unsurprising that they have the latitude to cause large amounts of civilian damage without inviting any limits on their activity.

cmdkeen8• 13 years ago

How does upgrading the video affect latency?

Drones already have long latency times, their "flight" which is the bit that requires potentially quick response times is already "AI" controlled.

People don't move so quickly you can't handle latency in terms of targeting. Vehicles can be identified and the weapon system can handle tracking them - latency doesn't come into it.

xixixao• 13 years ago

Of course they will improve. It is like saying 4 years ago that smartphones won't improve - they are already small, have limited battery, limited throughput on mobile internet etc. Drones will improve like any modern technology that's being used.

ppod2• 13 years ago

The word 'drone' should be excised from the discussion. Whether the pilot is sitting in a trailer outside LA or in the cockpit has very little to do with morality of the rules of engagement.

The US has been repeatedly killing the wrong people in another country since before the age of robotics. The issue we need to focus on (after the issue of whether we should be fighting the war in the first place), is the rules of engagement.

For example: "Positive identification (PID) is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target."

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/11.htm

How are operators trained to interpret "reasonable certainty"? How do we balance protection of local civilians with protection of US troops and the aims of the war? These issues are old, outside of the context of drones or even aircraft.

ppod2• 13 years ago

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/rules-of-eng...

reinhardt• 13 years ago

If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed.

A little perspective could prevent such knee-jerk reactions. The ambiguity of drone targets is still miles ahead from basically blind carpet bombing a whole area that was (and still often is) the rule for the last century or so of modern warfare.

sleepyK4• 13 years ago

The thing is, the convenience of drones has made it much easier for countries to carry out strikes without any regard to the damage they will cause.

In the past, the possibility of your soldiers dying on the ground was a huge deterrent to frivolous strikes. Today, drones conduct major strikes without paying any heed to international borders. Drones conduct missions nobody would have imagined possible a few years back. While there is a huge benefit to the invading army in terms of reduction of fatalities, there is also a cheapening of war that lets commanders order strikes at their whim. I'm sure nobody in the US or NATO armies in Afghanistan admits this, but this happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

atrus• 13 years ago

But the same thing happens with soldiers on the ground too. There confusion and accidents when people are shooting at each other all the time.

That entire article could have easily been replaced with a marines perspective, a bombers perspective, or a sailors perspective.

14573895• 13 years ago

The difference is that we don't deploy our soldiers in the contexts and use-cases that we do with drones, because the risks are too great. Drones are expendable, so they are used in hostile conditions where the intelligence isn't as clear. That's why in practice they lead to high false positive rates. The real question is whether we should be using this technology to be waging war in areas where we wouldn't have done so otherwise.The choice between risking blood vs. risking electronics leads to a dangerous degree of latitude in how these weapons are deployed, that leads to a subsequent increase in civilian casualties which need not have occurred.

Public health researchers face the same issue every day when they decide whether or not to deploy a new treatment with unwanted side effects. If the false positive rate of your diagnostic heuristics is too high, then the overall damage to society can easily outweigh the effectiveness of the treatment, no matter how technologically advanced or curative it is.

melling8• 13 years ago

There you go again ck2. One of your classic comments.

We used to napalm people. Lots of "wrong people" get killed in all wars. Flying in B-17's and B-52's was pretty ugly too, we just couldn't record the carnage on video. There's probably never going to be a war where innocent people aren't killed. Precision weapons probably kill fewer people but if you want a "clean" war, I don't think that's possible.

The real solution, of course, is to avoid wars, and violence, in general. Supposedly, the world is more peaceful now than ever, even with Syria, the train station suicide bomber is Russia today, etc.

Personally, I don't want to see the US be the world police. There's a high cost in both money and American lives. Still, for the foreseeable future, the world needs to address the problems and try to solve the remaining problems. Otherwise, decades from now, people on HN will be complaining about how future weapon systems are killing innocent people.

k-mcgrady• 13 years ago

> "There's a high cost in both money and American lives"

There's a high cost in both money and human lives - nationality should not be a consideration.

opinali2• 13 years ago

Drones, Napalm, B-52 bombing—all weapons for cowards. The problem with remote-control war is that there's no political cost; remember that the Vietnam war didn't end because the great public bought into the hippies' peace&love ideology, it ended because the great public was receiving too many of their sons back in body bags.

macspoofing5• 13 years ago

Lots of "wrong people" get killed in all wars.

What war are we in currently?!

runjake• 13 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments about war.

There's a high cost in both money and American lives.

Likewise, there's huge financial opportunities in a war for the military-industrial complex which just so happens to have strong ties with our political leadership.

bjelkeman-again3• 13 years ago

The world is more peaceful:

"The number of conflicts (both international and civil) fell from over 50 at the start of the 1990s to just over 30 in 2005 (definitions are obviously fluid; these are the ones used by scholars at the universities of Uppsala and British Columbia for a project called the “Human Security Report”). On their definitions, the number of international wars peaked during the 1970s and has been falling slowly since. The number of civil wars continued to rise until about 1990 and then fell precipitately. In total, the death toll in battle fell from over 200,000 a year in the mid-1980s to below 20,000 in the mid-2000s."

The Economist, 28 June 2008: http://www.economist.com/node/10564141

coldtea7• 13 years ago

We used to napalm people. Lots of "wrong people" get killed in all wars. Flying in B-17's and B-52's was pretty ugly too, we just couldn't record the carnage on video. There's probably never going to be a war where innocent people aren't killed. Precision weapons probably kill fewer people but if you want a "clean" war, I don't think that's possible.

I don't war a war at all. I want sovereign countries to be left to their own.

If there is a cross-country attack, then it can be handled either by the country's police (if it was by individuals acting on their own) or by a proper war operation.

jessaustin9• 13 years ago

...solve the remaining problems. Otherwise, decades from now, people on HN will be complaining about how future weapon systems are killing innocent people.

Aha, your theory of history is of a teleological bent. Not really my cup of tea, as it requires ignoring nearly the entirety of human history...

alan_cx2• 13 years ago

And here you go again missing the point, trying to falsely equate drones and B-52's, while arrogantly implying Americans are more valuable than foreigners.

BTW, when was the last time B52s were used to bomb weddings to kill one suspected, not convicted, terrorist? Drones are used for that, in place of human assassins, or, heaven forbid, a judicial process. Remember that? The law?

This is the difference. With drones, governments think they can get away with it. They claim it clean and use the same false equivalents you use.

Tell me, if you are to be stopped in the streets, do you want that to be by a person, or robot? In the end, that is where these cowards will end up.

mark_l_watson8• 13 years ago

You are referring to what I think was called Operation High Tower in the Vietnam War, which in retrospect was a low point in my country's actions. You have the benefit of hindsight so I find it disturbing that you sound OK with the napalming and massive high altitude bombing of mostly civilian populations.

wcummings• 13 years ago

in all wars

Drones are used outside of declared war zones in "targeted killings". This is an important distinction.

pavanred• 13 years ago

Its not about precision weapons anymore., its not about killing the right or wrong people. Its not even war anymore, its a kill list and the real question is will the kill list ever end, the kill list has been endlessly growing.

Dirty Wars [1] is a fine piece of investigative journalism by Jeremy Schaill about exactly this.

[1] http://dirtywars.org/

gnufied1• 13 years ago

But this isn't the war we fought in Iraq or the war we fought against Japan or Nazi Germany. If US declares war against country X and I loosely identify with the objectives I will support it too.

This is war against terrorism. We are not in war with Pakistan. In fact we send them billion of dollars as aides. Then as reasonable Citizen it is my duty to ask - hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in war against terrorism, are we anywhere close to winning it? Are we even using a winning strategy? If not, why spend american lives and money pretending world police where we should leave it to the UN?

gldalmaso2• 13 years ago

Lots of "wrong people" get killed in all wars.

Except there's not really a war. There's just poorly-targeted killing, or let's just call it what it is, murder.

Weddings, funerals and restaurants are not war zones.

If you know are in a war zone, you can at least do your best to avoid it or flee as a war refugee. Should all citizens start fleeing all countries being targeted by drones?

rickdale• 13 years ago

I don't understand how we can have a the technology for a drone but we can't fly it close enough to get a good quality photograph. I am all for limiting casualties for the US, but how is it not a war crime to just kill people without 100% proof they are the enemy?

And seriously, if cell phones are going to 39 megapixels, why can't a drone send back a good photo?

rwmj3• 13 years ago

The advantage of a drone is it can "lurk" too far away to be easily seen. Building a camera that can take very clear pictures from a long way away is impossible (because of distortion from the air and weather). If you make the drone itself smaller, then you hit the Rayleigh limit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_criterion#Explanation

tbarbugli• 13 years ago

We need an international ban on harmed US citizens

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

If this question even comes up once, drones should never, ever be armed.

Mistakes are going to happen whatever you use. It's not clear that sticking better cameras on the things wouldn't give you enough information to make it comparable with other attack vectors.

AndrewKemendo5• 13 years ago

The problem with this is that it doesn't give any context for the capabilities of other platforms. In reality it is the best we have, by far for attempting to identify friend or foe on the battlefield. When I say by far, I mean it. It is several orders of magnitude better, oh and it has a memory (DVR) so that the users can improve their capabilities.

So the whole things couches it wrong. You could have just as easily have written this:

Despite the feed often being highly pixelated, the video feeds offer far better resolution on suspected enemies than any other method, day or night, often including close quarters combat

rayiner7• 13 years ago

The asymmetry of people getting killed in your country versus people getting killed in enemy countries is as old as human history. The bedrock of international relations is killing people in other countries. That won't change. We won't become a world of pacifists anytime soon.

Given that, do drones make more mistakes than armed soldiers or bomb drops or cruise missiles? That's the relevant question. And there is good reason to believe they do. The drone operator may not have as good a view as a soldier, but also doesn't risk his own life on a false negative.

coldtea7• 13 years ago

Why is is okay to repeatedly kill the wrong person in another country? Can you imagine if that happened even just once in the USA?

Third world lives are cheaper. They are dark skinned and have different customs. They also dont value democracy. It serves them right.

dhughes• 13 years ago

The feed is so pixelated,...

I read that but farther down I read "but I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen for days on end." seems to contradict. I understand what's meant, pixels and detail are different, but it's a poor choice of phrasing.

fit2rule25• 13 years ago

I think that one thing we 'normals' don't seem to understand, is that when you are in the business of killing, murdering, maiming other human beings, you're no longer really part of society. Society is determined by the survival of its members - start removing them, and you get a lesser society. That is obvious.

But we in the 'normal' society don't have a clue what those in the 'murdering business society' really think about us. More often than not, you'll find that the 'official killers' really don't care about human life - or else they wouldn't be devoting their time on earth to the singular purpose of killing, maiming, destroying life.

Its a simple fact that if you get up in the morning with the intention of taking a human life, if ordered to do so, then you no longer belong to the human race. You belong to something else. Not a single one of us in the 'normal society' can entertain the thought of killing someone, on a daily basis, and not suffer consequences. How is it then for those who spend their entire lives working to be the best possible killers they're allowed to be?

neals8• 13 years ago

You seem very opinionated about this. I haven't given this as much thought as you have, but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something.

Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?

fit2rule25• 13 years ago

Yes, I do. The reason is because I think that anyone whose job it is to murder, maim, kill - officially, with sanction from the state - and who chooses to do this as a career is a very, very sick individual. We do not need a military that can deliver a bomb on some individuals head at the drop of a whim - we need an organization that makes peace, for the state, far more.

belorn2• 13 years ago

"but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something."

A very much black-and-white description of the current war. "Evil" is actually the most descriptive form about an enemy that can't be specified, a war that selects its foes arbitrary and which lacks any specific goals for winning. Lacking all that, all a person can say is: "we are protecting the good side that is us from the evil that are them". There is no more specific way to describe it, which also means it can never actually end.

7952• 13 years ago

These soldiers are facing a huge personal price for the part they played in this war. The psychological impact of "just following orders" is huge and could damage them for the rest of their lives. We should respect veterans because of the personal cost, not because of the benefits (imagined or otherwise). You may see it a good vs evil, but I doubt that many of the victims do.

wreegab3• 13 years ago

"I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something. Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?"

There is something ironic in there.

yeukhon10• 13 years ago

More often than not, you'll find that the 'official killers' really don't care about human life - or else they wouldn't be devoting their time on earth to the singular purpose of killing, maiming, destroying life.

That's not true. Many joined the military because they believe in their version of patriotism. They are also trained to adopt to utilitarianism as much as possible. The part they are missing when they follow deonotology, as a solider, at least to the Kantian, using someone as a merely mean to an end is not right. So killing 20 villages to kill 2 terrorists is not acceptable (and Nagel's absolutism argues this). But they try to justify their action by remembering they are soldiers and they are fighting terrorists. So killing a few innocent may justify the end.

fit2rule25• 13 years ago

You've identified the problem - deonotology - but not the solution. Anyone who kills for a living, is violating the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth: life is sacred. You can't educate a dead man.

yeukhon10• 13 years ago

The UAV's in the Middle East are used as a weapon, not as protection, and as long as our public remains ignorant to this

Honestly, it has always been seen as a weapon. The whole point of drone is to carry out mission 24/7 as much as possible, because a pilot can't fly back and forth without sleeping. Also, humans have emotions they don't always follow orders.

incredibly difficult for the best analysts to identify if someone has weapons for sure

I have always thought the military fly drones to carry out specific mission, such as taking photos or launching an attack. And the latter is usually confirmed by some "intelligence". I want to see how many drone attacks were performed without a single human intelligence confirmation.

But here's the thing: I may not have been on the ground in Afghanistan, but I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen for days on end

This is best seen in the movie Black Hawk Down (2001), based on true story.

frostmatthew2• 13 years ago

The whole point of drone is to carry out mission 24/7 as much as possible, because a pilot can't fly back and forth without sleeping.

Humans are still required to fly the drones. The "whole point" is that drones can accomplish the same mission without risking a pilot and at a fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft.

yeukhon10• 13 years ago

Well, in the future we will replace human pilots with automated flying drones. Sure we still have drones require human flying.

wreegab3• 13 years ago

"the video provided by a drone is a far cry from clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited clouds and perfect light"

I wished she had pushed the questioning even further:

Even if it's a weapon, that doesn't mean the person is a threat. I mean it's full of people carrying weapons in the U.S., they are not presumed a threat.

And even if the person is deemed a threat, maybe the he would surrender, but now he is not even offered this choice.

TruthElixirX7• 13 years ago

How is a guy two continents away carrying an AK a threat in any sane fashion? He sure as hell can't use the gun to fly over the ocean.

dreamfactory7• 13 years ago

Remember the official public NSA justification includes 'defending economic interests'.

Theodores• 13 years ago

He is a profit centre. Not killing him is a danger to the entire military industrial complex. That would be a threat to national security.

stefan_kendall2• 13 years ago

The U.S countryside is strewn with men and women fitting this description. I bet it would be even more true if foreign soldiers were occupying america and routinely bombing its citizens.

wreegab3• 13 years ago

I just wished she questioned further. The more the better.

kingkawn• 13 years ago

Side note, I am excited for the application of all of this drone technology into things other than killing. War seems to be one of the few things that the US is unapologetically willing to go into debt to fund. Lots of cool possibilities with high resolution sensor technology.

gibybo• 13 years ago

These seem like compelling arguments against our "war" in the middle east, but I'm not sure why we should be singling out UAVs. People die in wars. Sometimes they are enemies, sometimes they are friends, and sometimes they are innocent bystanders. Do drones really make war worse than it already is?

belorn2• 13 years ago

Depend on what has highest chance happening - That children dies because people who should confirm what is a threat fail because they are too lazy (or bad pixels, or bad weather / angle and so on), or children dies because solders on the street become so extremely mental unstable that they shoot innocent people just for laughs.

cpncrunch• 13 years ago

A little bit more background on Heather Linebaugh: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/soldiers-in-the-military-are-...

mzr• 13 years ago

24 years old. I know this veers into hyperbole, but it seems we've both killed and ruined a whole generation.

ZanyProgrammer• 13 years ago

And slightly older people-a 24 year old in 2003 who served in Iraq could be just as fucked up now as a 35 year old.

icegreentea• 13 years ago

You should ask the "Greatest Generation" what they did. The door to door fighting through Europe was in no way clean.

f_salmon• 13 years ago

The drone program is probably the most efficient way to recruit new terrorists.

Which is probably in the interest of the NSA. How else can they justify their dirty work if their is no more perceived "treat".

logotype• 13 years ago

The story is contradictory "...I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen..." and "The feed is so pixelated"

cbg0• 13 years ago

He didn't mean he was watching it clearly in 4K resolution when he said "great detail", he was trying to convey that he had a good understanding of what was going on on the ground even though he wasn't on the ground.

bearwithclaws• 13 years ago

Any cache or mirrors? Can't seemed to view the site.

salient• 13 years ago

This is only going to get worse if they make drones autonomous, which this TED talk shows they have a lot of reasons for why they will want to make them autonomous, unless there's huge public outcry demanding a ban:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI

Killah9113• 13 years ago

I've worked on building some AI for drones for the US, and I'm fairly certain that advents in new technologies will mitigate most of the concerns in the article. It will make for a seriously scary new world, where devices like this exist at massive scale. Dictatorships will be even more brutal, and oppressors, even more oppressive. The sociopath in control of these machines will no longer have to worry about someone not carrying out orders properly due to emotions or questioning their judgement.

All that aside, the one aspect I don't see getting resolved is the psychological effects of someone relatively "normal" & smart watching the horrors and carnage of war and then heading to the grocery store for some ice cream after his/her shift. Unlike being in a miserable (i.e. battlefield) place where your body is filled with adrenaline and a good chunk of your mental resources are dedicated to keeping yourself alive and getting the hell out of there alive. Having the time to reflect on the serious inequities in the world that you've just been witness to can't easily be swept under the rug. Even if the systems are mostly automated and pictures have a higher resolution, provided that the person/analyst/commander behind the screen is a somewhat sane and intelligent member of society, the psychological tolls might be worse when you're experiencing carnage thru relative safety.

a_olt• 13 years ago

This article discussed one of the solutions proposed by psychologists to relieve drone pilots of the stress and guilt that comes with launching an attack: http://io9.com/psychologists-propose-horrifying-solution-to-...

Killah9113• 13 years ago

Thx for posting the article. "Siri, kill those people", sounds like the makings of a new John Cleese bit. Had to check twice and make sure I wasn't reading an Onion article.

I still wonder how much less existential strife an operator might experience by delegating the killing to an AI machine, especially if one can still see the faces (better resolution) and the carnage following "Siri" carrying out orders.

ryandrake• 13 years ago

Just curious, you said you worked on building some of these systems, so how did you personally square your morals/ethics with the fact that your employment was probably helping to bring about this "seriously scary new world"?

I took a similar job once, sold on the awesome technical challenge (aeronautical mapping, gyro/sensor input, camera control, etc). But over the time I worked there, I became more and more ethically conflicted about some of the potential applications of the technology I was developing. Was it wrong to continue working on this, given the potential for it to be abused? Personally, I believe developers are a lot like doctors in that we have a power that most lay-people consider to amount to magic, and with that power comes an obligation to do no harm. On one hand, if I wasn't working on this technology, they'd just hire someone else to do it, so leaving would not stop the program. On the other hand, while one person can't have an effect, if we all made the ethical choice, it might ultimately become difficult for these types of programs to exist.

In the end I decided I wanted to be in the group that avoided such ethically questionable projects, lucked into a great opportunity to move into mobile development, and the rest is history.

Killah9113• 13 years ago

That's crazy, I ended up feeling the same way. At first just the cool factor of building something like skynet blinded me. I had friends deployed in wars and I often found myself being worried and told myself that what I'm working will someday make sure that my friends' probability of coming home in a bodybag will be reduced significantly. I also told myself that my code itself was so early that it would never see any real action in any meaningful way. But eventually what I was helping to build became too much to think about.

I moved on to hacking car ecu's and making them go faster. Utterly meaningless compared to my previous job, but a good fun couple of years of what amounted in my mind to toy-building after what I'd previously worked on. You can say I joined your group as well. I can only imagine what the poor sobs in the article go through, they don't exactly have the option to join said group. Not to mention watching real people dying in near real time must have a crazy impact that I can't ever compare to my own experience.

fit2rule25• 13 years ago

Having the time to reflect on the serious inequities in the world that you've just been witness to can't easily be swept under the rug.

If there is hope, it lies in the proles.

marcosdumay3• 13 years ago

I'm sure there is something at the end of 1984 (the book) that applies here.

But, anyway, not exatly for everybody but those things will become cheap someday, up to the point that a person can build one, and stay as lethal. If that threatens us, it also threatens the people controlling today's drones.

(And, just to be clear, I'm making no moral judgment here.)

chmike• 13 years ago

what wories me the most with that UAV analyst problem is that there is only two solution. Minimize or even stop these operations or automate them with computers. I'm "curious" where this later option could lead us.

spiritplumber2• 13 years ago

The public should also know that all this long range drone stuff can be done for cheap.

Also, they pixelate the feed on purpose, to remove hesitation when hitting the trigger.

wetmore• 13 years ago

Also, they pixelate the feed on purpose, to remove hesitation when hitting the trigger.

Any proof for this?

spiritplumber2• 13 years ago

No, it's something I heard from a guy doing UI design for this stuff. We were comparing notes / discussing what's the minimum resolution to pilot a remote vehicle.

DanielBMarkham• 13 years ago

It sucks to be part of the human element making life and death decisions about armed robots being used in non-traditional war situations.

That's about all I got from this. And yes, it does suck. There was a third claim, that the public is misinformed/misled, but I take issue with that one. I think most people understand that somebody, somewhere is pushing the button.

This essay didn't go into the rationale for drone warfare, or the situation that brought the west into armed conflict in the first place. So it's not hitting on a lot in terms of talking about the geopolitical issues, it's just a plea for more empathy about what's actually being done.

I share that concern. We should be more empathetic. However -- and this is a big deal -- feeling more fully the terrible things we are doing does not in any way make those things less necessary. Those are two separate subjects.

I think we are going down a bad road with armed robots, but I don't think essays like this are helping the discussion much. Still, it was good to hear this voice.

bliksem• 13 years ago

"There was a third claim, that the public is misinformed/misled, but I take issue with that one. I think most people understand that somebody, somewhere is pushing the button."

True - though the mislead part I feel largely relates to claims of surgical strikes and claims of minimal 'collateral' deaths and injuries.

" the terrible things we are doing does not in any way make those things less necessary" What is being done is indeed terrible - though I have yet to see the necessary bit backed up by any coherent numbers.

forktheif• 13 years ago

Again with the drone bashing.

Civilians got killed by manned aircraft too. A-10s launching Hellfires at a wedding party, or AH-64 Apaches gunning down farmers in a field. It happens. And whether the pilot is sitting in the aircraft or a thousand miles away makes no difference. It's the same imperfect people making the same imperfect decisions based on imperfect information.

classicsnoot13• 13 years ago

The issue is not that it happened. The issue is not that people died. The issue is that Drone Warfare allows rich people in power to remotely kill people they deem as threats whilst selling a story of reduced casualties on both sides. The casualties of this kind of war will be human at first...

votingprawn2• 13 years ago

allows rich people in power to remotely kill people they deem as threats whilst selling a story of reduced casualties on both sides.

Don't expensive manned aircraft with (the same) expensive precision guided munitions allow rich people to do exactly the same thing?

A manned aircraft could perform these missions with the same level of "collateral damage" and minimal risk to the pilot.

macspoofing5• 13 years ago

The entire concept of targeted drone assassinations is so surreal. Executing a convict in the US civilian court system requires a trial with a high-burden of proof, and the convict is afforded multiple appeals before the sentence is carried out. But in this case all it takes for the state to execute a suspect is the interpretation of some mid-level analyst. More perplexing, there are no qualms around civilian collateral damage. In what universe is striking a convoy carrying a suspect but also carrying innocent (or even if not innocent, not deserving a death sentence) civilians, deemed acceptable?

tokenizerrr• 13 years ago

In what universe is striking a convoy carrying a suspect but also carrying innocent (or even if not innocent, not deserving a death sentence) civilians, deemed acceptable?

America.

kevinpet2• 13 years ago

In what universe is striking a convoy carrying a suspect but also carrying innocent (or even if not innocent, not deserving a death sentence) civilians, deemed acceptable?

During war, as accepted by every politician going back to the dawn of civilization. On the plus side, for the past several hundred years, we've started to make efforts to minimize.

there are no qualms around civilian collateral damage.

Really? That seems to be all anyone is talking about when it comes to drones. From the perspective of anyone from more than a century ago, we're obsessed with it (and conversely, from the perspective of today, Dresden and Hiroshima would be war crimes.)

BrokenPipe• 13 years ago

Even rape and slavery was accepted not long ago, not enough reason to continue do it?

I'm seriously disgusted by some people capacity to accept brutality as normal and worse defend it too.

alextingle2• 13 years ago

During war...

Except the US isn't at war with any of the countries where these drone strikes are taking place.

macspoofing5• 13 years ago

During war

What war?!

That seems to be all anyone is talking about when it comes to drones.

Just a few weeks ago, a wedding convoy was mistakenly targeted and 17 innocent people died. Why is a convoy EVER targeted given that more than likely most convoy-travelers are either innocent or not-deserving of a death sentence even if a known terrorist is among them. That's what I meant. Furthermore, where is the accountability?! Who was disciplined for this MASSIVE intelligence failure?!

BrandonRead• 13 years ago

Does anybody think there is space for a "CS Students against Weaponry" alliance? I go to Umass Amherst, and there are tons of people who end up working for Raytheon upon graduation. Sure, the 100k / yr is quite tempting when you just came from community college and a retail job just years before, but perhaps some education may stop students from agreeing to internships and careers at Raytheon, etc. It's oftentimes good students who are mostly oblivious to why their skills are being exploited. Maybe we could affect this mindset and bring a larger student audience into the ethical discussion. It is becoming harder and harder to distinguish your contributions to the indirect damages caused to innocent third-parties. And with CS, it's not like there is a shortage of jobs. But that may be a misguided view--it's obvious that students take these jobs because they 'have to' or risk suffering anywhere from 10k to 300k of debt, depending on the school and their financial background. It's all very much a shame.

frostmatthew2• 13 years ago

It's oftentimes good students who are mostly oblivious to why their skills are being exploited.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but if that's what you think it doesn't make sense to try and keep the "good" students away from military contractors. If they're going to build weapons (that use/require code) I'd rather they have the best developers available. Hiring bad programmers certainly isn't going to decrease civilian casualties.

dreamfactory7• 13 years ago

If it were me I'd also get together a consortium of competing civilian recruiters to back such a venture.

fit2rule25• 13 years ago

Educational institutions are the battleground for mindshare between the military-industrial and the peace-lovers. Don't ask the question whether you should start a "CS Students against Weaponry" movement or not: just simply do it.

You have to make peace, it doesn't just happen. Same with war, incidentally ..

tgflynn• 13 years ago

The common trend we see with the US government is total lack of restraint. It acts as a tyrant and a bully.

1) The government acquires drone technology. Rather than use it to kill a few known terrorists it operates massive drone programs which result in the deaths of 100's of innocent people in multiple countries.

2) The government develops advanced surveillance technology. Rather than use it on a few identified potential threats it decides to scoop up virtually all electronic communications of both its own and foreign citizens with regard for neither the letter nor the spirit of the US Bill of Rights.

3) The government enacts ridiculously heavy penalties for "crimes" whose negative impact is debatable then uses these laws and its virtually unlimited legal resources to terrorize individuals who engage in activities it doesn't like.

I would like to think that some of the better president's in this nation's history: FDR, Kennedy, etc., would have acted to reign in these abuses but in any case that isn't relevant to our current generations which seem devoid of any concept of collective well-being or spirit of disinterested public leadership.

The beast is clearly out of control.

rhino369• 13 years ago

You only have to look at past wars to see this is clearly not a total lack restraint.

During WWII, the US purposely burned down entire cities (not just small villages, some of the biggest cities in the world) just to scare the shit out of the other side.

In Korea and Vietnam millions of civilians were killed by artillery and air raids on villages and cities. By some accounts nearly all buildings in N. Korea were destroyed by bombing.

Even in Iraqi and Serbia, the US was bombing civilian targets like bridges and power plants.

LOL at FDR being against drones. He was overseeing the purposeful destruction of as many German and Japanese civlians as possible.

jusben13697• 13 years ago

We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read.

We all know war is hell. We know using weapons to attack people creates horrific, real human harm. So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on humans tells us nothing about drones. It just tells us about the horrors of war. Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific. Do drones increase or decrease the inevitable horrors of war? I suspect they decrease it with smaller more targeted bombs vs prior more traditional larger bombs. Today if we make a mistake we bomb the wrong home and kill everyone. 25 years ago we bombed the entire village. Maybe they increase it because we're carrying out a lot more sorties than we did prior when a jet and a pilot were needed/at risk. However, I'm not sure and this article goes nowhere close to helping with the discussion.

"The view is so pixelated it makes decisions tough" Can you imagine military people who fight/fought on the ground in real combat and order in strikes reading that? Surrounded by smoke and fire and deafening noise and hoping (or maybe not caring) that the strike they call in hits the right target/s vs all the nearby civilians also hiding and cowering in a village?

The military is aware of the impact on these operators. From a February 20013 article sighting a Defense Department study: “Remotely piloted aircraft pilots may stare at the same piece of ground for days,” said Jean Lin Otto, an epidemiologist who was a co-author of the study. “They witness the carnage. Manned aircraft pilots don’t do that. They get out of there as soon as possible.”

Lastly, imagine how you'd feel reading a similar opinion piece on Fox News from a gun ho former operator talking about all the American lives he saved by observing and taking out "the bad guys". What's even better with drones we're not losing American solider lives and dramatically reducing the number of innocent civilians killed vs how we would have approached the same problem just 25 years ago.

War is hell. The issues are complex. Trusted new sources add to the debate. Biased ones feed their viewership what they know they'll eat up and do little, maybe even damage, the search for truth.

fit2rule25• 13 years ago

How is this story anything but a plea to the people to reign in their heinous military masters? You state 'we must be sure we're not being manipulated' - towards what end, exactly? The logical conclusion of this opinion piece (it is marked thus) is that we should not allow our elected representatives to get away with murder.

How is that in any way a negative result?

rayiner7• 13 years ago

Fewer drone strikes are not necessarily in the national interest. Taking the horrors of drone strikes out of context is manipulative if we don't also consider the horrors of the alternative ways of achieving military objectives.

yetanotherphd• 13 years ago

In general, the distinction between manipulation and argumentation, is that argumentation attempts to get the reader to see your point of view. That is, if I believe X for reason Y, then I will say that in my article. Manipulation would be arguing X for whatever reason you think the reader will find convincing.

In this case, the criticism was that the Guardian argues against drone strikes (and perhaps this particular war), by using some poor arguments e.g. that drone strikes are especially likely to kill civilians.

shiven• 13 years ago

War is hell. --> War is a racket.[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

mark_l_watson8• 13 years ago

I agree, but to be a little more precise: throughout history the rich/elites have lied to civilian populations so they would go along with money making war activities.

What is sad now in the USA is that there are very few politicians who speak the truth and very few news outlets that don't just cooperate in the propaganda.

Natsu2• 13 years ago

We need to make sure we're not being manipulated.

By whom? The people telling us their experience with the program, or the people who tell us nothing about what they do for our own protection?

The military is aware of the impact on these operators. From a February 20013 article sighting a Defense Department study: “Remotely piloted aircraft pilots may stare at the same piece of ground for days,” said Jean Lin Otto, an epidemiologist who was a co-author of the study.

Can you give more context on the quote you cite? I'm not sure how staring at the ground addresses suicide risk, as I do not believe anyone is dying of boredom here.

War is hell. The issues are complex. Trusted new sources add to the debate.

All the more reason to listen to those who present their own direct experience with it, no?

mrobot3• 13 years ago

Can you give more context on the quote you cite? I'm not sure how staring at the ground addresses suicide risk, as I do not believe anyone is dying of boredom here.

First i thought that was the idea, but I think "the ground" is "the aftermath" here, as in bodies and carnage on the ground.

dreamfactory7• 13 years ago

There's no such thing as an unbiased report and you are being disingenuous here as the article is clearly a personal account. As such, it obviously wouldn't and shouldn't aim to be a broad survey on the pros and cons of the utility and ethics of various approaches. On the contrary, the aim is clearly to add new first-hand information to the public debate, which has hitherto been deliberately biased by extensive and coordinated efforts to repress that info.

alan_cx2• 13 years ago

"We need to make sure we're not being manipulated."

Why is your post not an attempt at manipulation? Reads like it to me. "Hell" and "horrific" require value judgements, manipulations.

Oh, and even if you are being told the 100% truth, what ever that is, you are still being manipulated.

avenger1235• 13 years ago

Thank you so much for reminding me that I should care about not being manipulated.

Your comment is so full of really good unbiased views that I just wanted to tell you how much non-manipulated I felt by your comment.

I especially enjoyed your notion that the Guardian is "serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion." You are so right. I always fell that the White House and the American military are always providing really insightful information that is really backed up substantiated by information.

I really felt the links in the article regarding the reporting of drone casualties were just pure manipulation. The manipulation was very strong as I read how credible people were debating the lack of information that was being provided:

http://www.voanews.com/content/resaercher-most-civilian-dron...

http://web.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute/counterte...

Please take some time and provide us some real links regarding what you consider "the search for truth".

sneak3• 13 years ago

This sort of attitude is not really constructive discussion, and I personally feel it's out of place here on HN.

So, personally: please don't do that.

d23• 13 years ago

He provided some very real, substantive counterpoints, none of which you responded to.

jusben13697• 13 years ago

Hey Avenger123. "I especially enjoyed your notion that the Guardian is "serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion." You are so right. I always fell that the White House and the American military are always providing really insightful information that is really backed up substantiated by information." Two thoughts there. It feels like you're arguing "two wrongs make a right" And secondly I spent time pointing out that there are pro war (Fox News) equivalents that I/we find equally objectionable. I don't like either. It's just unlikely that a pro war/drone piece would ever make it to the top of HN so I'm here objecting to a Guardian piece.

jboydyhacker2• 13 years ago

Providing a counter point to the Guardian piece doesn't mean he's being misleading. New technology applications, military or otherwise often go through a pretty searing gauntlet of fear. To that end, pointing out the alternative pros and cons of the alternative scenario which is usually troops on the ground is helpful- not manipulative or misleading.

pyre4• 13 years ago

You make the assumption that his 'attack' on the Guardian's reporting is in essence support of the American military's / White House's position.

To use a loaded example, would you say that someone railing against Stalin was a supporter of Hitler? Probably not.

sneak3• 13 years ago

Your comment seems to ignore the fundamental question which has nothing to do with drones: should we be blowing up people remotely?

It's not just a question about remote vehicles - it's about the moral issues of blowing things up that are not physically proximate (and thus not a direct threat) to yourself.

Iftheshoefits2• 13 years ago

I've worked in the defense industry. You suspect this and you suggest that and assert "we need to make sure we're not being manipulated".

Let me tell you something: based on my experience it is far easier to believe the source for the linked article than to take anything you wrote seriously.

mwfunk• 13 years ago

Let me tell you something: I used to work in the defense industry as well (in "the U.S. drone program", no less!), and I disagree. So...yeah. Changed your mind yet? No? It's the truth. That must not be a very effective form of persuasion then.

I'm not sure why anyone, like anyone at all, is getting worked up over what jusben1369 wrote, which wasn't even expressing an opinion on the matter so much as just advocating critical thinking. It's just as important to apply critical thinking to sources of information that provide conclusions that you agree with as it is to those you disagree with. The more significant and emotionally charged a topic is, the more important it becomes to not slip up and abandon basic reasoning.

baddox• 13 years ago

Why must we make sure we're not being deceived? Why isn't the burden of proof on the people taking money out of my paycheck and using it to brutalize people on the other side of the globe?

And this "war is hell" stuff is just so tiring and intellectually barren. If someone told me "x is hell," and I know that x is entirely optional, I would say "okay then, don't do x." I will never understand how the mantra "war is hell" is used to justify or excuse war.

mark_l_watson8• 13 years ago

Unbelievable that you seem to have such a hard calloused view of civilian casualties. Curious: what do you do for a living?

The lies of omission by the US government in reporting any data on civilian casualties tells the real story, in my opinion. Drones are probably the sickest manifestation of the US Department of War. I used to be a defense contractor a few decades ago and was mostly proud of what I did, but what we are doing now it all seems so very wrong.

jusben13697• 13 years ago

Hi Mark. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I have a calloused view towards civilian casualties? I'm really confused by drones. In one camp you could argue that without them there would be a much greater loss of life and more horrors of war. We would still be going after various members of the Taliban in the Afghanistan/Pakistan mountains only now it would be fighter jets and boots on the ground and therefore heavier casualties all round. On the other hand you could say that the ease with which we can now kill our enemies - without the critical downside of the death of our own troops (and the subsequent public opinion swing against war that then follows) has created too few disincentives and resulted in increased and unnecessary deaths. I'm not sure which it is! This headline grabbed me as perhaps by someone who could discuss the positives and negatives of how drones are really being used and I could draw some conclusions. Instead, as others have pointed out too, it offered very little in the way of substance about drones. Instead, it was a broad anti war piece with a lot of emotional imagery which spoke very little about drones and really didn't have any conclusion or point. So I felt like a bait and switch and that I was being lured by a misleading headline (Thus my manipulated theme)

TruthElixirX7• 13 years ago

You're a sack of shit:

I'm not here to argue for or against the drones.

Congrats on being a mediocre person who doesn't believe in anything or have any opinions. This is the most offensive thing I think, even more than me disagreeing with you. Just picking middle of the road bland boring contrariness.

We all know war is hell.

Apparently "we" don't because people continue to wage war.

We know using weapons to attack people creates horrific, real human harm.

No, making it into a game complete with an Xbox controller abstracts the realness from it.

So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on humans tells us nothing about drones. It just tells us about the horrors of war. Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific.

It isn't about drones, its about killing people. Who gives a fuck if it is a drone or a spoon. It is clearly an article about shitty wars being pursued by shitty people, not about how technologically advanced drones are.

Today if we make a mistake we bomb the wrong home and kill everyone. 25 years ago we bombed the entire village.

What a false fucking dichotomy. How about not bombing fucking anyone? And who the fuck is "we"? I didn't bomb anyone and will continue to not bomb anyone.

"The view is so pixelated it makes decisions tough" Can you imagine military people who fight/fought on the ground in real combat and order in strikes reading that? Surrounded by smoke and fire and deafening noise and hoping (or maybe not caring) that the strike they call in hits the right target/s vs all the nearby civilians also hiding and cowering in a village?

Again, false dichotomy. It does not have to be grainy drone feeds or confused soldiers on the ground. There are more options than A or B.

The military is aware of the impact on these operators.

That doesn't mean they give a shit. I am aware of the drug addict a few houses down. I don't care.

Lastly, imagine how you'd feel reading a similar opinion piece on Fox News from a gun ho former operator talking about all the American lives he saved by observing and taking out "the bad guys".

I wouldn't care. I don't care about "American lives" and I don't care about insurgency lives. I care about people regardless of nationality. I feel bad for the jack asses on both sides that eat up the lies of their leaders and kill each other in the name of nothing.

What's even better with drones we're not losing American solider lives and dramatically reducing the number of innocent civilians killed vs how we would have approached the same problem just 25 years ago.

Its amazing how redefining anyone that is an adult male who dies as an enemy combatant reduces civilian deaths as well.

War is hell. The issues are complex. Trusted new sources add to the debate. Biased ones feed their viewership what they know they'll eat up and do little, maybe even damage, the search for truth.

Being a boring middle of the road stick in the mud does more damage than anything.

jboydyhacker2• 13 years ago

Pointing out an opposing view, or the downside of the alternative to drones (boots on the ground) does not make the author a sack of shit.

War will be around until humans work harder to understand each others perspectives and evolve socially as quickly as we have with technology. You can help us all to that end by not being name calling anonymously on the internet.

curiousDog• 13 years ago

Thank you for this. OP seems to be in denial of the fact that there is no "War". Whatever is going on is just to keep the massive industrial military complex running funded by tax payers. Fighting against Hitler was war. Running after a bunch of helpless people in the desert to test latest weapons and keep the bottom 10% of the population employed is just evil.

bicx2• 13 years ago

No, making it into a game complete with an Xbox controller abstracts the realness from it.

False. This is exactly what the article was addressing: unreported suicides and clinically depressed drone pilots. It definitely doesn't feel like a video game to those people.

hammerzeit• 13 years ago

This response should be exhibit A as to why HN was better when PG was enforcing the no-politics rule.

It's phenomenally rude, emotionally charged, wildly unfocused, and somehow actively advocating being loud and uninformed. It's hard to engage with a post like this in any sort of rational way.

Posts like this crowd out people like me from participating at all on HN by creating an unhealthy environment for discourse.

wat0• 13 years ago

Being offended about anything is the weakest form of argument. You're upset this person does not subscribe to your binary world-view in that particular post.

Perhaps this person felt they didn't want to pick a side because they wanted to avoid the flame war.

It's just a stupid online forum, where the arguments are meaningless and the points don't matter; have little affect or influence in the real-world can have little to no value, other than the smug satisfaction one obtains from patronizing another person into the fetal position with their oh-so-superior logic an rational skills.

Congratulations, you now have 1000 internet points. Spend them wisely, son; don't let people see your real power levels.

ars_technician6• 13 years ago

Throwing a tantrum isn't adding to the conversation. I stopped reading after the third 'fuck'.

drone• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, you may have had a point, but the abusive and offensive way about which you've made it makes it nearly impossible to discern it. Your comment is exactly why I stopped reading comments on news papers, it is full of ad hominem attacks with a serious vileness that makes it clear you are neither interested in discussion of the subject nor capable of providing meaningful insight.

I agree with the other poster, political posts bring out the partisans and assholes.

Uchikoma• 13 years ago

"Surrounded by smoke and fire and deafening noise and hoping (or maybe not caring) that the strike they call in hits the right target/s vs all the nearby civilians also hiding and cowering in a village?"

I would be interested in the statistics you base this on. How many strikes are fire support strikes vs. "lone" drone strikes? My impression up to your comment was that most drone strikes are not fire support strikes.

lemmsjid2• 13 years ago

I try to put myself in the shoes of the potential drone targets. I live in Los Angeles, which seems to be the official city of the police helicopter (always followed closely by the news helicopter, because the possibility of violence is entertainment). Over the years it's gotten to the point where multiple times a week they're buzzing around the neighborhood, stabbing the backyard with their searchlights. I've never quite gotten used to it. Especially if I'm out at night, I wonder, "Is there a police sniper in there, and do I look like the perp they're searching for?" This is in spite of the fact that I know police snipers don't go in the helicopters (at least I think they don't, please don't correct me if they do!).

The idea that those police helicopters, which already make me feel like a mouse stuck in an open field surrounded by owls, could be replaced by unmanned drones armed with missiles fills me with abject terror. Not only would I have to worry about myself getting falsely targeted, I'd have to worry about the next door neighbor being falsely targeted.

Now, if the police helicopters were replaced by drones, that would be scary. Imagine if they were replaced by drones operated by another country. Scary times ten. Now it isn't a question of if I'm a criminal, or if I look like a criminal, it's a question of whether or not I'm near enough to someone acting against the national interests of that country.

The abject helplessness of being in the eye of an unmanned drone, the complete and utter impotence of being unable to strike back at it... that is a special kind of terror that the drones bring. We talk about 'terrorism' a lot. Obviously all warefare inspires terror--but what makes an attack a terrorist attack? From the American perspective, 9-11 was a terrorist attack and Pearl Harbor wasn't, even though they both inspired terror. 9-11 inspired terror because there was nothing to fight back against--it was people who were quite demonstrably willing to get killed in order to achieve their objective. In fact their objective was to be killed. Once they died, there was nothing tangible to fight back against. The inexorable nature of that kind of attack inspires a particular fear, and attacks specifically designed to inspire that fear are considered terrorist attacks. Drones are similar--there is literally nothing to fight back against, and their distant, silent nature means the possibility of death is ever-present.

That said, yes. If a platoon of Marines were to attack my house, my death would be as inevitable as my death would be if a drone strike hit my house. And as an American I do live with a particular type of fear, which is that of the DEA and SWAT team escalations. At any point, a no-knock warrant could be incorrectly issued for my house and I could have paramilitary troops attack. And I could get killed because the wrong SWAT officer got startled by the wrong thing (As a follower of statistics I fully understand I'm more likely to die of a heart attack, but we're talking about semi-rational fear--if everyone were a truly rational operator we wouldn't nearly the issues we have now). And that happens frequently in the US and is the sad product of an erosion of due process brought about by a mixture of racial fear and the Drug War (well, the two are often the same thing).

But there's two ways of interpreting the escalation of SWAT raids and the concurrent escalation of incorrect shootings. One is that it's a problem of due process, and needs to be rolled back in frequency. Two is that it's a problem of precision. The second argument is where people start talking about the supposed benefits drones, because they're in theory more precise. There are certainly people trying to argue to the public that a drone strike is highly precise, clinically correct, and technologically accurate. The article is arguing against that. And I would add to the article's argument that the amount of general fear (and therefore hatred of government, and therefore terrorism) inspired by escalation will be increased by drones.

To me, the relative precision of drones vs SWAT or ground troops is beside the point and obfuscates the real reason why populations get radicalized against US policy. Simply put, there is no precision until there has been a trial by jury. Even then precision is in question, which is why there's such an argument about the death penalty. When due process is undermined, the population becomes more alienated from the government, and more individuals become radicalized, and more terrorism happens.

allochthon• 13 years ago

And as an American I do live with a particular type of fear, which is that of the DEA and SWAT team escalations.

I disagree that this is something to be all that worried about. It detracts from the rest of your argument.

dba7dba• 13 years ago

> When due process is undermined, the population becomes more alienated from the government, and more individuals become radicalized, and more terrorism happens.

How many lives of soldiers would be risked and how much money would be spent for operations to 'capture' the terrorists in foreign nations? And will nations like Pakistan allow military (or law enforcement) operations on their soil by foreign govts to capture the terrorists? No of course not. Drone operations take place in Pakistan/Yemen and other nations because of the inability of such nations to police their population adequately.

The real problem is NOT the drones but the failed (or almost failed) nations where groups of terrorists can operate in OPEN essentially, whose goal is to hurt/topple another nation.

If some Chinese or Russian 'freedom' fighters decide to train militarily in US with the goal of toppling current govt of China/Russia and did actually cause deaths/damage in China/Russia, would US govt sit back and let them train in US? Probably not.

All this 'omg, the drones are terrible' is useless. You don't want to see drones operating in foreign nations? Use your energy helping NGO and the local govt overcome corruption, ignorance, and backbone shattering poverty. Give no space for terrorists to operate in. Sure it's near impossible task. But that's the only real solution, and real solutions take real work.

The drones are a 'perfect' tool for rich nations for warfare whose population don't want to see their own getting hurt/killed. It's not going to go away.

Houshalter5• 13 years ago

Your argument is about the psychological fear of it rather than any rational reason to be afraid. The deaths caused by them (or prevented because of them) should be the main issue.

stiff• 13 years ago

So drones are good because they are less bad?

pyre4• 13 years ago

Well, there is something to be said for rejecting a better solution just because it isn't a perfect solution.

(Not supporting drone strikes, but just making a general statement)

pjscott• 13 years ago

For want of a better word.

pessimizer2• 13 years ago

This is the definition of FUD. You're arguing that the Guardian shouldn't be trusted because the government should be trusted because war is hell, issues are complex, truth is helpful, and lies are not helpful, and Fox News.

phaus• 13 years ago

"How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicle] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?"

Right from the start the author veers of into things that have absolutely nothing to do with the viability of drone warfare.

Using the authors logic, every single piece of equipment we have that wasn't designed specifically to prevent death by IED should be abandoned. Guess we don't need guns, uniforms, canteens, body armor, etc.

The author does have some valid criticisms, but they are obscured by ridiculous tangents like this one.

As for my own thoughts, I think that drones are a valid tool, but I also think that our government needs to use them in a far more responsible manner.

atmosx• 13 years ago

We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read.

Agreed. Let's start with the basics: WTF is doing a UK/USA-driven drone in the middle east anyway?

vagarwa• 13 years ago

'War' is a very specific term of the trade. Using any and all tools available when you are at War can be easily defended by a whole lot of people (not everyone0. US is not officially at war in Yemen or Pakistan or for that matter Afghanistan. Hence, I think, use of drones introduces another dimension to the arguments. Ultimately, there is and always has been one principle used by humanity - 'Might is right'. Of-course smart ones can always hide this core principle in layers of arguments of convenience.

davidy123• 13 years ago

You make some good points. The evaluation of drones should be reasoned and open. How about suspending their use until then?

abalone• 13 years ago

It's a commentary. Commentaries are supposed to be one-sided.

The Guardian commentary appeals to emotion while making it clear where its sympathies lie. That is perfectly acceptable and proper for a commentary.

It's also quite relevant to the debate to bring emotion into it. You hinted at it when you asked whether "we're carrying out a lot more sorties than we did prior," but you only mentioned the military cost of it.

A key issue that the commentary highlights -- and perhaps the HN reactions to it as well -- is that we may be flying more drone sorties because the American populace is more comfortable with them.

It's a variant the old "smart bomb" argument from Desert Storm. If the U.S.'s only option was to carpet bomb Baghdad, then there probably would be more domestic opposition to the war and it may not even have happened. But the warmongers argued that we have smarter, more precise weaponry, which perhaps moderated opposition, leading to more horror and death.

Thus highlighting the actual horrors that drones inflict, and the widespread terror they instill in an entire population who live in constant fear they could be annihilated at any moment, is a very valid contribution to the debate.

malandrew2• 13 years ago

Furthermore, the main point of the commentary is that we, the people supporting the politicians sanctioning these drone policies, should be asking questions. The appeal may be emotional, but demanding more transparency so that that we can make informed decisions on whether to support these programs is not just reasonable, but the right thing to do.

idProQuo• 13 years ago

Between you and the "let's put ourselves in their shoes" guy, I think I've now changed my view about the use of drones.

Prior to today, I was on board with the "smart bomb" argument. I think people arguing against the use of drones really need to focus on how they're worse than traditional warfare, otherwise people who hold the views I held will just tune out.

egocodedinsol• 13 years ago

I can't really imagine too many better firsthand accounts than someone who actually worked on a drone program. Would you have the guardian publish only secondhand opinion pieces?

Fwiw they also published an op ed by a defence minister and linked to it twice in this article so I don't see the manipulation angle on a newspaper wide scale, although obviously the guardian editorial board has some strong opinions. Stronger than other newspapers? You'd have to make that case.

Incidentally, while I appreciate your attempt to keep a clear head, your comment that things are complex applies to almost any situation worth discussing.

X4• 13 years ago

You are right that the first victim of war is "truth". But we are beyond classical war, we have global and economically driven war, that is beyond the grasp of normal people. How is it possible that the whole world is at so many "mini-wars", that the world doesn't take notice of the big picture? It's no joke, stupidity or paranoidity, when you say that the in many countries the whole media is in the control of only a few. Everybody knows only as much as he is required to know. In the USA you don't hear about wars that would make you sensitive for the topic, but about things you've already heard a thousand times. The same happens in many other big countries. People see their local news, but it omits the whole picture, just to show emphasize what's important localy. It's so subtle that people would say, that's ok, it's a kind of patriotism, maybe.

You can tell me that I'm wrong, or believe that this is mad, but please have a look at these few resources first. Let's make our decisions objectively and with critical thought as the parent thread's op said.

[1] http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/conflictmap/

[2] http://gizmodo.com/5875194/all-the-worlds-wars-and-conflicts...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

[4] http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1329446051

Interesting recap of the last 23 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1...

mrobot3• 13 years ago

We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read.

I had some of the same reactions that it seemed like some of it was hijacking anti-war for anti-drone. I would be upset with the guardian if they received this and did not run it. I don't know what their back-and-forth process would be in editing this.

We all know war is hell. We know using weapons to attack people creates horrific, real human harm. So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on humans tells us nothing about drones. It just tells us about the horrors of war. Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific.

Right, so let's not be too quick to accept that drone warfare and traditional warfare are the same thing. It's very important to distinguish and consider what is new. You can read into a bit and see she's not just listing the effects of weaponry on humans. Considering her vantage point through a screen, and mental state during and after the attacks, her "how many X have you seen" questions are very drone specific. For one thing, she probably has orders more Xs than anyone in a traditional combat position. For another, the non-threatened state in which she killed another is important. I think her questions help me see her witnessing the carnage.

Do drones increase or decrease the inevitable horrors of war? I suspect they decrease it with smaller more targeted bombs vs prior more traditional larger bombs. Today if we make a mistake we bomb the wrong home and kill everyone. 25 years ago we bombed the entire village. Maybe they increase it because we're carrying out a lot more sorties than we did prior when a jet and a pilot were needed/at risk. However, I'm not sure and this article goes nowhere close to helping with the discussion.

I would say they increase human suffering and hide horror. I think that your suspicion that it decreases horror goes along with horror being hidden. "A lot more sorties" needs to be discussed before dismissing this as not helping. When you bomb an entire village, it's in a war zone and everyone on both sides is damned certain of what happened and the outcome. Here we bomb several more houses, in areas that aren't even war zones, because our intel is "better" and our strikes are more "precise". The enemies, locations, and outcomes are undefined and unchecked, hard to see. And since the attacks are smaller and more secretive, visibility is reduced. There is little public visibility or scrutiny on our side. It's not war as usual. It starts to tend toward the whole planet being a theater of war rather than any one specific place. It's horrifying.

So drones are used outside of designated war zones and in non-traditional combat. Then i'm not convinced that "Do drones increase or decrease the inevitable horrors of war" is the right question. But the article adds firsthand account that the feedback systems are very low bandwidth and easily make mistakes. It adds firsthand experience of psychological damage that operators suffer. These both help with discussion around that question.

"The view is so pixelated it makes decisions tough" Can you imagine military people who fight/fought on the ground in real combat and order in strikes reading that? Surrounded by smoke and fire and deafening noise and hoping (or maybe not caring) that the strike they call in hits the right target/s vs all the nearby civilians also hiding and cowering in a village?

Exactly, "maybe not caring". I think justification would be easier in a situation like that: in battle, with smoke around, on something resembling a battlefield, a well-defined enemy. I think i that the less i was threatened, the more guilt and psychological damage i would suffer later for an incorrect kill.

Add in to the mix the fact that we are serving hellfires to peoples faces using the same low-bandwidth, inhuman triggers we might use to serve ads to their faces (signature strikes), it's really a new problem. Precision in space and time doesn't matter much without precision in intelligence. The bandwidth, confidence, and human involvement must be very high on killing system like this, as they're used in scenarios that have little to do with traditional battlefields. The "so pixelated" argument helps us see this and should not be dismissed in the way that you are dismissing it, by saying it's harder for boots in combat to make decisions in limited visibility.

Lastly, imagine how you'd feel reading a similar opinion piece on Fox News from a gun ho former operator talking about all the American lives he saved by observing and taking out "the bad guys". What's even better with drones we're not losing American solider lives and dramatically reducing the number of innocent civilians killed vs how we would have approached the same problem just 25 years ago.
War is hell. The issues are complex. Trusted new sources add to the debate. Biased ones feed their viewership what they know they'll eat up and do little, maybe even damage, the search for truth.

Firsthand experience of the suffering caused is good to hear about. Repeatedly stating "War is hell" seems to accept that we are only discussing legitimate war situations. It's not so easy to skip to "War is hell" in the war on terror. Without visibility or even statistics about what's going on, i'm ok with seeing anything that raises awareness. I'd like to see the pot stirred a bit on this one. With human beings, i'd like to err on the side of caution. Worst case is it's biased as heck and it causes discussion and justification. I wish one of my concerns was that We the People could accidentally dismantle or harm a highly effective and necessary drone program.

Edited to fix an assumption about author.

yincrash• 13 years ago

The writer was an Air Force imagery analyst.

"Heather Linebaugh served in the United Stated Air Force from 2009 until March 2012. She worked in intelligence as an imagery analyst and geo-spatial analyst for the drone program during the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/heather-linebaugh

pyre4• 13 years ago

Today if we make a mistake we bomb the wrong home and kill everyone. 25 years ago we bombed the entire village.

The (supposed) ability to make surgical strikes leads to different decision-making than when dropping bombs meant wiping a while village off the map. It makes it easier to call for more bombings increasing the likelihood of more false-positives (i.e. bombing the wrong house). Hell, SWAT teams have a horrific record of storming into the wrong house guns-blazing, and they are not in life or death situations (i.e. they have enough time to plan / make sure that the address is correct).

yodsanklai• 13 years ago

"What's even better with drones we're not losing American solider lives"

But is this really a good thing? it seems to me the only thing that the american public really cares about is the number of US casualties. Without any, the US will have even less restriction to pursue their wars.

jusben13697• 13 years ago

ahhh, sorry if that wasn't clear. That was part of my fictional pro drone Fox News opinion piece. I'd imagine a pro war/pro drone piece would include a quote like that. I agree with your observation that you make.

glesica• 13 years ago

Your thinking on this subject is flawed, I think.

  > We all know war is hell. We know using weapons to attack people creates horrific, real human harm. So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on humans tells us nothing about drones. It just tells us about the horrors of war. Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific.

This is a perfectly valid line of inquiry, in my opinion, because drones are often seen as being a "sterile" way to fight a war. No casualties on our side. To many, and especially the mainstream press, this basically means "no casualties worth caring about". So, reminding people every now and then that drones DO cause horrific destruction and death is a perfectly worthwhile undertaking.

  > Do drones increase or decrease the inevitable horrors of war?

Your questions is almost absurd, it is not the right question to be asking. Of course drones reduce the overall horrors of war, because one side experiences no horrors at all! On the other hand, since one side experiences no horrors at all, it seems reasonable to think that these weapons will be over-used, used in situations where violence is not strictly necessary, thus actually increasing the amount of violence. Also, because the drones are essentially an enemy that can't be fought, the only rational counter is to strike at whatever American assets are available and vulnerable (terrorism).

jusben13697• 13 years ago

IF drones are more effective at killing the enemy than earlier methods (tomahawk missile from sea, manned airplane/s releasing multiple missiles) where effective = = smaller, more targeted kills then they are reducing the horror of the war on the enemy too. That would be on a micro level and it appears to be true. If however as a result of the ease of using drones you run significantly more attacks than pre drones the net effect would be more horrors visited on the overall population. These are very real questions worth answering. We'd all love for there not to be wars but if there are then prosecuting them in the most humane way possible to target only the combatants is a very worthwhile thing to study. I'd like to learn more. I also agree with your point that if we become so effective at this to the point where the enemy feels no chance at any type of revenge because they never even get to engage with a real live American then out of frustration they very well might turn to more terrorist acts. It's a very valid point.

tripzilch• 13 years ago

Such easy talk when the war is fought on another continent than the ones responsible for it.

That's the whole point, and drones make this divide even larger.

"We all know war is hell"--No, we don't. Because we're not actually there.

Just because they're not in the US, or US citizens, doesn't mean they're not human beings, with families and a desire to be free from danger, happy, healthy and comfortable.

How can you even begin to make such arguments from the comfort of your desk chair, about people on the other side of the world being attacked by your flying robots? Oh, how aware you must be of the shitty situation they're in!

pablovidal85• 13 years ago

You forgot to mention the simple fact that there is no problem at all to be solved there, and the US entered the war with some entirely made up pretext to test new weapons, show the rest of the world it's ground military supremacy and protect corporate interests, like it has always been.

onetwofiveten• 13 years ago

While you are correct, please bear in mind that we are already being manipulated by politicians. The public discourse on drone strikes is dominated by those who seek to downplay the horrors of war associated with these attacks. It has worked.

Currently the public don't seem to consider drone strikes as being like other military attacks. Drone strikes aren't replacing traditional bombing campaigns. If there was a public outcry and drone strikes were stopped, the US wouldn't start dropping conventional bombs on houses in Pakistan.

This article should be more even handed, but it is important that the public understand that these new weapons are not completely clean and consequence free.

celticninja• 13 years ago

Where is your magic dividing line between how many is ok to collaterally Kill and how many it's not ok to collAterally kill?

hbags3• 13 years ago

It saddens me that your thoughtless and damaging response is pinned to the top.

Right now we have one major source of news about drone programs: government PR. It is biased and one-sided.

The Guardian has found a legitimate source of an additional perspective and they are adding it to the public's understanding. And you are somehow claiming that this makes things worse. That is bullshit.

The only people hurt by this are pro-war assholes who view reminders that war sucks as being problematic to your twisted causes.

hbags3• 13 years ago

Your post is bullshit, and you are attempting to manipulate us.

Your argument comes down to this: people should not be reminded that war is hell. That's it. That's the entire crux if your poorly considered post.

If you're a pro-war sociopath, then you have a point. If you prefer a well-informed populace, then you have no point at all.

Worse than that, you're attacking people who can add additional perspective solely because they're not providing every perspective simultaneously. It is morally disgusting that you claim The Guardian damaged the search for truth by adding counterpoint to existing propaganda efforts.

It is truly sad that you felt the need to attack The Guardian for writing this. You are eloquent, but deeply misguided.

e12e2• 13 years ago

We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion (...) We all know war is hell.

Yes, but the drone attacks are unlawful systematic assasinations that are turning peace time living into hell. As there are no declared war zones (afaik, as I understand it the situation in Iraq is in a peculiar state of limbo, and there are presumably interventions in some of the civil wars that could be accepted as "wars", even if not decleared as such) were the US (or NATO) is involved.

So your comment is doing quite a bit of manipulation, itself -- accepting the use of leathal force against foreign civilian and paramilitary targets as equivalent with waging regular war.

I think history will show the push by the US in normalizing this type of terror to be a significant blow against the geneva conventions and agreement on the "rules of war" (which have never been followed to the letter, but have at least held the hope of bringing war criminals to justice and be used as a sound basis for refusing illegal orders).

I can't see how this stance by the US can't be used for justifying attacks on senators and lobbyists on US soil (for "their role in funding and facilitating illegal terrorist attacks against civilian targets").

dragonwriter3• 13 years ago

Yes, but the drone attacks are unlawful systematic assasinations that are turning peace time living into hell.

Its not peace time living. Its a war -- on which seems to be permanent and global, which is a problem, but a different one than you describe.

As there are no declared war zones

Wars -- even the most formally declared ones -- rarely have declared zones. They have declared belligerents.

unclebucknasty3• 13 years ago

We need to make sure we're not being manipulated

That's a strange takeaway. Manipulated into what? Not liking drones? Not liking war? Being skeptical about drones? Opening to other points of view beyond the official narrative (or non-narrative)?

And, "manipulation" would imply that there is something untrue in the article. It's irresponsible to assert as much without any substantiation on your part.

The article is out now. If there is something to refute, then the powers-that-be can do so.

We all know war is hell.

War is hell, but the distinction here is that drone activity is not "sold" as such.

Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific.

If it was offered in a vacuum, then yes. But, it is being offered as a counter-argument to the current drone-narrative. Or, perhaps more accurately, a counter to the lack of information being made public.

The military is aware of the impact on these operators.

The military may be aware, but this article is specifically addressing public awareness. Part of the title reads "The public should know what really goes on".

rcthompson3• 13 years ago

How are the drones even relevant to the discussion? There are people controlling some device in order to kill other people. Why does it matter that the device happens to be an UAV in this case? How is it different if the device in question is instead a cruise missile? A rifle? A knife? A fist?

To me, the whole discussion about drones is a big misdirection that uses people's irrational fear of "killer robots" to make detractors forget that ultimately, there's a human pulling the trigger.

Who cares if Obama authorized a drone strike to kill a US citizen abroad? What I care about is that he authorized an assassination of a US citizen, not that he chose "drone strike" as the method.

TeMPOraL2• 13 years ago

I think complaints are not about drones per se, they are about the US drone program. It doesn't matter whether it's an UAV, a manned aricraft, or a rocket propelled chainsaw. What matters is that there's a program of systematic murder of innocent people on the other side of the globe without any formal declaration of war.

rcthompson3• 13 years ago

My point is that most of the complaining is about the drones, and it shouldn't be.

gorhill• 13 years ago

"How is it different if the device in question is instead a cruise missile? A rifle? A knife? A fist?"

I am pretty sure it's easier to dehumanize people when they are merely pixels on a screen.

rcthompson3• 13 years ago

That's true, but it's missing my point. The whole "drone war" is being cast as robots killing humans, mostly ignoring the fact that humans are making every decision about who to kill. This puts the focus of the debate on the technology instead of where it should be, which is on the people who have decided that it is ok to kill other people. So people protesting the program are demanding "Stop using drones!" when they should be demanding "Stop murdering people!"

classicsnoot13• 13 years ago

There are a lot of comments, so i apologize if i am parroting a wiser person, but this thought has been occupying my head for some time and i crave the sweet relief of discourse.

Drones are here to stay. Maybe like nuclear weapons, they will be something we try to eradicate later, but for now, we must accept and incorporate them, as companies/governments will make it happen regardless of our [read:citizenry(...of the world, of course)] concerns or opposition. In light of this, it is me earnest and sincere belief that control of the sky over our heads is up for grabs. Bothered by kill bots flown over your head by sme assholes in Nevada? Start building aerial jammers, yo. Think those pigs in your 'hood are corrupt? Set up video surveillance and make it open/free access online. Take pictures of cops using their mobiles whilst driving. Say nothing unnecessary at traffic stops; be happy to join them for a free ride to the station and a front row seat to how paperwork is an unbiased weapon in the hands of informed folks. I am so sick of soccer moms and military assholes telling me what is "safe", what "security" means, and how freaking precious our nation is. There is no one coming to save us, not in the US, not in Europe, and especially not in China (India... well we will see). But that is cool, because we have Internet. Seriously, in a stand up arms race, who is going to win, they people paying 100 million per drone or the people paying 1000 per drone. We dont need ordinance. We don't need permission. We have all the know how required [the OP/author sounds like a soldier of conscience if there ever was one]. This is not some Occupy circus. It is not a call for revolution or insurrection. It is just one person, trying to point out the facts...

We, as the armchair scientists and tech inclined folk of the world, have the balance of insight, experience, funding, and motivation on our side. what is more, we need not kill anyone. we dont need to blow anyone up. Most importantly, we get to be honest, and we get to work by choice.

We as people need not sit idly by while politicians and constables decide our fates and the fates of our brothers and sisters around the world. i long for a day when my country, because we kick ass, carpet bombs africa and the middle east weekly with well made books, toothpaste, and ruggedized tablet computers. I do not think this is a fantasy, but i am very aware of the other options.

...shit, this isn't the meeting at the docks...

bsaul• 13 years ago

it's not the first time i see reports about war traumas for drone pilots and analysts. I hope this won't be used later as an argument for fully automated drones. I much prefer having a least some people traumatized by being in war than none.

coldtea7• 13 years ago

I thought this would be an anti-drone confession, but in reality it looks mostly manipulative.

Most of it is the impact of using drones on drone operators and the soldiers who have them on THEIR side. How about the impact of drones to the OTHER side? You know, the one under attack? Even giving them both 50% share of the article is a disservice to them, and here it's even worse. How about them breaking international law? How about them being used for murder operations in a no-war situation? How about them used already and even more down the road against a country's own citizens?

Another part of the article is about how they have low fidelity screens and radars and such. As if, if they had better tech (which they'll get down the road) all would be well with them.

Not much touching the actual ethical, human, political and diplomatic implications of their use.

gnaffle2• 13 years ago

I don't think it's manipulative at all. He says that he wishes the pro-drone people would be know more or be more forthcoming about the realities of the drone programs, and that they should be more transparent. The point of view that of the "other" side has also been mentioned many times, by The Guardian and other newspapers.

scintill76• 13 years ago

soldiers who have them on THEIR side. How about the impact of drones to the OTHER side?

I think this is still a somewhat useful (even if unfair) approach. So much of the conversation is already centered on how the "other" side effectively has no rights because they're not in America and are suspected of terrorism, and how drones are so much safer and cheaper for "our" side. I view this approach as saying "OK, so you want to believe those non-American deaths really can be written off as an 'unfortunate but necessary cost of war.' Let's see how horrific this still is for our troops that have to run these things and watch people die day after day; how IEDs still slip through screening and our troops have to watch, from thousands of miles away, their own comrades bleed out on the side of the road, through an oversight they may feel responsible for."

Most of the politicians are spinning this as something precise and safe for our troops. It makes sense for the counterpoint to focus on how it's not precise and has hidden human costs to the troops. And it is clear the author understands the immorality of the deaths themselves, but that's not the focus because there aren't many people willing to argue in that arena.

kevinpet2• 13 years ago

This article could just as well describing how war is conducted since we switched from all cotton to cotton-polyester blend utilities uniforms. It lets the reader assume that in some way drones are worse than non-drone warfare, without advancing any argument in that direction.

anderspetersson2• 13 years ago

All this criticism against drones. Drones are awesome.

I've worked on the ground in Afghanistan on a Mechanized Infantry Platoon. There's nothing more calming than hearing the buzz from a drone keeping an eye on the terrain from above and reporting to the TACP while you're on the ground. We where saved multiple times from running into ambushes and IEDs thanks to drones. Sure, Apache's could do the job as-well, but when they run out of fuel, and they do more often than a drone, you're on your own.

Sure, that's another mission from flying a drone to a compound in Pakistan and dropping some explosive on it, that I can not comment on since I have not seen the Intel behind those missions.

dchichkov3• 13 years ago

Best comment in the thread. So we should concentrate on development of 'guardian' and 'intelligence' drones, and leave the offense part to the soldiers on the ground, right?

anderspetersson2• 13 years ago

I believe both types of drones are needed, if the "fly-to-pakistan-and-drop-a-bomb-on-a-compound"-drones didnt exist, the SOF guys would have more to do, and would take more losses, I guess.

I'm pretty sure the intel needed to carry out a drone-strike is insanely high.

Drones are also great when the insurgents flees on their motorcycles, as often happens when the ground forces come in.

SpaceRaccoon• 13 years ago

I watched a documentary by Vice recently about the Taliban in Pakistan. I do not remember the exact words, but when asked about allied air superiority with drones, an insurgent commander responded "Talking to people, I can get a few people to join my side. With one drone strike, I can get a whole village on my side." And herein lies the problem: for every insurgent a drone strike kills, whether he deserves it or not, that drone stroke motivates many more to join their ranks.

After a flood, the Taliban helped to rebuild villages in Pakistan. People felt that the state did nothing for them, thus again strengthening support for the insurgency. I feel as though, if the US instead invested the money from war to rather rebuilding, infrastructure, healthcare, education, that the insurgency would fade on its own.

People join the insurgency because they are motivated by hate and anger. Attempting to eliminate it through extermination is futile: the collateral damage only multiples the numbers wanting to fight. The way to win a war is by winning hearts and minds, as the cliche goes.

kyleblarson• 13 years ago

The Nobel Foundation must be facepalming a lot these days after O's peace prize.

wavefunction• 13 years ago

I would say they deserve the damage to the "brand," if not so many previous awardees had similarly questionable contributions to "peace."

gnaffle2• 13 years ago

I find amount of pro-drone comments here quite stunning, including the complete lack of appreciation of how the economies of scale of drones will radically alter the equation of whether these are a good idea or not.

"Now, all right we killed some innocent civilians, but that happens in war and we're at a constant war against terror now so there you go. Lets not jump to any conclusions about drones before all the facts are in!"

All I can say is that these people will probably shut up and at least moderate their views as soon as the police in their country starts deploying drones en masse.

stcredzero2• 13 years ago

One example comes to mind: "The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon?"

This is precisely what the Oculus Rift folks and the people working on the helmet that goes with the F-35 are working against. Biological senses are freaking amazing. The outliers on the upper end of the scale are downright incredible. Synthetic substitutes need to be really well engineered to be comparable or surpass them. (Which is precisely what happened with RADAR. Did you know that modern radio telescopes developed from technology we used to eavesdrop on Soviet EM emissions reflected off the moon? Did you know that the energy gathered by all of the radio telescopes, ever, is less than that of a single snowflake hitting the ground?)

njharman• 13 years ago

This topic can be summed up as war is hell. It is brutal, bloody and evil. UAVs, nor anything else alters this.

Modern democracies know this well and try to hide the horrors of war from their citizens. To have the freedom to wage war for as long as possible (or as long as needed) before public outrage forces them to stop.

Citizens are at fault for not knowing history and not paying attention.

ItendToDisagree10• 13 years ago

For the nth time...

"We are at war with Yemen?"

How can citizens be at fault when they don't even have a representative choice in the matter?

The whole "war is hell" thing is trite as all get out. As a metaphorical answer: "If war is hell... Don't court the Devil."

sinwave• 13 years ago

The title of this article is a bit misleading - I was expecting some fresh facts about the drone program. What I got instead was some heavy pathos and not much substance.

artellectual• 13 years ago

I think it's pretty clear that, the US army looks out for one nation only the U S of A, they are definitely making it clear that humanities best interest is not their long term goal. They look out for their own, I think we all live in a world where we all look out for our own. The US army are no better than the terrrorists who took the innocent lives of Americans. Honestly the US is just a big bully and what it all comes down to is media, they've brain washed the entire nation to make it seem like all these drone attacks are ok, they're not severe, they're not as bad as it sounds, justifying it through fancy words the common people can't understand. The fact is its usually worse than it sounds but most people just choose to switch off from it because no one wants to think about these depressing things, and by switching off their brains they are empowering the politicians that pull the triggers.

It's never ok when innocent people die, innocent civilians of the US don't want innocent civilians of other nations to die. The fact of the matter is it's not these civilians who are pulling the trigger.

The way I see it we all follow a pattern. In the US you have 2 big political parties, democrat and republican. I mean no one ever questions why we let these dickheads stay in power? Why isn't there a third, fourth or a fifth party? They have fabricated a world and a media were they have basically brain washed the entire world. I mean honestly do u think having 2 parties take turn in power is a democracy? What it all comes down to is to not give them the power. I think in every nation all around the world not voting is as powerful as voting. Breaking that pattern and having that critical thinking, to call the politicians bullshit, and impeach the shit out of them when they fuck up and lie, that conviction to get up and do the right thing. But that will never happen, because it's too hard, because we've all been brain washed, becuase everyone is busy living their lives.

I think the American people have forgotten that their government exist to serve them not the other way around, when you pay tax your paying for a service, when you not getting the service you asked for, you should get up and do something.

smegel• 13 years ago

I don't find this very insightful.

Drones kill civilians? Yeah, we know. Collateral damage is a reality of war.

Drones are weapons? Is that really a revelation?

I think there is a lot to criticize about the drone program, but it shouldn't read like this.

pearjuice2• 13 years ago

What stuns me the most about drones is how unfair they are. The targets are mostly the Middle-East and they have absolutely no chance to take them down. And then they wonder why they attack innocent Americans working in an embasy. How are you supposed to fight something you cannot see? You don't, so you attack something of the enemy, no matter what, because it is the last option to hurt him.

votingprawn2• 13 years ago

Couldn't the same argument be made against any other attack aircraft?

rdl3• 13 years ago

The only thing this shows is that the recruiting standards for the US drone program are substandard, as the author was allegedly part.

1) Yes, absolutely UAV based jammers don't block all IEDs. Ground jammers like WARLOCK also don't block all IEDs. One thing they did do was force a lot of command detonated IEDs to go to command wire systems, instead of various wireless systems, which meant we then had a man with a switch in his hand within a few hundred meters (tops), who we then lit the fuck up before or after the attack. Sure beats someone being in another city with a cellphone!

Just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it's worthless.

2) Yes, UAVs are offensive combat weapons, particularly the programs in Horn of Africa and Pakistan. OTOH, I don't see a huge difference in getting killed by a Hellfire from a drone vs. having guys from JSOC show up at your door. There's a legitimate concern that UAVs lower the threshold to engage in ongoing low intensity conflict, but in the cases where they do have the right targets, I see no difference between drone, manned aircraft, or on the ground trigger-pullers.

3) The vast majority of drones are pure Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) missions. DOD didn't even arm their drones for a long long time, it was CIA (who operate in those places) who pioneered armed Predators (then the other armed drones). Part of this is internal politics (pilots = officers), part of it is that when you've got manned aircraft armed with diverse weapons systems orbiting overhead, you can just use a smaller/cheaper/lighter drone for pure ISR, then when you develop a target, send the manned aircraft with a full suite of weapons to choose from to do the actual attack mission.

4) The grainy image of a UAV camera, over a 4h monitoring mission, is probably way beyond the standard of proof of a combat shooting in general. The UAV defaults to "no shoot". A soldier in combat who is threatened defaults to "shoot". You don't need high precision on a single image if you're able to spend a long time watching, gathering supporting information (knowing the area, vehicles that approach, etc.). This isn't law enforcement or civilian self defense; it's war. It's totally legitimate to question whether we should be at war, but the actual conduct of the war is less debatable IMO.

midas0074• 13 years ago

According to someone familiar with current specops / USAF rules-of-engagement, the rule is that an officer always had to be present to authorize a kill by a UAV. Period. If JSOC or others were/are doing something different, this could be grounds for court-martial.

rdl3• 13 years ago

It is "present in the ops center" I believe , which is the same standard as for ordering other strikes. I'm not as familiar with the backend, I just know the launch/recovery of UAV part, and the terminal part.

joshfraser• 13 years ago

Sometimes they can't tell if someone is carrying a weapon or not. Consider that for a moment. Even if they are carrying a weapon, why should that be enough information to issue a death sentence for them and everyone in their near proximity?

Houshalter5• 13 years ago

So this affects people's lives and involves politics, but I can't help but feel like it's an engineering problem that could be solved. Measure how accurate information is from drones and how confident they are, calculate (even if roughly) how much is gained or lost by taking action. And then do whatever maximizes expected utility.

I feel like merely having access to another tool should never make things worse unless the leaders are incompetent.

nationcrafting• 13 years ago

Scary as current drones are, they are nothing compared to how crazy things are going to get very quickly.

Think of completely power-autonomous drones, the size of a wasp, swarming by the millions in the sky. The swarming feature alone would render most people helpless against an attack, or their sheer presence. To this, add distributed intelligence features, and networked control. The swarm becomes something akin to an intelligent, flying, all-seeing liquid.

Then think of the drop in price that will enable this to become the dominant method of surveillance, policing, and military operations. There will quickly be nothing stopping dictatorships from buying billions of them, making them ubiquitous and all-pervasive. Killing, threatening and controlling billions of people suddenly becomes quite cheap, efficient, easy and cost-effective. Don't like those people demonstrating in your city? Send the swarms.

linuxhansl• 13 years ago

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." - Peter Ustinov

brian0624• 13 years ago

I can't believe this goes on...

charlesju• 13 years ago

I believe a highly relevant podcast is the incredible one by Dan Carlin called "Hardcore History". The episode below is one history fan's opinion of how we were able to justify mass killing of civilians in acts like the Atomic Bomb, Bombing of London in WW2, and the Fire Bombs against Tokyo.

http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLIT...

rasengan0• 13 years ago

Drones remain viable because they cost money. You have to buy them and use them.

Who is profiting from death?

Saving troops on the ground is great marketing and saves political capital.

Tribalism wins; WE GOOD, you Bad.

Someone always makes up the math: X innocent goatherders = 1 US grunt

Such a sad petty waste of and for humanity.

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

Related Stories