Are Military Drones Humane?

Since when do UAVs have anything to do with how humane warfare is?

Vercingtorix said:

Since when do UAVs have anything to do with how humane warfare is?

Click to expand...

Since people came up with the bizarre conception of UAVs being robots without any control over them that start shooting whatever they want and are programmed to be particularly sadistic for a machine. Basically since they were created, then.

Theguy8882 said:

As long as their using drones on the enemy and not civilians I think they are fine

Click to expand...

Amen to that kind sir.

Hresvelgr said:

Since people came up with the bizarre conception of UAVs being robots without any control over them that start shooting whatever they want and are programmed to be particularly sadistic for a machine. Basically since they were created, then.

Click to expand...

Good point. Ignorant people have to ruin every thing.

Super intelligent AI will destroy us in 2045 anyway so who cares lol

Depends where they are used.
The fact that they are drones doesn't mean they are free to fly over sovereign countries territory.

I'd much rather have machines fight our wars than people.

Hresvelgr said:

Since people came up with the bizarre conception of UAVs being robots without any control over them that start shooting whatever they want and are programmed to be particularly sadistic for a machine. Basically since they were created, then.

Click to expand...

They're been watching the Terminator movie franchise too much

Poly said:

They're been watching the Terminator movie franchise too much

Click to expand...

Well there's also the people who insist we should fight wars according to some heroic standard that went out of style thousands of years ago that I think are worrisome as well.

Hresvelgr said:

Well there's also the people who insist we should fight wars according to some heroic standard that went out of style thousands of years ago that I think are worrisome as well.

Click to expand...

IDK who those people are.

Certainly none of the ones doing the fighting.

Poly said:

IDK who those people are.

Certainly none of the ones doing the fighting.

Click to expand...

That's a great point. The ones making the rules for a "humane" war are the ones who've never been in one. They screw stuff up. Look at the rules of engagement in modern warfare.

Drones humane? Is war humane?

War has been with us ever since the first two clans bumped into each other at the water hole. It has never been humane. It is about winning or losing the control of resources. And that is a matter of survival.

Had the clan you are descended from not won the inhumane battle for the water hole you would not be here today.

Shimon Peres recently said that if war becomes unavoidable you must utilize all of your capabilities so that you will not become the victim. "Never again." All is fair in love and war.

Given that war is of its nature inhumane, and is and always has been an integral part of human history (not likely to disappear anytime soon), it is rather an idle pastime to question the means of waging war.

Are there humane ways to execute a prisoner?

Was the "religious purification" known as the Inquisition humane? It was after all carried out to the greater glory of God.

Is the rich American woman who needed a kidney to save her own life humane, who when asked about her new Chinese kidney says, "I didn't kill anyone...and I needed a kidney." I wonder if she was a vegetarian anti-war activist and animal rights crusader.

Mankind has an innate savage streak. Both you and I, whether or not we dare to admit it, contain this savage beast within our own .......

I have always considered the jawbone of an ... to be the most humane of weapons.

Not to the ... you got it from.

Greybeard said:

Drones humane? Is war humane?

War has been with us ever since the first two clans bumped into each other at the water hole. It has never been humane. It is about winning or losing the control of resources. And that is a matter of survival.

Had the clan you are descended from not won the inhumane battle for the water hole you would not be here today.

Click to expand...

Not all the things we do in war is about survival... sometimes we kill helpless people in war out of a psychopathic sense of revenge. Somewhere in our history we learned to communicate with each other and share somewhat with each other. Sometime we were told stories about our enemies that made us return to our animal beginings. But for the most part people lived in harmony and did not murder each other. Avarice and greed are also reasons why we kill and often it is the people who come before us, adventurers, prospecters who are the type of people that fit the bill you describe, because they have yet to fullfill their sense of lack. The very poor without education, moral principles, and societal or familial support can be easily made into the type of people you claim we all are. Most of the developed world will never be in a position to contenplate killing others. Our environment just does not allow it.

The race for resources like oil is largly driven by huge corporations through their powerful hold over political leaders, and who wish to control (and who usually tend to increase rather than decrease) prices through destablization. There are other forms of energy that can and eventually will take oil's place... but not before the price for the remaining oil has squeezed up artifically, as far as the market can suffer.

Given that war is of its nature inhumane, and is and always has been an integral part of human history (not likely to disappear anytime soon), it is rather an idle pastime to question the means of waging war.

Are there humane ways to execute a prisoner?

Was the "religious purification" known as the Inquisition humane? It was after all carried out to the greater glory of God.

I have always considered the jawbone of an ... to be the most humane of weapons.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you think that it would be an idle pastime to question the means of waging war if it was your friends and neighbors who were executed while you were away fighting? Perhaps if they were killed by a jawbone of an ..., as you so off handedly mention... that you would think it humane?

I somehow imagine you would not. The environment one lives in makes one more or less likely to kill, not some innate animalistic process much valued by fascist "theorists" extolling the virtues of a "survival of the fittest" mentality or the "purifying effects" of violence.

Today avarice is a much more likely reason for war, the insatiable desire for wealth or gain, allowed to run wild, offered no restraints (sounds like Wall St bankers) even encouraged with large profits and no personal losses, except the loss that decimates the economy. There are even byproducts of this where the resulting unemployment creates a larger underclass ripe for war. No, survival is not something most people go to war for in the modern age... it is right down the list.

I'm all for drones, let your technology do your talking. It rather strikes me as an exercise in hypocrisy however, people criticized George Bush for using commandos to snatch up prisoners and haul them off to Guantanamo but people are ok for Obama to blow them to pieces and take out their friends, family and neighbours in the process?

I think they're an essential part of our anti-terror strategy and people who say 'Oh they create more terrorists' are fooling themselves, just like those who try to claim that Cambodia was 'radicalised' by US bombing

Ok, so here's what I think:

The effectiveness of drones much to do with the character of the war. Obviously, in a war like WWII, a war that can be characterized a "total war", a war that is perceived as a war of survival or absolute necessity, ethics and concern for foreign civilians are usually on the periphery of military concerns. I just don't know how effective they'd be for a large conventional war. In a war of occupation, like those of Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe drones strikes to be a useful tool for the occupying force. The reasons are two fold and they mostly are grappling with the principle that, in a war of occupation, partisan warfare is of the greatest concern and anti-partisan warfare dictates you win the hearts and minds of the individuals between you and the insurgency (this is obviously an idea that comes to prominence after the French experience in Algiers). Not only is destroying the heads of the insurgency (with almost no risk to Coalition lives, mind you) important and harder to do without drones, the fact that they kill fewer civilians works towards that goal of winning hearts and minds, of showing the occupied civilians that occupation is perhaps beneficial, that the occupiers do not mean to oppress or murder them... And I guess the most obvious thing in the world is, 'holy sh*t' who wants to fight an army that kills you with remote controlled machines??? So, in a nut shell, I think given the wars that the US is involved in, drones are not just humane, but strategically and tactically sound. ^^ Like the poster above stated; if you think these create more terrorists than they destroy or deter, I think you'd be very wrong.

SirOrmondeWinter said:

I'm all for drones, let your technology do your talking. It rather strikes me as an exercise in hypocrisy however, people criticized George Bush for using commandos to snatch up prisoners and haul them off to Guantanamo but people are ok for Obama to blow them to pieces and take out their friends, family and neighbours in the process?

I think they're an essential part of our anti-terror strategy and people who say 'Oh they create more terrorists' are fooling themselves, just like those who try to claim that Cambodia was 'radicalised' by US bombing

Click to expand...

So it would be okay for an enemy to fly some drones over your city (or more likely send a suicide bomber) to take out the Number 93 bus you or yours were travelling on because one of the passengers was MI6? I think not... therein lies the real hypocrisy. We say that we are all for this terror technology until someone does it to us.

I recall a Jewish character on the "West Wing" once exclaiming "...they will like us when we beat them", in answer to the never ending question of Arab-Israeli conflict. However, I don't think that drones count, you can never get people (particularly radical religious people) to respect you if you use a robot to beat them. They are happy to die if their family has been wiped out.

They should only be seldom used and only for very high value targets. And this is very important, the operator should treat the civillians in the immediate area of the target as if they were citizens of his own country.

To be honest, Drones are as humane as anything on the modern battlefield...

The Cell said:

To be honest, Drones are as humane as anything on the modern battlefield...

Click to expand...

Why are they superior to snipers, or ground troops? How humane is it to kill innocent women and children, when some middle ranking terrorist is taken out?

hisstoryin said:

Ok, so here's what I think:

... Not only is destroying the heads of the insurgency (with almost no risk to Coalition lives, mind you) important and harder to do without drones, the fact that they kill fewer civilians works towards that goal of winning hearts and minds, of showing the occupied civilians that occupation is perhaps beneficial, that the occupiers do not mean to oppress or murder them... And I guess the most obvious thing in the world is, 'holy sh*t' who wants to fight an army that kills you with remote controlled machines??? So, in a nut shell, I think given the wars that the US is involved in, drones are not just humane, but strategically and tactically sound. ^^ Like the poster above stated; if you think these create more terrorists than they destroy or deter, I think you'd be very wrong.

Click to expand...

They kill fewer civilians than what... smart bombs? And it doesn't seem that all of them are saying Holy Sh*t... many seem to be saying, "Where can I find a Afghan Army uniform so I can go down to the base and shoot as many NATO troops as I can"...