Drone warfare
 

It appears that the use of drones for not only intelligence gathering, but also as precise killing machines, has become part of the standard operating procedure for national security agencies. I find this worrisome for a couple of reasons.

First, this is just another example of our technological capability advancing far quicker than our ability to review the ethics of such advances. We can kill with far less risk of our soldiers being killed. Warfare becomes much more an exercise in assassination than in battlefield conflict. From an egalitarian standpoint, perhaps we should applaud that it is the instigators of war that are paying a greater price than those following orders. On the other hand, a missile with an individual's name on it sounds a lot more like murder than military conflict. Under what circumstances, if ever, is it appropriate to sentence someone to execution without that person having the opportunity to confront his accusers and defend himself?

Another concern is the tentative nature of our technical superiority in this field. The more of the drones that are built - and the more people that become involved in their manufacture and deployment - the greater chance there is that the technology will change hands. Are we prepared to deal with those who are less "ethical" than ourselves having the capability of drone warfare?

Regards,

D-Ray

One more thing to mention would be getting hacked and used by someone else!



Barney

It is good that we are ahead in this drone business: it means less of our people in harm's way.

I noticed the subs are getting into the act.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45797704...nce_innovation

When like that American mahdi in Yemen when he convicted himself out of his own mouth?

How's about we give 'em 48 hrs to turn themselves into the sheriff, and after that have him send his deputy out to round up a little posse???

On a more serious note, we've been going after people dead or alive every since the earth cooled. I suppose a drone is a little more discriminate than a cruise missile.

Will the politicians abuse their latest shoot 'em up gadget? Need I ask?

Chas

So, as a civilization, we don't need to advance? What was good for Wyatt Earp and the James Brothers is good enough for us now?

Actually, I do see the justification for the directed drone strikes on terrorists leaders. The methods of engaging in warfare have changed; the technology has changed; the subjects of aggression have changed. I believe that the leaders of organizations whose method of warfare is to kill anyone they can kill to make their point (whatever point that is) are engaged in war against us. So long as they are engaged in their operations, they are subject to becoming casualties of war.

Regards,

D-Ray

Most definitely!

Actually, as a civilization we have advanced...we now use drones as opposed to the Pinkertons.

It's as homo sapiens where we haven't advanced.

BTW, Jesse was never convicted of a crime, and Frank was acquitted by a jury of his peers. It wasn't that the James boys failed the system, it was that the system had failed the James boys.

One of my buddy's got out of a pot charge after his lawyer laid that one on 'em!!!

Let's cut to the chase...you're playing the devil's advocate from one end and I'm playing it from the other. And by now you should know that I have the same concerns about the use of drones as you do, among other things.

It's not the drones, it's who decides as to how to deploy them and to whom to deploy them against.

And to hell with Wyatt Earp. Anyone who ran with Doc Holiday can hardly be considered to be a pillar of the community!!!

Chas

I might be able to disagree with you, but I can't dismiss what you say.

Regards,

D-Ray

I think the worst part is that it sets a horrible precedent and example. Those drones are not expensive, and are damn hard to track on radar. How long until someone starts trying to fly them over Washington?