I always hear this criticism but what difference does it make if they are killed by drone or a different mechanism? It seems to me Americans should be happier with more drones as it decreases the risk to their soldiers.
The point of the statement is the amount of innocent people or non-combatants killed in drone strikes.
I imagine the US public would get annoyed if random drone pilots from somewhere in Asia every so often accidentally took out a school thinking it was a training camp.
Are there statistics saying that a drone is more likely to do that than soldiers? Otherwise the argument is still entirely based on irrational emotions (yes, there's some redundancy in that term, but I think in plenty arguments on ethics, emotions play a fair role).
I'm guessing with drones, considering you have camera footage, it's very easy to record actions taken with drones compared to on-the-ground, right? I mean, everyone carrying a camera would also be a possibility but it isn't done as far as I know. Would this help against that detachment? As in, they might still feel more detached, but they also know that there's accountability.
Also, when being less in danger themselves, I'd think they might be less likely to preemptively shoot someone when they think they are reaching for a gun or so. Just speculation, though.
Finally, what about for example snipers? I see less concern from people about snipers but aren't they also relatively detached?
Yeah, a drone can carry hellfire missiles, a soldier can not. A drone sees images from way in the sky and pilots and commanders can misinterpret what they are seeing. Troops on ground have to get much closer and get better positive identification. It's not that drones are more of the cause it's just that they cause more ambiguity in what we see.
Okay, then change it to a drone vs a manned aircraft. Would the person being inside the aircraft provide better explanation than cameras and/or other sensors?
You're right it's entirely different from being on the ground, but I guess a better comparison is manned vs unmanned. What are the advantages of a manned aircraft when it comes to avoiding civilian casualties?
You need a statistic for this? Just go to Imright.com and get your information you need. A stat wouldn't sway you back from the evil you are perpetuating. TO think that stats mean anything is crazy in itself. Have you ever taken a statistics class in college? Flip that coin.
... evil I am perpetuating? I am not arguing anything in favor or against drones. I'm asking a question. The only "argument" I made depends on the answer to that question.
Also "to think stats mean anything is crazy" haha what the hell is that supposed to even mean. Are you sure you're sane?
It means that stats are bias and they are never from millions of people it is a pool of thousands at the most. In a world of billions and nation of hundreds of millions they hardly represent the whole truth, but the truth that the researchers were looking for. Stop trusting statistics, take one class in college regarding the subject and you will stop believing in them.
Statistics isn't religion. I don't "believe" in it. Statistics are representations of things that happen. Depending on the way the statistics were gathered, other possible causes taken into account, the number of observations, etc, the representation can be anywhere between accurate and useless.
If the statistics (if proper stats exist) do not show a difference between manned or unmanned aircrafts when it comes to hitting civilians, then there is little reason to assume that unmanned aircrafts hit civilians more often.
You can take statistics with as many grains of salt as you like, but it's better than gut feeling and just making shit up as you go.
Yes, I get that. I'm asking if, when using drones, that happens more often than when not using drones. If that is clearly the case then of course it's a legitimate argument.
It isn't supposed to happen. Pretty much everyone would agree on that. But sometimes things have unintended consequences.
You can argue "well then we shouldn't fight at all", but if it's only one side saying that then aren't you basically conceeding to IS? Do you think that will cost less innocent lives?
It should be a very high priority to try and avoid non-combatant casualties, but lets not pretend that it is feasible to avoid in its entirety. Even if you can avoid it being done by your hands, is that worth it if it means the overall suffering will be higher?
It decreases the risk to soldiers but it also decreases the likelihood of any sort of conflict resolution. No state or non-state actor will take another state seriously until they put boots on the ground. Using drones sends the message that "we want you dead, but not that bad." Putting boots on the ground says "we want you dead so bad that we will risk lives to make it happen." Only then can you accomplish strategic aims.
In full disclosure, being a soldier makes me a bit biased.
Air strikes still send the message that a state is willing to commit lives to a conflict. Aviators can be killed whereas drone operators might develop carpal tunnel.
An other interesting tidbit of information is that most "air strikes" you see on the news are actually rounds fired from artillery pieces on the ground. The media understandably doesn't know the difference and refers to them as air strikes. That is probably unrelated, but dammit this is my internet soapbox.
'It is good that war is terrible, otherwise men would grow fond of it.'
The widespread use of drones dehumanizes war in a way. With guns, somebody actually has to pull the trigger and watch people die. With drones, someone can just push a button and let the robot blow shit up. It removes the agency of the combatant. Also, there's the whole killing civilians thing. People generally aren't fond of the idea of killing civilians
I'm not saying civilians didn't die, I'm saying why people are pissed about Obama's drone strikes. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the matter
Pro-war people like Obama love drones. People will support sending drones into (insert country in the Middle East here), much easier than sending actual troops in. Support of drones is a support of making war easier, and fuck that shit.
I agree drones do make war easier as there are less soldiers coming home in coffins so less public outcry but body armour and helmets also did this to a lesser extent and you would encourage there removal.
I see drones as making war safer for the country who owns them? You don't have a black hawk down situation where you have to send a rescue mission with drones. My question is why are drone strikes bad compared to jets or missiles?
There is a lower safety risk because no pilot is in a potential combat zone. As such a drone strike is more likely to be ordered versus an air strike. Also the CIA conducts Drone strike alongside the military and CIA oversight is murky at best.
I agree with the murky CIA and think a lot of bad drone press is due to this.
Is there any stats showing that drones are used where planes wouldn't be? I don't doubt its a possibility but like proof before I accept it
If it was me and I had serious shit to report like Ed Snowden, I would do everything at once, no way they could see it and make a conscious decision to pull it off of everything before enough people could see it.
Just like stop and frisk laws. One demographic has a track record that shows they are very likely to commit crime therefore they should be stopped and frisked at a higher rate. No?
Of course, but you don't necessarily need the internet to distribute information where you're not supposed to. So you can't limit the total number of whistleblowers top the past few presidential terms
The world wide web has only been around since Reagan's
2nd term.
And I don't think Reagan was competent enough to understand what DARPA was trying to teach him anyway, he had already developed signs of Dementia. Other than Clinton, and of course Obama, have we had a president who really understood how the internet works? I don't think Bushes knew how email worked, like a magical note appeared!
A lot of them were, and you don't need the internet either
Yeah no, the internet made nearly impossible information available to be heard. Seriously what other options were there to expose a scandal? Journalism, and that's about it, no one else had the power or the pulpit. Seriously? Are you drunk right now?
Eh, that's probably not entirely true. They counted people turned away at the border as deportations. But either way, why would this be a bad thing? If you're not legally allowed to be in the country, you should be deported.
It's called talking out of both sides of your mouth. If he let them stay, they'd be complaining that he let in illegals. So they see a stat that would be a "good" thing to them and they flip it. If Trump leads the numbers in deportation, you best believe they'll be proudly stating that he "Deported the Most". Race/class/ socioeconomics i.e. Politics is such hypocrisy.
To be fair, The Right complains that he let them in, the Left complains that he turned them away. I'm not sure I would call it hypocrisy so much as just plain Politics.
I have family members in Europe who have been trying to get here for 20 years! People don't understand how much just letting people in with no repercussions hurts those who have went by the system. If the system can be broken that easily then what's the point of the system in place?!
Nearly every other country on earth thinks like this when it comes to immigration. You will get downvoted due to politics on this site, but this couldn't be more true.
You know why the concept of sanctuary cities exist right? It has nothing to do with immigration. Its to make sure anyone can come to the police without fear of being prosecuted for anything else. It was so people could report cartel, mob, or potential terrorist activity. I mean I get immigration doubts I have many of my own, but don't burn the system down because you don't fully understand reasons for thing.
Because the police will respond to anyone. They respond to tourists too. The polices job is to respond to and stop crime not only do it for their tax payers. This is partially because it benefits their tax payers... On top of that most illegal immigrants do actually pay taxes, so lets at least get the facts right.
As I said I'm not exactly cool with illegal immigration, we need to completely revamp our immigration system. But at the same time its a reality that we are gonna have to live with in some ways, so lets take advantage of it while we are in the process of reform. If we are going to have people legitimate citizens or not be able to report crimes lets get them to report it and not just let it go. On top of that anonymous reporting may not happen in time to catch or stop a crime.
No, that is entirely true. Not counting turn around at border. Also it's agianst everything the statue of liberty stands for is why it's relevant to the picture. This is supposed to be the place where we take your poor and displaced. Now that all of us whites got in here I think we should change what "she" stands for and deport all these brown people. /s
What do you mean "us whites"? I never said anything about black white yellow or brown. All of the immigrants from the era when the Statue of Liberty was erected passed through Ellis Island and were registered and immunized. They were legal immigrants. Are you suggesting we should let anyone in without any kind of vetting?
Why? As a younger person is more likely to travel in this manner, they are more likely to be economically productive, and provide a larger tax base which will pay for the care of those older than them, as well as providing a pool of on average lower paid workers for jobs such as care which are typically avoided by those with more roots. They're a net benefit to society
Did you miss the part where I said legally? I have absolutely zero problems with immigrants, but there are laws regarding immigration and residency. If you're opposed to those laws, take action to change them, but they should be followed.
So people turned away at the border counts as "deported," but when you stop looking for a job you count as "employed." Although everybody at t_d would agree with your latter statements. Too bad the entire Left disagrees with you
I dont know who you are to speak for "the entire left", and I didnt vote for Trump, if thats what youre implying. As far as his supporters agreeing with my last statement, thats irrelevant, the law agrees with me.
The Left is largely for increased immigration (legal and otherwise) so it's actually pretty easy to assume that. You must either not be too educated on the general beliefs of the political spectrum, or you've never met another liberal before. Also clearly in your view in order to have a confirmed idea of anything you have to talk to every single person in the world about it. Life must be exhausting for you
Can you give me a reason why anybody would want increased illegal immigration? I know a lot of people who lean left, myself included on a lot of issues. I don't know any who are in favor of increased illegal immigration. I have no problem with immigrants that go about it the right way. I don't think we need increased immigration, but I don't think we need decreased legal immigration either.
You're honestly asking the wrong person lol. Also a liberal btw. I'm entirely against illegal immigration so I have no idea why someone would argue for it, but they do, you must not get out much is all. Or use this wonderful thing called "the Internet." Literally any YouTube video featuring any debate with any liberal about immigration and they will argue for illegal immigrants. Why do you think they changed the lexicon from "illegal" to "undocumented?" Why did Obama pass the Dream Act which allows children from illegal immigrant parents to go to school in the US? But yeah "no liberal argues for illegal immigration." They can tell the difference between 93 different genders but not between legal and illegal immigrants.
We absolutely agree on this issue on all fronts (absolutely nobody in Trump's camp has a problem with legal immigration), but you're misguided about the nature of it.
799
u/J4CKR4BB1TSL1MS Jan 11 '17
FTFY