[Closed] We kill because we can

Looks a bit depressing..

But interesting from a philosophical and moral perspective?

It was good on the radio - thank you kindle, lets see what the book is like!

How does using drones on technologicaly inferior enemies differ from using machine guns or artillery on them? Nothing new here.

Perhaps it doesnt - ultimately all are cowardly as we remove one side from harms way! Hence my interest. But what was new was the idea (perhaps, as only heard the interview) is how we are using drones (arguably) as a form of capital punishment, without trial and on our own people.

I feel uncomfortable about the moral aspects here. Hence, some reading to do....

they could fire back when you have a machine gun or artillery. But when there is no consequence (in the short term), killing by drone is easier (for a politician).

Much easier

teamhurtmore - Member

Perhaps it doesnt - ultimately all are [s]cowardly[/s]sensible as we remove one side from harms way!

both - but book starts by questioning CMDs decision to authorise the killing of two British citizens last year which the author claims is a "qualitative expansion of drone warfare" - is it capital punishment though which is prohibited by law?

is it capital punishment though which is prohibited by law?

No more so than assassinating hitler

On the contrary they were UK citizens (who had not been tried of any crime.)

They were then executed

How does using drones on technologicaly inferior enemies differ from using machine guns or artillery on them? Nothing new here.

Machine guns and artillery have to be operated by boots on the ground. Drones have removed that and the consequences for the Politician ordering troops into a particular country.

Death has become easy, quick, and little cost to those making the decisions, particularly as its "far away", both in terms of geographical location and the minds of western populations.

One of the things is that remote killing makes the process non-involving. It might just as well be a video game, and therefore the consequences and effects of the action have no bearing on the operators.
If you're "gunning down" a mass of technologically inferior you'll still see them dying and lying terribly injured in front of you, and the effects of what you're doing will be immediate.
[edit] what he said ^^

Interesting (well for me) I was chatting with RAF person about the remote issue and he was reminding me that drone operators often follow targets (and their families) for some time hence the danger of the Stockholm Syndrome (I think) developing.

An issue touched on in the film Eye in the Sky

they could fire back when you have a machine gun or artillery.

On the contrary they were UK citizens (who had not been tried of any crime)

The way I see it....

They were UK citizens who chose to fight against UK forces/interests. Basically they put themselves in front of a Bus and they got run over.

No surprise, no shock and nothing new.

The way they were killed was different but a logical extension of the 'work' that saw us develop from hand-to-hand combat, to bow & arrow, to firearms, to aircraft, to missiles and ultimately to drones (a re-useable missile system if you like).

I was thinking colonial era. A sharpened stick isn't a big threat when you have maxims.

That little punch up at Isandlwana and our first foray into Afghanistan says otherwise.

You could say the same thing about our last outing. Technology only goes so far. Still.

We need to see a return to a more GGGGGRRRRRRRR way of killing people, with big pointy things.....

[img] ?737143[/img]

I think that our most recent conflicts have been very difficult to fight in a "conventional" manner.

If you take Afghanistan, to simplify some of the issues, you are engaging and enemy that will do all it can to avoid meeting you head on in battle in the conventional sense, that can blend into easily back into the civilian population, and who at some points can disappear back over a very porous border into the tribal areas of ****stan and other areas. They engage in a war of attrition using IED's and the like, and draw in a lot of resources, money and man power trying to find them, it is difficult for a soldier to engage a target he cannot see and demoralising when most of the casualties come from road side bombs.

Whilst i don't agree with it, drone warfare allows you you to react to intelligence very quickly, a strike can be launched within minutes, at no direct human cost to your own troops and it is very effective against taking out specific targets often in areas you simply cannot get troops to directly and quickly.

I guess it also appeases the politician, who sees a strike against the enemy that is captured on camera, is "clean", which primarily used to take out particular leaders or targets they can tick off a list to show they "are winning the war" and which they can report had no human cost to their side.

Why would you want to fight a war in a conventional manner? The politicians decide when we go to war and who with, the military carry out those orders to the best of their ability utilising the best materials, people and resources they can. Why would we hold back on deploying what we can to exact maximum damage on the 'enemy' whilst minimising/eliminating risk to our own servicemen and servicewomen?

I'm not sure what the difference is between a pilot loitering 30,000 feet above a target in plane being provided with the coordinates of a target they can't even see and instructed to drop a laser guided bomb on their heads vs. someone sat in a container back in the UK remotely flying a drone and being given the same order. The mental effects of war on those involved either physically fighting or behind the scenes in a more intelligence role gathering data and intel they know will be used to justify killings are not unique to today's wars.

If a UK citizen goes to fight for 'the other side' and we have adequate intelligence to prove that 'beyond all reasonable doubt' then they are a legitimate target. You can argue all you like about the intelligence and how good and bad it might be, but the principle is sound and valid.

Whilst i don't agree with it, drone warfare allows you you to react to intelligence very quickly, a strike can be launched within minutes, at no direct human cost to your own troops and it is very effective against taking out specific targets often in areas you simply cannot get troops to directly and quickly.

Intelligence can be wrong, and has proven to be with the deaths of many innocent people due to drone strikes. Collateral damage I think they call it.

The cost to us in the west, minimal, the cost to others... This reminds me a little of the cold war, two sides with nuclear weapons knowing the cost of launching a strike is mutually assured destruction.

But what if you could at no cost to your side. Then debate on the justification be it moral or economic, in Government, the democratic institutions, even in public, are navigated around. The process is buried and automatic.

It would be interesting to see what the Geneva conventions say, and if they need updating in light of this kind of warfare.

You can argue all you like about the intelligence and how good and bad it might be, but the principle is sound and valid.

Oxymoron.

Intelligence can be wrong, and has proven to be with the deaths of many innocent people due to drone strikes. Collateral damage I think they call it.

innocents dying in military action, so just like 'conventional' warfare then?

I really don't get (all of) the problems people have with this.

It looks to me that theres the moral issue of who gets it (for being on the other side), and what their legal status might be (are we "at war") but thats really a legal question, and that remains the case even if you don't like the answers.

The other problem seems to center around the fact that the risk for the drone pilot (or whomever) is less than the risk for the target.

Thats the bit I don't really get, its like people are complaining that its suddenly not "fair", when the whole point of advancing military technology from the beginning of time has been to try and make things as unfair as possible.
Who wants a fair war, certainly no-one who has ever had the option of massive superiority?

I guess if you have the technology you can kill others without any fear of death to yourself...seems a bit cowardly.

I guess if you have the technology you can kill others without any fear of death to yourself...seems a bit cowardly.

You know we've always strived to do that? In every war we've ever been in, you strive for technological and tactical superiority. This is not a new game.

Yeah...I guess, as I said it's a bit depressing 🙂

My concern is not that it provides an ability to make strikes without friendly losses, but that it makes the decision making process to actually carry out that strike seem less consequential.

Does make you wonder how desperate/brave people have to be to take on a technologically advanced foe.

My concern is not that it provides an ability to make strikes without friendly losses, but that it makes the decision making process to actually carry out that strike seem less consequential.

As opposed to what? Putting an individual on a target set and allowing troops to engage? Believe me, the force of violence and action used to put in a strike on an HVT by the more specialist troops we have is brutal.

Loud, aggressive, violent.

All the same risks remain, you are just removing the 'soldier' from the process using UCAVs.

Does make you wonder how desperate/brave people have to be to take on a technologically advanced foe.

They do what most combatants do, adapt their tactics to defeat the threat. They're not as dumb as many like to believe. Hence why they're not dropping like flies, because they use the internet to gain information, use it to mold their tactics.

TMH yes we should have sent Jezza over there to arrest Jihadi John or the others planning and encouraging terrorist attacks in the UK and beyond. When an organisation cuts the heads off aid workers and journalists, plans and trains terrorists to murder people out shopping on a Friday, or attending a concert or a fireworks display, having a drink with friends etc then those people are going to receive a very direct form of justice. They are going to do so with my full support. Attempting to deal with this threat by p.ssing around with lame liberal arguments is going to see very many people killed both on the ground in the Middle East and in Europe.

As soon as you join IS and go to a place where we cannot arrest you then you should expect a missile.

Eye in the Sky was excellent.

Does make you wonder how desperate/brave people have to be to take on a technologically advanced foe

An IT graduate and part time rapper from West London is not desperate. He is just physcotic and very dangerous.

An IT graduate and part time rapper from West London is not desperate. He is just physcotic and very dangerous.

That is (I believe) Jihadi John's background.

That is (I believe) Jihadi John's background.

Now I'm confused. JJ has never kneeled, he's had a few kneel before him, before he's slit their throats.

I get peoples issues with the use of UCAVs, I get peoples issues with war in general. Especially when our dodgy policies cause us to suffer attacks at the hands of these people and their supporters.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't happily send a few of these animals to get their 72 virgins. Have you not seen the video of them throwing gay Iraqi men of the roof? Or seen the reports of the mass graves around Mosul, 100+ beheaded corpses found. Please explain how UK/US foreign policy caused them to meet this violence out on their own people?

Now I'm confused..and depressed.

I don't know...seems all the worlds problems are caused by adult males.

I don't know...seems all the worlds problems are caused by adult males.

Pretty much on point mate.

I'm going over to mumsnet...cheer myself up with an anal sex thread.

On the contrary they were UK citizens (who had not been tried of any crime.)

They were then executed

The history of conflict is full of "technological advances" pretty much all focused on doing in the baddies from as far away as possible.

Thats how you get from fisticuffs and swords to lobbing stones, on to the ballista, trebuchet, longbow, rifle, mortars and RPGs, Arial bombing, V1/V2 rockets, cruise missiles, laser guided bombs, ICBMs... It's a long old list.

The 'imorality of remote controlled killing' argument chucked at drones has some fair points, but you could also argue that compared to many of the weapons that preceeded them they can be far more discriminating (depending on the operator of course)... It's a point in their favour to some extent.

But of course there's not really a nice easy, black and white argument for or against any weapons of war, it is at best, rather murky shades of grey. And once any technology is turned to killing, it's impossible to "put the genie back in the bottle", you're going to struggle to un-invent drone warfare now...