Who controls our Drones?

[walksalone]

You really seem to contradict yourself when you say you don't trust these things not being controlled by anyone or civilians here and you don't have a concern that an enemy would try to hack them and do what they please with them? I would guess the much bigger threat would be from an enemy if they have the capability.

 

My preference would be to not use drones as weapons, but better yet would be to not be in stupid wars.

I agree about stupid wars . . . but why would you prefer that we not use armed drones?

 

I prefer we'd use drones, but there are also times where you cannot replace the need to have "boots on the ground". I do not doubt that drones have saved more than a few lives of troops in the field, but there are times where the human element is necessary.

[carlfense]

Completely agree about boots on the ground.

 

I'd just rather see drones than manned aircraft whenever possible.

[walksalone]

Completely agree about boots on the ground.

 

I'd just rather see drones than manned aircraft whenever possible.

 

I would too, they are just as capable as manned aircraft. Eventually, I wonder when they'll have the tech to be able for the boots on the ground to take control of the drones. But that also leads to it's own problems...

[Sub-Husker]

I agree about stupid wars . . . but why would you prefer that we not use armed drones?

 

I point to the civilian death toll in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

Killing of civilians has become to callous and impersonal.

[knapplc]

I agree about stupid wars . . . but why would you prefer that we not use armed drones?

 

I point to the civilian death toll in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

Killing of civilians has become to callous and impersonal.

 

Drones are not the reason we kill civilians. Poor intelligence is why we kill civilians. Drones fire missiles far more accurate than anything we've had before - more accurate than 95% of the world's armed forces. Those civilians are killed not because of the drone, but because we didn't know they were there, or they were unavoidable collateral damage to a primary target being taken out. Civilians are NEVER the target, and implying that they are is offensive.

 

Would you rather we went back to the days of carpet-bombing and B-17s? Do you want another Dresden?

[Enhance]

I agree about stupid wars . . . but why would you prefer that we not use armed drones?

 

I point to the civilian death toll in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

Killing of civilians has become to callous and impersonal.

 

Drones are not the reason we kill civilians. Poor intelligence is why we kill civilians. Drones fire missiles far more accurate than anything we've had before - more accurate than 95% of the world's armed forces. Those civilians are killed not because of the drone, but because we didn't know they were there, or they were unavoidable collateral damage to a primary target being taken out. Civilians are NEVER the target, and implying that they are is offensive.

 

Would you rather we went back to the days of carpet-bombing and B-17s? Do you want another Dresden?

Well said. It's extremely unfortunate that civilians do die, but it's a lot better than a fire-bombing killings hundreds of thousands.

[walksalone]

Well said. It's extremely unfortunate that civilians do die, but it's a lot better than a fire-bombing killings hundreds of thousands.

 

That problem is compounded now because many of the individuals were fighting have no uniform per se. It's not like our grandfathers 70 years ago knew who their opponents were. Our guys now, have an even more difficult job, due to that fact.

[redblooded]

I agree about stupid wars . . . but why would you prefer that we not use armed drones?

 

I point to the civilian death toll in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

Killing of civilians has become to callous and impersonal.

 

Drones are not the reason we kill civilians. Poor intelligence is why we kill civilians. Drones fire missiles far more accurate than anything we've had before - more accurate than 95% of the world's armed forces. Those civilians are killed not because of the drone, but because we didn't know they were there, or they were unavoidable collateral damage to a primary target being taken out. Civilians are NEVER the target, and implying that they are is offensive.

 

Would you rather we went back to the days of carpet-bombing and B-17s? Do you want another Dresden?

Well said. It's extremely unfortunate that civilians do die, but it's a lot better than a fire-bombing killings hundreds of thousands.

 

I actually think it's semi unfortunate that war isn't that terrible anymore, simply for the reason that we seem to be so eager and easy to convince to goto war now. Maybe if it was that terrible it'd be off the table.

 

I'm sure it's very slightly better for those in the warzone now as far as terror level goes, but I cant even imagine living somewhere worrying if I'd get blown up by a bomb because of who lived next to me, home invaded by US troops, or insurgents that decided to use the property.

[Sub-Husker]

Drones are not the reason we kill civilians. Poor intelligence is why we kill civilians. Drones fire missiles far more accurate than anything we've had before - more accurate than 95% of the world's armed forces. Those civilians are killed not because of the drone, but because we didn't know they were there, or they were unavoidable collateral damage to a primary target being taken out. Civilians are NEVER the target, and implying that they are is offensive.

 

It becomes more of a moral challenge when you see the person you are about to kill, have to pull a trigger, then experience their death first hand.

 

Killing from a thousand miles away video game style does not offer the same moral challenge to the button pusher (or software algorythm).

 

Would you rather we went back to the days of carpet-bombing and B-17s? Do you want another Dresden?

 

No.

 

Hopefully that isn't the only other option considered.

 

Well said. It's extremely unfortunate that civilians do die, but it's a lot better than a fire-bombing killings hundreds of thousands.

 

Hopefully you will consider that death by drone and death by carpet bombing are not the only options available.

[Sub-Husker]

That problem is compounded now because many of the individuals were fighting have no uniform per se. It's not like our grandfathers 70 years ago knew who their opponents were. Our guys now, have an even more difficult job, due to that fact.

 

That is the nature of asymmetric warfare.

 

We did not have any problems with the French Resistance during WW-II, or the Contras in Nicaragua.

 

Generally, these ununiformed fighters are fighting in their own countries against a foreign occupying force.

[HSKR]

How would this be any different then when a missile is being fired and something goes wrong? There isn't a guy behind a joystick controlling it either. If we get to the point that the artificial intelligence is allowed to decide what to fire at, then yes, I could see that being a problem.

 

A misslie is either aimed or targeted my the military, which supposedly has congressional oversight. To fire a weapon requires a direct command by a human in this chain of command.

 

Civilians firing weapons does not have congressional oversight.

 

A program that fires a weapon when a set of parameters is met does not have proper oversight.

 

 

 

I would be much more concerned with other countries such as Iran figuring out how to take control of the UAV's and use them against us or civilian targets and then making it look as if we fired on those targets on purpose.

 

To my knowledge this has never happened or even been speculated.

 

Why would this be much more of a concern?

 

Wasn't that the claim by Iran concerning the downed drone that they hacked the GPS causing it the crash?

 

http://rt.com/usa/ne...ck-stealth-943/ That is if you trust the source.

 

Guess your knowledge has been expanded today.

 

You really seem to contradict yourself when you say you don't trust these things not being controlled by anyone or civilians here and you don't have a concern that an enemy would try to hack them and do what they please with them? I would guess the much bigger threat would be from an enemy if they have the capability.

 

I'm also a little confused with the articles you posted, it was the same one twice. Did you mean to post two separate articles? I didn't find anything in the one you posted that mentioned civilians firing weapons.

 

As I mentioned the first time, I have concerns as well if these things are ever capable to fire without a human pushing the button.

The ability to jam a GPS signal does not necessarily translate to being able to seize control of the aircraft. The latter is far more difficult while the former mostly just requires high powered transmitters.

 

I agree with that but to me this is just the start. If a county like Iran could do this already, then what are the Russians or Chinese capable of? I wouldn't be surprised if either country would be more then willing to share what they know or will learn in the future with anyone that has conflicts with the US. At the end of the day, these things are being controlled by computers and while I claim to be no expert of how these things are navigated or programmed, I can't help but think that if there is a possibility for drones to be manipulated by other nations, they are darn well going to try.

[walksalone]

That problem is compounded now because many of the individuals were fighting have no uniform per se. It's not like our grandfathers 70 years ago knew who their opponents were. Our guys now, have an even more difficult job, due to that fact.

 

That is the nature of asymmetric warfare.

 

We did not have any problems with the French Resistance during WW-II, or the Contras in Nicaragua.

 

Generally, these ununiformed fighters are fighting in their own countries against a foreign occupying force.

 

First of all, using the French resistance as an example of guerrilla fighters doesn't strengthen your argument. If you'd said the VC I'd have been able to go along with it.

 

But the contras or the frogs weren't using roadside bombs, or those that would be considered non-combatants in tactical situations.

[Sub-Husker]

First of all, using the French resistance as an example of guerrilla fighters doesn't strengthen your argument. If you'd said the VC I'd have been able to go along with it.

 

I mentioned two groups that we had supported and are more well known.

 

Was does it not "strengthen [my] argument"? They wer non-uniformed fighted use used asymmetric tactics against an occupying army.

 

But the contras or the frogs weren't using roadside bombs, or those that would be considered non-combatants in tactical situations.

 

How do you know they weren't using roadside bombs? And even if they hadn't, is that the only tactic that defines a non-uniformed fighter?

[walksalone]

That problem is compounded now because many of the individuals were fighting have no uniform per se. It's not like our grandfathers 70 years ago knew who their opponents were. Our guys now, have an even more difficult job, due to that fact.

 

That is the nature of asymmetric warfare.

 

We did not have any problems with the French Resistance during WW-II, or the Contras in Nicaragua.

 

Generally, these ununiformed fighters are fighting in their own countries against a foreign occupying force.

 

Too bad we didn't have cruise missles back then, could've handled that French problem pretty easily....

[walksalone]

First of all, using the French resistance as an example of guerrilla fighters doesn't strengthen your argument. If you'd said the VC I'd have been able to go along with it.

 

I mentioned two groups that we had supported and are more well known.

 

Was does it not "strengthen [my] argument"? They wer non-uniformed fighted use used asymmetric tactics against an occupying army.

 

But the contras or the frogs weren't using roadside bombs, or those that would be considered non-combatants in tactical situations.

 

How do you know they weren't using roadside bombs? And even if they hadn't, is that the only tactic that defines a non-uniformed fighter?

 

Well then it's obvious the dopes we're fighting don't care about injuring civilians, if they're so willing to blend in with them, praying on the fact that our version of war is becoming similar to a game of patty cake.