Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

President has the right to use drones in the USA on American citizens Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've already outlined the positives of drone warfare, but here's another thought. In the olden days of parchment maps and the cane, a criminal could hide pretty easily and escape justice. Today this is getting harder, with satellite scanning and so on. But it is still possible to disappear into the mountains/desert.

    Drones allow us to cover vast areas of ground, deploy advanced searching technologies and find criminals. By criminal I'm talking both about the petty bike theft, as well as the genocidal despots that pop up every now and again. The US has been researching non lethal technology for years. Non lethal drones would be able to find and apprehend, say, the common bike thief, whilst the police officer physically cannot keep up or track the miscreant. In this case justice is pursued more efficiently by a robot.

    Looking at the other type of criminal, the genocidal despot, drones make it far easier, far quicker and far safer to track and neutralise them. An army of drones in the sky would surely have made it far easier to find, for example, Bin Laden than an invasive, disruptive force of boots on the ground. Physical soldiers setting up in foreign countries, whether for humanitarian aid, for invasion or for peace keeping, is an out dated concept. They put themselves as soldiers at risk, and end up causing rifts in the society they are planted into.

    Those against drones are burying their heads in the sand to the positives, and unfairly pointing out negatives. When nuclear weapons arrived there was much fear over them being deployed: the same thing is occuring with drones. A drone is not necessarily an armed killing machine. You cannot call others armchair warriors when you fail to realise their law enforcement potential as non lethal tools. Civilians are not always good, honest folk. There will always be bad folk. Drones are simply a tool of justice.

    You're argument would be stronger if it was based more against the users of the drones, rather than the drones themselves.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Everyone on this site is a guaranteed student?

    I was raising it as a representation - the gung-ho attitude to these 'kill from a comfy chair' machines is widespread in the military and amongst US politicians.
    Believe me, the chairs aren't as comfy as you'd think. And it's not as if the seats in combat aircraft were uncomfortable in the first place.

    And you might have been. Doesn't stop you coming across like a raving nutter unsure of what to be angry against and sounding like you're being angry for the sake of being angry.

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm sure China is busy manufacturing a new range of superdrones.
    They're having enough difficulties building aircraft for people, let alone those without. But they'll get around to it. It's called progress, whether you like it or not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    Compared to the indiscriminate carnage wreaked by suicide bombers in Pakistani towns the UAV missions are humane. If you google " pakistan suicide bomb" you will find plenty to read. The horror these things are inflicting on ordinary people is terrible.
    Hahah the people in the Pakistani tribal areas are Pashtuns to their core and their tradition of "Badal" (revenge) will ensure the Americans have no shortage of "terrorists" to fight in the near future. Kill an innocent accidentally or otherwise and their family will often turn to desperate means to avenge their loved ones and for that I certainly don't blame them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder what will happen if tomorrow the Americans launch a drone strike against a "terrorist" in central London and dismiss the civilian casualties as collateral damage.

    Pakistani/Afghan lives are worth less than American ones apparently. Don't be surprised when these people retaliate in revenge and if and when they do blame yourselves and your own governments.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    I wonder what will happen if tomorrow the Americans launch a drone strike against a "terrorist" in central London and dismiss the civilian casualties as collateral damage.

    Pakistani/Afghan lives are worth less than American ones apparently. Don't be surprised when these people retaliate in revenge and if and when they do blame yourselves and your own governments.
    The 'first use' in the European theatre will be against a supposed 'Muslim terror' target, perhaps offshore or in somewhere like Kosovo or the Med or something like that. From there, it will be constantly stepped up, until there is a constant overhead drone presence in all areas and regular airstrikes on homes in Luton, etc. Well, of course, the latter may be intended as irony, but time will tell if it really is just a joke.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)

    Pakistani/Afghan lives are worth less than American ones apparently. Don't be surprised when these people retaliate in revenge and if and when they do blame yourselves and your own governments.
    All of the available evidence suggests that US military commanders share your opinion.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The 'first use' in the European theatre will be against a supposed 'Muslim terror' target, perhaps offshore or in somewhere like Kosovo or the Med or something like that. From there, it will be constantly stepped up, until there is a constant overhead drone presence in all areas and regular airstrikes on homes in Luton, etc. Well, of course, the latter may be intended as irony, but time will tell if it really is just a joke.
    It won't. Because you get different options in a land with a regular police force, with easy and fast access and security services that actually work.

    Out in the arse end of nowhere, where fields turn into mountains and there's no form of law or order for hundreds of miles you find yourself out of the normal ideas. In a city, where you can park a car with a camera and/or use CCTV it's about a billion times easier to track someone.

    So far, you're adding 2+2 and making 17,000.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It won't. Because you get different options in a land with a regular police force, with easy and fast access and security services that actually work.
    What? When everyone agrees that drones are the best method of all and they can be run safely from an air-conditioned office complex by video-game buffs at zero personal risk? God, the options are so damn attractive, I'm surprised the US haven't already replaced their own police force with drones, in these cost-concious times.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    What? When everyone agrees that drones are the best method of all and they can be run safely from an air-conditioned office complex by video-game buffs at zero personal risk? God, the options are so damn attractive, I'm surprised the US haven't already replaced their own police force with drones, in these cost-concious times.
    Best option in certain theatres of operation, like sparsely populated terrain that's both desert and mountainous and not conducive to normal police investigation.

    Suggesting that they're equally adept in built up cities - where line of sight is all but impossible unless you're directly overhead - is plain ignorance of how such things work and a complete abandonment of common sense.

    And 2; "video game buffs"? Are you even pretending to be rational in this conversation any more? All of the operators of UAVs for both the RAF and USAF are, at the moment, fully qualified combat pilots who've undertaken training that lasts longer and is more complex and rounded than most degrees.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    All of the available evidence suggests that US military commanders share your opinion.
    The truth is, its not just military commanders and its not just Americans. Lives lost a home are more valuable than on the other side of the world. Even if its not actually the case, the response is as such from the public in general.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Best option in certain theatres of operation, like sparsely populated terrain that's both desert and mountainous and not conducive to normal police investigation.

    Suggesting that they're equally adept in built up cities - where line of sight is all but impossible unless you're directly overhead - is plain ignorance of how such things work and a complete abandonment of common sense.

    And 2; "video game buffs"? Are you even pretending to be rational in this conversation any more? All of the operators of UAVs for both the RAF and USAF are, at the moment, fully qualified combat pilots who've undertaken training that lasts longer and is more complex and rounded than most degrees.
    I am from time to time uttering what we humans in these situations call a "joke", you may have come across the concept when not busy negging people, something I hardly ever bother with myself, as I prefer argument.

    Also, is it a joke? I am trying to remember which newspaper it was, but I read interviews with commanders and staff in Nevada recently (was it the BBC website?) and they were indeed recruiting from amongst video-game fanatics within the armed forces.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some thoughts about the potentially dangerous future of this technology:



    Experts have estimated that fully automatic robots could be viable in this field in 20-30 years. The beardy guy in the video has also raised an interesting point elswhere:

    "This is going to be big, big money. But actually there is no transparency, no legal process. The laws of war allow for rights of surrender, for prisoner of war rights, for a human face to take judgments on collateral damage. Humans are thinking, sentient beings. If a robot goes wrong, who is accountable? Certainly not the robot."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    Some thoughts about the potentially dangerous future of this technology:


    Experts have estimated that fully automatic robots could be viable in this field in 20-30 years. The beardy guy in the video has also raised an interesting point elswhere:

    "This is going to be big, big money. But actually there is no transparency, no legal process. The laws of war allow for rights of surrender, for prisoner of war rights, for a human face to take judgments on collateral damage. Humans are thinking, sentient beings. If a robot goes wrong, who is accountable? Certainly not the robot."
    Loved the Samsung ad. Let's hope they haven't written something into all those Tabs and SIIIs and they aren't going to suddenly turn killer on us when the Pentagon defines us as "filled with moral turpitude and hostile to the United States".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Loved the Samsung ad. Let's hope they haven't written something into all those Tabs and SIIIs and they aren't going to suddenly turn killer on us when the Pentagon defines us as "filled with moral turpitude and hostile to the United States".
    It reminded me a lot of the adverts in the I, Robot film, what with how immeasurably easier and more comfortable our lives will be after this technology is introduced. I think you're in danger of letting this speculating get a bit out of hand there...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't all the american vast gun collections are going to be that much use against drones
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    I don't all the american vast gun collections are going to be that much use against drones
    Lol. I suppose they could try going up in light aircraft and blazing away at them with all those assault rifles. Might get a bit hairy up there, especially in Texas and Colorado.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    I wonder what will happen if tomorrow the Americans launch a drone strike against a "terrorist" in central London and dismiss the civilian casualties as collateral damage.
    Are you actually trying to comparing the UK to the failed state of Pakistan? Half this mess wouldn't exist if Pakistan didn't support the Taliban during the 1990s, and if the ISI didn't continue to support them today.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    What? When everyone agrees that drones are the best method of all and they can be run safely from an air-conditioned office complex by video-game buffs at zero personal risk? God, the options are so damn attractive, I'm surprised the US haven't already replaced their own police force with drones, in these cost-concious times.
    The US police is actually using drones for surveillance at home!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I am from time to time uttering what we humans in these situations call a "joke", you may have come across the concept when not busy negging people, something I hardly ever bother with myself, as I prefer argument.

    Also, is it a joke? I am trying to remember which newspaper it was, but I read interviews with commanders and staff in Nevada recently (was it the BBC website?) and they were indeed recruiting from amongst video-game fanatics within the armed forces.
    A keyword in all there. Within. Heaven forbid that people in the Armed Forces might enjoy using computer games in their time off... Interesting choice of word... 'fanatics'. You're clearly trying to push an agenda here. Suggesting those who do such thing are imbalanced? Trying to make it sound like those who use them are somehow detached from reality?

    Fact is, control of these platforms is very similar to controls used for such gaming platforms. The miniature/hand-held aircraft used by infantry teams are controlled by an xbox controller. So we might as well get people who have an aptitude for such things. If they're already in the Forces then they know the rules of engagement - fwiw, British ROE are much more stringent than those of the US - and already fit into the environment.

    As for the negging. As you'll note, I have indeed tried to engage you in rational debate, trying to inform you where you've got not just the wrong end of the stick, but the wrong sodding tree. You're the one ignoring it. You're the one becoming more and more absurd. So yeah, I negged a post of yours where you sound like a raving nutter. You don't use that aspect of the forum? That makes you morally superior? Get a grip.
    And busy? Don't know about you, but for me the action barely takes a second. If that's what it takes for you to be 'busy' then I think you've got problems.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It wouldn't be an act of war, because it would be legal in the US, therefore the UK govt would (as always) succumb and permit any such actions.
    The UK government hasn't exactly succumbed to anything which would be comparable to what you're suggesting. Allowing the US to target UK citizens within the UK will never be authorised.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.