In 2003 as the USA began it's military adventure into Iraq, only a handful of pilotless drones were in the arsenal of the US military. Today, there are over 7,000 drones in operation around the globe. In addition, the liberation force in Iraq possessed no unmanned ground vehicles whatsoever, but today they now exploit the use of more than 12,000 unmanned ground vehicles used for various purposes. One is called the "PackBot," and is made by the manufacturers of the home vacuum cleaner robot sold as the "Roomba."
President Obama seems rather committed to the idea of drone warfare, officially hitting targets on publicly acknowledged missions, and covertly hitting targets in places like Pakistan, where the administration refuses to either acknowledge or deny such missions. Jane Mayer of "The New Yorker," states “The intelligence agency declines to provide any information to the public about where it operates, how it selects targets, who is in charge, or how many people have been killed.”
The New American Foundation, quoted by Mayer in "The New Yorker," states Obama has authorized at a minimum 41 CIA missile strikes, or about one a week, that may have killed more than 500 people. This is a pace that has Obama authorizing more Predator drone strikes in Pakistan in 10 months, than G.W. Bush authorized the last three years of his administration.
Make no mistake, these are sanctioned, internationally targeted killings. The line is blurred between simply going to work, and actually going to war. With robotics, a "pilot" of a pilotless drone can vaporize people on the other side of the world, and then drive home to have dinner with the family, just like any other nine to five job. This conflation of going to work/war, is loaded with ethical dilemmas and dangers. P.W. Singer, author of the book "Wired for War," states “We are at a breaking point in history. The U.S. Air Force this year will train more unmanned system pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined. And, as Bill Gates has noted, "robotics are now where computers were back in 1980.”
When robots are tomorrow’s veterans, does war become more likely and more endless? Do drones cow enemies with America’s technological prowess or embolden them to think America is not man enough to fight? What is the psychological toll on video-screen warriors?
A public debate should begin about how new technologies beg for ethical examination, and the efficacy of their use, when it is appropriate, and when it should not be tolerated. Where do you come down on the subject?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 66
The short answer, I think, is yes. When you remove the human element it becomes much easier to kill. We first became intimately familiar with this concept in Desert Storm as "smart" bombs were piloted through air ducts and windows to conduct precise strikes.
On a separate, President Obama has killed much of the Army's robotics program--the Future Combat System, or FCS.
Hell, we go from ZERO to 7,000 aerial drones and ZERO to 12,000 unmanned ground vehicles in SIX years??
If that's death, do we really need life???
But back to the subject at hand-- will emerging technology increase the probabilities of war, or lessen the use of deadly force?
The simple truth is, every technological advance going all the way back to the mythological Trojan Horse, begs the ethical question, what does this changing technology mean to us, as human beings?
It is my opinion mankind will always fight his wars, as he always has-- conflict is a given in the absence of a perfect world. How we fight these wars then becomes the central issue, not whether we are warring more or less, but whether the cost for waging war is the continued shedding of blood and spending of national treasure, or the evolution of warfare where the human cost is nearly non-existent, and the only question to be answered is financial, and not ciphered and written in the color of blood.
I worked with these guys (the Army Experimental Task Force, or AETF) down at Fort Bliss for about 6 months, and they were doing some amazing things. The cuts did not go over well, but my understanding is that the "grunt" element of the Army is okay with it because it frees up funds for traditional counterinsurgency stuff.
I believe FCS gets to keep a few unmanned ground vehicles, a couple of unmanned aerial vehicles, and the network that powers advanced communications.
A very beligerent Bosnia found out when mostly air power brought peace to the region.
What behavior is being rewarded, though? That's always the question. Can the remote "pilot" not find any targets, day after day after day?
that would be my impression....
Of course, that's just me *chuckle*
No one was even discussing whether or not the military is following the lead of civilians, or the other way around. Sheeeeesh.......
I'm always amazed at the level of vitriol aimed at our military, by some, like you.
This is not the case in Afghanistan and it was not the case in Iraq. Both are wars of agression and colonialism. They are fought for political reasons and illegal acording to our highest law.
Tim, I AM, especially since it is a CIA endeavor.
You pretend as if Bush was/is an idiot-- that's YOUR baggage man, and you seem to assume Bush paid no heed whatsoever to the questions of strategy you mention Obama is so carefully considering. That's YOUR questions of the CiC-- just as I have questions about Obama.
No one man is perfect-- no one man is epically flawed. YOU want to pretend Bush was an idiot that left us a "mess." I'll give Bush credit where credit is due and remember things aren't always as easy as hindsight seems to imagine.
Yes, I have questions about Obama, but I voted for the man and I still back his plans, and I give him credit for opening up the drone warfare in ways Bush never dreamed of doing, as it brought the Pakis to bear upon their own survival.
I trust the CIA, despite the dark shadows being cast on them by some, including to my surprise, men like Col. George. I trust the military YOU, Sam, so obviously DESPISE ! ! !
The CIA and our military are doing TOUGH JOBS IN TOUGH CIRCUMSTANCES and to my mind, they do it with the best interests of the USA in mind, despite the fact, like all flawed men, they sometimes make mistakes, even mistakes that cost us blood and treasure.
Yes, I am glad there is civilian control, but I am also VERY glad the military is what the military is, and that the CIA is what they are--- and I TRUST them to get the job done, because they usually do, when left unfettered by POLITICAL concerns that have NO PLACE on the battlefield.
On the CIA read "Legasy of Ashes." It's a telling history of the CIA and its historic pattern of incompetence. If they get anything done it is in spite of their efforts instead of natural skill.
Today the battlefield is political. The disaster of Afghanistan is solved only when the locals feel they have a legitimate stake in the nations future. That won't happen with Karzi OR with American guns. The military serves a specific function of meeting with and destroying an enemy. This is a imperialist occupation against population universal in their despise of imperialists. Time to go.
Tim drones are war by new means. I don't know if it is any more impersonal than a fighter jock dropping a 500lb bomb or a mortar round.
Why in the h**l do you think they are fighting us?
Col George, you are of course entitled to your opinion, as is Sammie boy. I happen to disagree. The CIA is a valuable resource in the field, even the battlefield.
Sammie boy, I'm always as cute as a button, that's part of my eternal charm, didn't you know that old sport ??
So don't accuse me of being a mindless Bush chicken hawk neocon. Your silly stereotypes of Bush policy supporters is ludicrous in the extreme.
We have been together regarding Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time. There is no logical reason to continue in either.
come and get me.....
Males 18 through 25 are required to register
The Selective Service System wants you to know that the requirement to register for the military draft did not go away with the end of the Vietnam War. Under the law, virtually all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are ages 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.
There are certain topics that blow the liberals into an absolute frenzy.
I'm not entirely certain how delusional you are, but you've just given me a good clue. 6700 views isn't anywhere near the 3,100 plus points required for $50 cash. The 6700 view would be worth more if you hadn't rated me with a 1 *chuckle* It doesn't hurt there are a few comments, but the point total for that number of views turned out to be about 400-500 points, it's hard to say exactly.
Is this the CIA, or are we just being told it is the CIA?
I think that if they are used in cases we are sure about, that would be extremely dangerous for our troops to go in, then yes it is a good use. Recon, in high risk areas, another good use, a major tool of warfare? No that I will never agree. THere must always be the human equation, or we will loose all sence of control.