Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

[Boo Radley]

It is as accurate as can be gotten in 2013.

Again, I didn't say it wasn't. I said it wasn't accurate enough for civilian lives.

 

[Sherman123]

Again, I didn't say it wasn't. I said it wasn't accurate enough for civilian lives.

Well then, it would seem it is impossible to wage war with air power then. Is that accurate?

 

[Boo Radley]

Well then, it would seem it is impossible to wage war with air power then. Is that accurate?

Not in this setting. Currently we face civilian populations with no state army. Merely bombing a village in hope of getting one or several bad guys is too costly. Not near accurate enough.

 

[notquiteright]

1. The 'rest of the world' is an overly broad category, but the formation of negative opinions on US policy is inevitable almost regardless of what kind of action we take. Especially from other Western and developed circles where such agitation is popular but ultimately harmless. And that's what it really is: harmless. We are the hegemon and we attract reflexively negative sentiment, but it does not really impact our ability to act or our station in the world. Especially since we reap the advantage of being a democratic leader, with the capacity to hit popular reset with every new administration.

2. They aren't 'needless' they are the cost of waging war, a war that is in fact moral, just, and necessary. Aside from being a direct, vocal, and proven threat and enemy of the United States and our allies, these militants and terrorists are the most regressive enemies of civilization and modernity. In the name of the most basic liberal and internationalist obligations that I believe we should hold ourselves to we should be suppressing these people. In the name of everything from democracy to feminism to security. Moreover much of the world see's drones and our activities in the way that you describe, because people like you in the West insist on describing it that way.

3. The point is relevant since drone strikes primarily take place in NWFP, Waziristan, Swat, etc. areas that previously were subject to major Pakistani military offensives. Drone strikes even in isolation have inflicted very few civilian fatalities, but when related to the kind of violence these regions have seen it is positively minuscule.

3.

Ever tried to get in the middle of a family fight that wasn't your family? We are outsiders in a centuries old family fight. it doesn't matter if 200 civilians die in THEIR fights, it is a whole 'nother matter when we kill a dozen or so civilians with a strike from nowhere, deep in another nation.

How the rest of the world see drone strikes doesn't rest on people like me saying our opinion, don't be silly. let's not try and claim we are supporting anything but our interest in this. Our 'allies' in the Middle East could givachit about women's rights or even democracy. You REALLY think Afghanistan wants equal rights for women? Democracy? No they see their warlord/tribal system as democratic enough.

I don't know if you have been paying attention but the 'strike zone' for drones is covering alot more of the Muslim World than Pakistan- which FYI is our supposed ally and has protested time and time again over the strikes. But the strikes are now spreading across the Arabian peninsula, far from the 'warzone' of Afghanistan. We don't see us the way the rest of the world sees us. Arrogant and callous when it comes to other civilians that makes the assassinated leaders martyrs and the idea gains traction.

It isn't a body count, it is an idea.

Now the war on terror is floundering. We hold some for trial, some are actual combatants and some as 'terrorists' we kill in whatever land we can find them. this is a war that isn't a war, an anti-terrorism campaign that uses terrorism and assassination...

I can't help but feel we are losing our way mainly because we can have our way with little regard to what used to guide us.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You have no idea whether the amount of collateral damage is 'ridiculous' or not. If you want to take a look at 'ridiculous' collateral damage, look at any German or Japanese city after World War II. That's collateral damage.

So comparing it to something worse makes it ok? In WWII we didn't have smart bombs or drones, we just hoped for the best. It was also a total war. This is using highly precise equipment to target a single human being, but destroy a whole block, all in a country we're not at war with. Women and children get killed in significant numbers very frequently in these strikes. But hey, wouldn't want to rain on your 'Murica bald-eagle petting parade.

If someone had a beef with you, bust decided they wanted to kill all of your family and neighbors along with you, would you take comfort in knowing worse things in human history have taken place? Or would you recognize an atrocity?

 

[Rainman05]

The drones must only be used on war, on combatants. And I mean actual war, not police actions. Assasination of random individuals, without a fair trial, who are only suspected of being terrorists but not charged with it, is both legally and morally wrong.

 

[cpwill]

And who gets to decide who's a terrorist and who isn't? The CIA? The President? So they have "intel" from a "reliable source" that Akhmed McTerrorist is on Mohammed Lane. That means they should be able to destroy Mohammed Lane?

The amount of collateral damage is ridiculous, and there is usually no other proof that someone is a terrorist other than a bureacrat said he was. I'm sorry, I can't stand behind executions with zero trials or where no evidence is presented.

I'm sorry dude, but this statement is..... ignorant. It's not bad on you, but it's just that you have no idea what goes in to the targeting cycle. Unless a target is a TST (or, in some AOR's, you're in a TIC), you're running targeting off of your ATO, and you don't get an ETF approved unless it has a CDE call on it, and 5HIGH goes up to either the AOR CG, SECDEF, or POTUS, depending on the ROE in place. And in order to get put on JPEL it's a much more extensive process than "some bureaucrat" or "some source" said. You want MS/MD confirmation, or your trash get's kicked right back to you with a "why did you waste our time, a$$hole" message attached.


Now. If you didn't fully understand the above paragraph.... maybe you should stop to think about that for a second .


Think about it, do you really think that we are sending hugely expensive drones to drop expensive bombs in Pakistan when we could be using them elsewhere on a whim or something so low-level as you describe? And think of the drones you have seen - have you ever seen them with the 2,000 pounders?

 

[cpwill]

So comparing it to something worse makes it ok? In WWII we didn't have smart bombs or drones, we just hoped for the best. It was also a total war. This is using highly precise equipment to target a single human being, but destroy a whole block, all in a country we're not at war with. Women and children get killed in significant numbers very frequently in these strikes. But hey, wouldn't want to rain on your 'Murica bald-eagle petting parade.

If someone had a beef with you, bust decided they wanted to kill all of your family and neighbors along with you, would you take comfort in knowing worse things in human history have taken place? Or would you recognize an atrocity?

:lol: The MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper Drones carry the AGM-114 Hellfire Missile, dude. Destroying city blocks is.... well, let's just say it's not on the options menu . You can hit the front end of a car and watch in angry frustration as the guy in the back gets out and starts running away. Someone has sold you the nutter end of the libertarian anti-defense spiel, similar to whomever it was a while back (I think it was you) who sold you on the theory that the nearby presence of a MEU meant that we were getting ready to possibly invade Libya.

And Wiggen is right - the extraordinary thing about collateral damage in this fight is how little there is of it. Frankly, the ROE's we have are ridiculously restrictive, to the point where we are losing our own lives over them.

 

[cpwill]

Again, I didn't say it wasn't. I said it wasn't accurate enough for civilian lives.

What a fascinating claim. Can you back that up with the relevant JMEM data?

 

[code1211]

Maybe those "Leftists" aren't interested in having that conversation with someone so interested in how fast "the Arabs" are killing each other.

I'm not talking about a conversation.

There has been an ongoing cry from the Left about the injustice of the imprisonment of terrorists in Gitmo without due process.

It seems that assassinating the terrorists with no possibility of judicial review ever is a tad more final and a tad less in keeping with the notion of rehabilitation held so dear by those who have no skin in the game.

 

[Boo Radley]

What a fascinating claim. Can you back that up with the relevant JMEM data?

Easily, with the civilian deaths linked to the attacks. If you doubt that, seriously, I will link civilians being killed in drone attacks for you later today.

Joe

 

[cpwill]

Easily, with the civilian deaths linked to the attacks. If you doubt that, seriously, I will link civilians being killed in drone attacks for you later today.

Joe

:shrug: and I don't doubt that they happen. On purpose, even - the Laws of Armed Conflict state that Collateral Damage is allowable when reasonable mitigations have been made and the damage is proportional to the military advantage gained. Just because you use a human shield doesn't mean that you aren't worth killing. When we put together a target package we include Pattern of Life analysis along with standard Population Density studies in order to get a pretty good idea of how to minimize civilian death by altering our heading, our bomb types, delayed fusing, utilizing natural buffering, etc; but a dual-use target is still a dual-use target. If you use your bedroom to hide the shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles that you are smuggling, you don't get to complain when your bedroom get's blown up and your spouse dies with you. Laws of Armed Conflict also state that if you militarize what would otherwise be an unlawful target then you are culpable for the damage that target takes.

But what I asked was with regards to your claims on accuracy, which is why I asked you to back your claim with JMEM data. What is the Circular Error Probable of an AGM-114 fired from an MQ-9? How about the blast radius for a 5ms Delayed Fuse AGM-114?

 

[Boo Radley]

:shrug: and I don't doubt that they happen. On purpose, even - the Laws of Armed Conflict state that Collateral Damage is allowable when reasonable mitigations have been made and the damage is proportional to the military advantage gained. Just because you use a human shield doesn't mean that you aren't worth killing. When we put together a target package we include Pattern of Life analysis along with standard Population Density studies in order to get a pretty good idea of how to minimize civilian death by altering our heading, our bomb types, delayed fusing, utilizing natural buffering, etc; but a dual-use target is still a dual-use target. If you use your bedroom to hide the shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles that you are smuggling, you don't get to complain when your bedroom get's blown up and your spouse dies with you. Laws of Armed Conflict also state that if you militarize what would otherwise be an unlawful target then you are culpable for the damage that target takes.

But what I asked was with regards to your claims on accuracy, which is why I asked you to back your claim with JMEM data. What is the Circular Error Probable of an AGM-114 fired from an MQ-9? How about the blast radius for a 5ms Delayed Fuse AGM-114?

That speaks to accuracy. You can't just hit the bad guys. To be accurate enough in these situations (not nation against nation), that is the only way it would be morally acceptable.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That speaks to accuracy. You can't just hit the bad guys. To be accurate enough in these situations (not nation against nation), that is the only way it would be morally acceptable.

Would it be equally "morally acceptable" for a foreign nation to zap folks within our borders for "good causes"? The entire idea of ignoring the nation (or worse, renting permission via foreign aid) harboring these "terrorists" and going directly after "criminals" (but without any trials, of course) within their borders is insane. We are attempting to fight the Jihad yet ignoring (or actually rewarding with aid) the nation's directly responsible for giving them safe harbor and free reign to act within its borders. Take Libya as an example, our "embassy" in Benghazi was under attack for about 7 hours yet ZERO was done about it by the "gov't" of Libya. We allowed Pakistan to give UBL a "hide out" yet still pay them billions in foreign aid even after they openly imprision (or worse) those that helped us find him.

 

[Boo Radley]

Would it be equally "morally acceptable" for a foreign nation to zap folks within our borders for "good causes"? The entire idea of ignoring the nation (or worse, renting permission via foreign aid) harboring these "terrorists" and going directly after "criminals" (but without any trials, of course) within their borders is insane. We are attempting to fight the Jihad yet ignoring (or actually rewarding with aid) the nation's directly responsible for giving them safe harbor and free reign to act within its borders. Take Libya as an example, our "embassy" in Benghazi was under attack for about 7 hours yet ZERO was done about it by the "gov't" of Libya. We allowed Pakistan to give UBL a "hide out" yet still pay them billions in foreign aid even after they openly imprision (or worse) those that helped us find him.

Just because you can find something else that is immoral doesn't change the immorality of the action. There is also little evidence that these strikes make us any more safe. Benghazi happened with the drone strikes taking place. Something more surgical might be more effective.

 

[AreteCourage]

I think we should rely on those covert special ops people. The drones will kill more innocent people. Those people who signed up for special ops understand that they are risking their lives. They understand the risk and accept it. We don't want to lose lives, but that is always a risk. These guys can go in there and do a better job of making sure the target is killed rather than innocent people who might happen to be in the vicinity.

Let those guys do what they signed up to do instead of just bombing things.

 

[Wiggen]

Ooo, so as long as we're not using nukes, there's no collateral damage to worry about? Most excellent!

We actually didn't use nukes against Germany. You could look it up. But nice strawman.

 

[Wiggen]

I think we should rely on those covert special ops people. The drones will kill more innocent people. Those people who signed up for special ops understand that they are risking their lives. They understand the risk and accept it. We don't want to lose lives, but that is always a risk. These guys can go in there and do a better job of making sure the target is killed rather than innocent people who might happen to be in the vicinity.

Let those guys do what they signed up to do instead of just bombing things.

Yes, lets put the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk so that other people can feel better about the war on terror. I love people who are so anxious for others to submit themselves to danger so that their delicate sensibilities aren't threatened.

Joining Special Forces doesn't mean you are available for any suicide mission that comes along.

 

[Wiggen]

Just because you can find something else that is immoral doesn't change the immorality of the action. There is also little evidence that these strikes make us any more safe. Benghazi happened with the drone strikes taking place. Something more surgical might be more effective.

By all means, let's stop drone strikes because they aren't perfect. And while we're at it, let's get rid of police because in spite of all of them, crimes still happen! Nothing like making perfect the enemy of the good.

 

[Wiggen]

I think there's a difference. If you're going to invade a nation you haven't declared war on for the sole and express purpose of an extrajudicial execution, it seems to me like you should have some skin in the game. Using an unmanned robot doesn't qualify as skin.

As long as it's not your 'skin', right? Not that that would ever be a possibility.

 

[Gardener]

In order to answer the question in moral terms, I start asking questions. "How many innocent people will be killed?" "To what degree are the people killed actually innocent?" "How many innocent people will be killed if the action is NOT taken?"

The terrorists targeted by the drones are in the very business of killing innocent people as that is almost their raison d'etre. In addition, the people who surround them often share their same objective. Children are always innocent, of course, but I don't think it is entirely cut and dried as to the innocence of adults.

THe morality of drone strikes is very complex IMO, and doesn't lend itself to simple answers that ignore too many variables and fails to ask enough questions.

 

[grip]

Aren't assassinations by drones a form of terrorism?

 

[Boo Radley]

By all means, let's stop drone strikes because they aren't perfect. And while we're at it, let's get rid of police because in spite of all of them, crimes still happen! Nothing like making perfect the enemy of the good.

Not comparable. Rather a mindless comparison actually.

 

[Wiggen]

NO, what is mindless is the notion that we should stop all drone strikes becuase terrorists hide among civilians and are sheltered by supposedly 'friendly' governments. You want mindless - that's mindless.

 

[AreteCourage]

Yes, lets put the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk so that other people can feel better about the war on terror. I love people who are so anxious for others to submit themselves to danger so that their delicate sensibilities aren't threatened.

Joining Special Forces doesn't mean you are available for any suicide mission that comes along.

Special forces can get in there and handle themselves. It is what they do best. They have the ability to handle any threat and spare innocent people. Drones don't have that capability.