[SeelaypeKet]

What morality are you speaking of where military leaders are obligated to expose their personnel to the same risk as their enemies? Sun Tzu you ain't, Colin. Heck, Manuel de Landa you ain't either. It seems you're naively alluding to some sort of schoolyard "fair fight" principle, which is a principle that doesn't even apply in the actual schoolyard, just highly regulated professional sports.

Generals are no longer morally obligated to personally lead charges sword drawn into the enemy breach (if they ever did in the first place). Your argument really is applicable to every single advance in military technology. Machine guns, poison gas, aerial bombardment, heck even armor and bows and arrows were designed to minimize the risk of one side and maximize the disadvantage of its enemy.* If that's the ground you're trying to claim, you should just simplify your case and claim war itself is immoral. We can appreciate your principle and move on with the fact that wars nevertheless take place and can be subject to more nuanced debates besides the kneejerk "this is immoral!".

*Drones are also cheaper and more logistically flexible than manned attack aircraft. The costs of war are a joint metric, that's why we refer to blood and treasure. Yes, some calculation is made about the impact on the other side, but war leaders are foremost responsible to its own side, usually at great expense to the other.

I agree that, as articulated, your point is silly.

Excellent.

[Flefebleaft]

I read some time ago that when the machine gun was introduced that it made killing impersonal. I think as least some of our drones are guided from Nevada. As long as they are not being used on us, I like them.

"Impersonal" warfare isn't a 20th century innovation with the machine gun (though I guess the earliest were used in the Civil War). The famous archers at the Battle of Agincourt, like all archers of the era, fired in arcing volleys. Real hard to figure out who hit who afterward. Even with rifled firearm barrels, firearms until very recently were also largely volley weapons. War outside of legends where David and Goliath fight a decisive duel to determine whose side wins, has never really been a mano a mano thing. You break up a massed or organized enemy and chase down any capable components until they are rendered ineffective and dominance is gained. It isn't fabulous, but that's how it's been since human beings have had reasons to be in conflict.

[Forex Autopilot]

What morality are you speaking of where military leaders are obligated to expose their personnel to the same risk as their enemies? Sun Tzu you ain't, Colin. Heck, Manuel de Landa you ain't either. It seems you're naively alluding to some sort of schoolyard "fair fight" principle, which is a principle that doesn't even apply in the actual schoolyard, just highly regulated professional sports.

Generals are no longer morally obligated to personally lead charges sword drawn into the enemy breach (if they ever did in the first place). Your argument really is applicable to every single advance in military technology. Machine guns, poison gas, aerial bombardment, heck even armor and bows and arrows were designed to minimize the risk of one side and maximize the disadvantage of its enemy.* If that's the ground you're trying to claim, you should just simplify your case and claim war itself is immoral. We can appreciate your principle and move on with the fact that wars nevertheless take place and can be subject to more nuanced debates besides the kneejerk "this is immoral!".

*Drones are also cheaper and more logistically flexible than manned attack aircraft. The costs of war are a joint metric, that's why we refer to blood and treasure. Yes, some calculation is made about the impact on the other side, but war leaders are foremost responsible to its own side, usually at great expense to the other.

I agree that, as articulated, your point is silly.

Both you and Mr. BS are looking at this too simply.

First, I am not against using the drones. So far I do not think the moral issue is a problem.

The issue I raise is NOT a fair fight issue, but a moral one of a combantant that can wage war without facing the same consequences as the enemy they are attacking. So long as the drones are used selectively I do not see the moral problem.

However, does the using the drones mean that Nevada faces a greater chance of being attacked? If so will the drones lead to victory or an extension of the war?

[SeelaypeKet]

Both you and Mr. BS are looking at this too simply.

First, I am not against using the drones. So far I do not think the moral issue is a problem.

The issue I raise is NOT a fair fight issue, but a moral one of a combantant that can wage war without facing the same consequences as the enemy they are attacking. So long as the drones are used selectively I do not see the moral problem.

However, does the using the drones mean that Nevada faces a greater chance of being attacked? If so will the drones lead to victory or an extension of the war?

Long before drones fired missiles at them, terrorists were happy to kill Americans where they can find them. So long as we aren't deliberately flying civilian aircraft into civilian targets in an effort to purposefully kill as many civilians as possible, I think we have the moral high ground.

What the hell is your point Colin? Whatever it is, it is a stupid one.

[DuePew]

Long before drones fired missiles at them, terrorists were happy to kill Americans where they can find them. So long as we aren't deliberately flying civilian aircraft into civilian targets in an effort to purposefully kill as many civilians as possible, I think we have the moral high ground.

Yes.
Most terrorists (and the ones we are currently in conflict with) practice an morally abhorrent form of warfare-the torture and killing of innocent civilians. It is a cowardly form of warfare. And we are victims of it as 3000 innocent US civilians were killed on 9-11.

We therefore are justified in using predator drones to attack Islamic militants associated with the group which attacked us on 9-11. This includes the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban and Al Qaeda.

It is a "just" war in every form.

[That is not to say that terrorism is never justified-the Jews used it against British occupying soldiers in Palestine-which led to the formation of their own state after the Holocaust. Not saying I agree, but using terrorism to attack those who could otherwise defend themselves-soldiers-is a little different isn't it?]

[Flefebleaft]

Both you and Mr. BS are looking at this too simply.

First, I am not against using the drones. So far I do not think the moral issue is a problem.

The issue I raise is NOT a fair fight issue, but a moral one of a combantant that can wage war without facing the same consequences as the enemy they are attacking. So long as the drones are used selectively I do not see the moral problem.

However, does the using the drones mean that Nevada faces a greater chance of being attacked? If so will the drones lead to victory or an extension of the war?

Colin, again, outside the mythical schoolyard rules, your logic is absurd. From what I can tell you're fine with drones being used to wage war. But your "morality" is somehow troubled that the drones are piloted out of command centers in Nevada. Again, basic smart war fighting philosophy going back to at least Sun Tzu obliges a strategist to maximize his ability to incapacitate the enemy and minimize risks and losses to his own forces. Anything else would be considered wreckless incompetence or outright stupidity.

When not pushed into relatively "traditional" forms of warfare (i.e. fighting a military force) the enemy in this particular conflict prefers to wage war through sensational attacks on symbolic targets, and if incapable of that attacks on relatively pedestrian targets to demoralize a civilian population or attempt to influence a government's policy. Would they attack Nevada because that's where the drone flew out of? To eliminate the drone threat? No. Because it's pretty easy to see that the "desktop" nature of drone flight would mean to truly make a dent in the United States' drone-based war fighting capacity, the enemy would basically have to take down the computer capability and the electromagnetic spectrum that allows a joystick enabled desktop computer to communicate to a satellite to issue instructions to a drone.

[Tnzxovoz]

I never heared Obama say he inherited such a hi-tec wepon from President Bush,
I wonder why????

How is this relevant to the discussion at hand? You should really invest in a Tv that gets more than one channel.

[Forex Autopilot]

... From what I can tell you're fine with drones being used to wage war. ...

"First, I am not against using the drones."
Predator Drones-Helpful or hurting?

The Art of War is a military text dealing with military matters. Sun Tzu was a general and addresses military issues primarily and I suspect moral issues for the most part were left to other members of the court. And I suspect that he would have listened to the moral questions as well. For example, I believe that in his text he does not advocate slaughter instead of offering surrender. This is a strategic issue but a moral one as well.

Regarding, Agincourt, the archers did their job but certainly were not comparable to a drone. First, they could have come under fire from French archers. If the French knights and cav. had not spent the night on their horses and attacked on dry ground those archers would have run and been picked off. The French attacked probably on the idea that they out numbered the English, and due to the arrogance of the belief that a knight was only the equal of another knight, and they would show these English peasants. The real slaughter was due to the English infantry that came in with their pikes and stuck them in the soft spots of the French amour like under the arms, groin, etc. Give credit to Henry V for reading the Art of War and choosing the ground to fight on.

As long as we are on Henry V, there are a few moral issues there. Such as in the aftermath Henry addresses a lopsided victory with temperence not out of a sense of benevolence but out of a sense of... morality?

I have not questioned anyone regarding moral sense regarding this thread but if I only cared about what others wrote their certainly is room for this. My main moral issue with the drones is that inasmuch as we believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutelely the operator or a drone or the commander of an operator is human and subject to corruption of moral character. Within a battle or attack such corruption is kept incheck with the personal risk.

Regarding the possible attack because of the use of drones. While an attack in this country would not lessen the possibility of using drones; however, this logic presupposes our enemy will act logically or strategically. Neither, need be true on the part of the Taliban or Al Queda. Also, they could act in a very simple sense and say that the combantants are in the US and strike here. While we faced attack here in any case, our enemy now has a justified reason for striking here because the combatants are here.

[DuePew]

"First, I am not against using the drones."
Predator Drones-Helpful or hurting?

The Art of War is a military text dealing with military matters. Sun Tzu was a general and addresses military issues primarily and I suspect moral issues for the most part were left to other members of the court. And I suspect that he would have listened to the moral questions as well. For example, I believe that in his text he does not advocate slaughter instead of offering surrender. This is a strategic issue but a moral one as well.

Regarding, Agincourt, the archers did their job but certainly were not comparable to a drone. First, they could have come under fire from French archers. If the French knights and cav. had not spent the night on their horses and attacked on dry ground those archers would have run and been picked off. The French attacked probably on the idea that they out numbered the English, and due to the arrogance of the belief that a knight was only the equal of another knight, and they would show these English peasants. The real slaughter was due to the English infantry that came in with their pikes and stuck them in the soft spots of the French amour like under the arms, groin, etc. Give credit to Henry V for reading the Art of War and choosing the ground to fight on.

As long as we are on Henry V, there are a few moral issues there. Such as in the aftermath Henry addresses a lopsided victory with temperence not out of a sense of benevolence but out of a sense of... morality?

I have not questioned anyone regarding moral sense regarding this thread but if I only cared about what others wrote their certainly is room for this. My main moral issue with the drones is that inasmuch as we believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutelely the operator or a drone or the commander of an operator is human and subject to corruption of moral character. Within a battle or attack such corruption is kept incheck with the personal risk.

Regarding the possible attack because of the use of drones. While an attack in this country would not lessen the possibility of using drones; however, this logic presupposes our enemy will act logically or strategically. Neither, need be true on the part of the Taliban or Al Queda. Also, they could act in a very simple sense and say that the combantants are in the US and strike here. While we faced attack here in any case, our enemy now has a justified reason for striking here because the combatants are here.

IMO, a moral analysis of predator drones in a vacuum would probably find them morally questionable-HOWEVER-their targets are individuals who generally only attack innocent and defenseless civilians-and then retreat into the civilian population and hide among them. This is an abjectly IMMORAL form of warfare-if you can even call it that. Therefore, the use of predator drones to attack and kill those who kill innocent civilians and attempt to hide among them is inherently justified.

[SeelaypeKet]

IMO, a moral analysis of predator drones in a vacuum would probably find them morally questionable-HOWEVER-their targets are individuals who generally only attack innocent and defenseless civilians-and then retreat into the civilian population and hide among them. This is an abjectly IMMORAL form of warfare-if you can even call it that. Therefore, the use of predator drones to attack and kill those who kill innocent civilians and attempt to hide among them is inherently justified.

Those drones do a a lot of patient circling waiting for the moment when they can take a shot without endangering civilians.

It's actually a righteous form of warfare.

[Honealals]

WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones - WSJ.com

[mv37afnr]

WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones - WSJ.com

I LOVE this story. It's hard not to root for the little guy, even if the little guy happens to be a vicious, homicidal anti-American terrorist. Of course, it did occur to me that if the U.S. has been aware of this for months, or even years, a savvy IT guy at the CIA could use this knowledge to feed FAKE drone feeds to confuse the bad guys. I would root for that scenario even more.

[qp0yfHOf]

I LOVE this story. It's hard not to root for the little guy, even if the little guy happens to be a vicious, homicidal anti-American terrorist. Of course, it did occur to me that if the U.S. has been aware of this for months, or even years, a savvy IT guy at the CIA could use this knowledge to feed FAKE drone feeds to confuse the bad guys. I would root for that scenario even more.

Wow they used some off the wall gear to watch the video feed......how hard is that?

Its akin to listening to cellular calls or home phones on a scanner back in the day....

[mv37afnr]

Wow they used some off the wall gear to watch the video feed......how hard is that?

Its akin to listening to cellular calls or home phones on a scanner back in the day....

That's why it is such a great story, even if it works against the interests of the United States, which would normally be a deal killer for me. It's like finding out there is a way to disable a 70 ton tank with a slingshot.

[qp0yfHOf]

That's why it is such a great story, even if it works against the interests of the United States, which would normally be a deal killer for me. It's like finding out there is a way to disable a 70 ton tank with a slingshot.

SO every-time they use a cellphone to detonate an IED you get all giddy?

[mv37afnr]

SO every-time they use a cellphone to detonate an IED you get all giddy?

No, that's just cowardly. I hope anyone who does that get's a headfull of Marine Corps lead.

[Flefebleaft]

No, that's just cowardly. I hope anyone who does that get's a headfull of Marine Corps lead.

So, going back to Colin's argument, you do realize you're talking about remote controlled weapons on both sides. Apparently remote controlled weapons are not cowardly or at least more morally justified, as long as they're on the "right" side. So by extension, a tactic can rely on what cause it serves for justification. That avenue pretty much leads to "just warfare" being a matter of subjective point of view.

Don't get me wrong, I don't at all agree with Colin's view that drone usage leads to a moral dilemma, as his position, if I read it right means the only "morally right" action in the world is impotency (since power is universally corrupts, yadda yadda). That said, it's important to recognize when you're calling out cowards for using tactics that are very much in your own "side's" arsenal.

Regarding the scanner, I suppose the allegedly Iranian backed Iraqi insurgents feel they've really made an intelligence coup against the might American war machine until one of the guys huddled around the monitor says, "Hey, we can see our [house, cave, tent] on this! Oh, wait."

[usacomm]

So, going back to Colin's argument, you do realize you're talking about remote controlled weapons on both sides. Apparently remote controlled weapons are not cowardly or at least more morally justified, as long as they're on the "right" side. So by extension, a tactic can rely on what cause it serves for justification. That avenue pretty much leads to "just warfare" being a matter of subjective point of view.

I guess the argument is, as long as we're the ones using them, the ends do justify the means...we're not violating civilized norms, so it's all okay...

I agree though. I find nothing immoral with their use.

[SeelaypeKet]

I guess the argument is, as long as we're the ones using them, the ends do justify the means...we're not violating civilized norms, so it's all okay...

I agree though. I find nothing immoral with their use.

The argument is that we're using them selectively to target enemy combatants; they're using them indiscriminately to target civilians.

Why add unnecessary complexity?

Jesus ****ing Christ. This threat is stupid.

[mv37afnr]

So, going back to Colin's argument, you do realize you're talking about remote controlled weapons on both sides. Apparently remote controlled weapons are not cowardly or at least more morally justified, as long as they're on the "right" side. So by extension, a tactic can rely on what cause it serves for justification. That avenue pretty much leads to "just warfare" being a matter of subjective point of view.

Don't get me wrong, I don't at all agree with Colin's view that drone usage leads to a moral dilemma, as his position, if I read it right means the only "morally right" action in the world is impotency (since power is universally corrupts, yadda yadda). That said, it's important to recognize when you're calling out cowards for using tactics that are very much in your own "side's" arsenal.

Regarding the scanner, I suppose the allegedly Iranian backed Iraqi insurgents feel they've really made an intelligence coup against the might American war machine until one of the guys huddled around the monitor says, "Hey, we can see our [house, cave, tent] on this! Oh, wait."

Well, it is nice to be the king.

Of course, that philosophy does have its limits.