All about South Korea > Korea Newsroom

Future tech debate: The morality of unmanned weaponry

(1/9) > >>

Chadwickhhs:
I'd have to assume that most of us recognize at this point that the existence of unmanned aerial vehicles used in combat are not future science. The United States has been utilizing the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator armed with surveillance systems, stealth and hellfire missiles since 1995 but has only become massively recognized in recent years. The predator drones are the most famous of the unmanned vehicles but by no means the only ones.

Even with planned defense cuts the drone spending is only planned to increase. Questions about the effectiveness of precision strike drones have come into light by some critics. Why the technology of the drones is indeed precise, the liberal use of force has been illustrated by an inverse relationship between drone precision and civilian casualties. Oddly, the more precise the bot is, the more civilians it kills.

Now, this has led to enemies of the United States claiming that the use of drones is American cowardice (Keeping in mind that these same enemies utilize unmanned IEDs and hide in civilian clothing). But the proximity of assault does seem to lead to gracious use of force. I'm not claiming that the pilots of these drones out in Nevada are in any way shameless or hostile but the psychology of "safe-combat" leads to a different application of such.

What is even more daunting to critics of drone-tech is the advent of swarm technology. Rather than trying to operate multiple drone by one mind or human operator DARPA and various weapons manufacturers have been developing swarm technology for their drones (with alarming successes). Obviously named for the insect like communication between drones, swarm tech has each drone operating as a hive-mind that shares it's information freely with its class. They can be let loose into a crowded room and buzz about without collision and cooperating to accomplish simple tasks. Experts expect these to be used both abroad and at home. The U.S. Congress has even paved the way for combat and noncombat drones to be used domestically and have employed them in foreign countries like Pakistan without regard for national sovereignty.

Now despite how most of this reads, I for the most part support drone use with a sense of caution. There is a fair argument that the use of drones causes less deaths on both sides but certainly doesn't cause less deaths on the whole. Rumors of drone hacking do exist and would be intimidating to say the least. But the existence of force isn't something the west plans on dropping and when the military is going to spend, one way or another, on developing "peace through superior fire power" it helps not to constrain itself.

I'm more interested in the discussion than judging peoples' opinions.

flasyb:

--- Quote from: Chadwickhhs on April 12, 2012, 12:12:55 PM ---There is a fair argument that the use of drones causes less deaths on both sides but certainly doesn't cause less deaths on the whole.

--- End quote ---

I'm not sure how you can cause "less deaths on both sides" and then not "cause less deaths on the whole." By killing fewer people, you kill more? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I can't get my head around it.

I'm against remote controlled military drones entirely. I understand the imperative of the military to protect its own soldiers - a moral obligation perhaps - but the fallout is that killing becomes so remote that it's almost like a computer game. Plus, it's easy to arrest a soldier if he shoots up a wedding by mistake but when a predator drone pilot does it from Nevada, what charges are brought against him? You can't exactly put the drone on trial. I think there is a worrying lack of accountability when someone messes up and civilians die. I don't know but has a drone pilot ever been court-marshalled for such an error?

Jrong:
I think you hit something. There's this "worrying lack of accountability" as you said. We always love to blame everything on somebody, don't we? Remnant of Roman philosophy that birthed Western civs.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with a country having drones as long as I felt it had the people of the world's best interests at heart instead of only "wealthy" interests.

woman-king:

--- Quote from: Chadwickhhs on April 12, 2012, 12:12:55 PM ---Now despite how most of this reads, I for the most part support drone use with a sense of caution. There is a fair argument that the use of drones causes less deaths on both sides but certainly doesn't cause less deaths on the whole.
--- End quote ---

Huh?  This seems contradictory, not trying to be nitpicky but it either causes less death or it doesn't.
I am not a technology expert and I was rather confused by the explanation of swarm technology (due more to my own lack of overall understanding than your explanation).  But from a layperson's perspective, I think that:
1) Regardless of anyone's feelings on the war on terror, the US and the UK are pretty much locked into it for the long haul.  They're going to be collecting intelligence and going after terror cells one way or another.  So will the law enforcement and military of many, many countries around the world on a local level (recent stories out of Thailand and Bali come to mind as just one of many examples).
2) So with that in mind, I'd MUCH rather see the government develop technology and methods of fighting these people in a way that minimizes civilian death and the use of large-scale American military power.  Basically, taking out individuals via drones seems much better than overthrowing governments with the army, for pretty obvious reasons.  There's still dangers and drawbacks to drones and legal and ethical questions surrounding their use, especially by the Obama administration, but it still seems like a better method than going all "Operation Iraqi Freedom" on every single country with a few wannabe Al-Qaeda groups operating in it.

sejongthefabulous:
I fully support drones, they have intelligent operators and or AI. Pilots are expensive to train, keep them safe. Giving a drugged up or brainwashed 12 year old a gun, which is the enemy of the 21st century isn't expensive. Same controversy came out with the emergence of rockets and guided missiles.....probably same discussion came out with the advent of the arrow (or at least the arrow volley). It's much safer than carpet bombing and firing off random projectiles.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page