Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
1–10 of 100 posts
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#2What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision an eternal low intensity war with objectives being remotely destroyed by both opponents. It muddles further the blurry line, if any has ever existed, between regular and irregular warfare.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#3Endless war is exactly what military contractors want.
On an interesting digression, "War Without End" is a two-part Babylon 5 episode that won a Hugo award.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#4What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…
[deleted]
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#5What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different.
If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism.
Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.
A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#6The other is that it will cause large segments of society to not trust the beneficial uses of this type of technology. When everything flying over head is a threat what can you say of your quality of life?
Similar to how the co-opting of vaccinations in very much the same countries has lead to killing of doctors who only come to help.
We are teaching a whole new generation to fear technology and it may take another to fix that.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#7What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.
I'm really not trying to troll here, but what then of military attacks on civilian targets?
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.
I'm really not trying to troll here, but what then of military attacks on civilian targets?
war crime?
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#9What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.
I agree, but "we" (western media, etc.) tended to call attacks on the occupation forces terrorism, too. The pretense was the war was "over", so the occupation forces were there for law and order, not war, so attacks on them were criminal/terrorist/etc. vs. "legitimate warfare".
Pressure/etc. detonated IEDs are sort of a grey area, honestly, as are military landmines, cluster munitions where you know a large fraction will become UXO, especially in civilian areas, and inaccurate area attacks like WW2 airstrikes.
Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End
#10What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different. If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it wouldn't be an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't civilian.
Maybe you're right, but terrorism has really no clear cut definition. I am pretty sure I have never heard a suicide bomber detonating in a military base being described otherwise than "terrorist".