21–30 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that they are latency sensitive operations. I can't think of roles they fulfill that even a 1 second latency would affect.
Missiles? What if in that 1-second latency a car full of innocent people appear and they get killed?
> He was told that they were carrying rifles on their shoulders, but for all he knew, they were shepherd’s staffs. Still, the directive from somewhere above, a mysterious chain of command that led straight to his headset, was clear: confirmed weapons. Can someone elaborate on how these decisions are made?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire for a typical decision making process.
The significant change here isn't that the distance is three orders of magnitude greater, or the required number of projectiles two orders of magnitude fewer. The sensor operator sees what he is doing and the effect. He is not in danger, he is not in a kill or be killed situation, but is called on to kill and observe the results. It is different psychological territory from where most combat soldiers operate.
Which is the latency of Nevada-Afghanistan? I'd always thought that this drones were operated from a relative short distance.
Killing distant people in a foreign country is most people's definition of a terrorist attack. A declared war is one thing but this type of terror weapon is likely to backfire some day, if it hasn't already.
I think most people's definition would be more like the mass murder of non-combatants for religious or political reasons
Thanks for the good definition.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/amnesty-us-offi...
Killing distant people in a foreign country is most people's definition of a terrorist attack. A declared war is one thing but this type of terror weapon is likely to backfire some day, if it hasn't already.
What? No it's not. Terrorism is about using violent, random attacks that cause fear to effect some sort of change. It has nothing to do with distance.
The reactions in this thread demonstrate the classic uneasiness with killing a few people while being okay with killing lots of people. The people complaining about drones likely had nothing to say about Clinton lobbing cruise missiles into downtown Belgrade.
Killing distant people in a foreign country is most people's definition of a terrorist attack. A declared war is one thing but this type of terror weapon is likely to backfire some day, if it hasn't already.
Here's a comparison (an IAMA thread from reddit).
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sens...
Q: Have you ever had to strike a target that you were not comfortable with?
sensor_operator: No, I trust our JTACs 1000000% they really know their stuff.
While this was the top voted comment, I found it very dark. To me, what the operator was implicitly saying was that he'd target whoever his superiors told him too.
I don't get outraged. More than being outraged I think this shows a fundamental truth about humans which is that they'll kill without losing too much sleep. I'd put myself in the 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' camp.
I couldn't finish this article. It just makes me too angry. Warrior? How dare anyone involved in this dignify themselves with such an honour-laden term. They're just murderers, and the fact they hide behind so many layers of technology just makes it all the more cowardly and despicable.