Eye in the Sky

[carlschmid2002]

If you haven't seen it I highly recommend "Eye in the Sky" with Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman (One of his last if not the last movies).

It raises some very good questions over modern warfare and where the battle lines begin and end. It poses some moral dilemmas about killing innocents for the better good. Another interesting predicament is the drone pilot who after killing people by day is at home with the wife and kids in the evening.

[Tombie]

Killing innocents for the "better good"...
Hmm; WW1 & WW2 did a lot of that.

[carlschmid2002]

Killing innocents for the "better good"...
Hmm; WW1 & WW2 did a lot of that.

Have you seen the movie?

[Hay Ewe]

I dont have any sources that I can reference for this reply, but I have read and had conversations about Drone Pilots, from a Human Factors Psychological aspect.

There are problems where they are remote and exactly that, clock off at the end of the shift and go home. The sudden transition from flying war equiped aircraft or surveillance aircraft over / in a combat zone, and then back home after 'another day at the office' is causing problems.

It is generally thought that those that go to the theater of operations, whilst not directly on the front line, fare better because they are deployed, away from home and on a 'war footing'.

There is also the aspect that they are launching / firing missiles at targets but not actually in the aircraft, there is a distance, where as the pilot on the aircraft at 30'000 feet, or however many feet, generally can see the ground the repurcusions with their own Mark 1 eyeballs.

[carlschmid2002]

I have heard the same things. Interesting times when the last white paper has basically approved Australia to get armed drones. It's not something I would like to do. If I was to fire on someone I would deal with it better within myself that I was actually in danger myself.

[Tombie]

Have you seen the movie?



Yes. Enjoyed it.

And yes, I could do the task.... I'm a heartless bastard.

[akula]

Haven't seen the movie, but I don't think the normalisation of drones is a good move. Drone warfare seems very similar to terrorism supposedly been fought against.

From the 3rd article:
"Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties” of his drone strikes which “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants…unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”


Coll’s article also discusses an oft-ignored aspect of drone warfare: its psychologically terrorizing effects on the targeted population. A joint 2012 report from the law schools of Stanford University and NYU, “Living Under Drones,” documented that “U.S. drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury”—specifically, they “hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.” Coll’s article similarly notes:

Being attacked by a drone is not the same as being bombed by a jet. With drones, there is typically a much longer prelude to violence. Above North Waziristan, drones circled for hours, or even days, before striking. People below looked up to watch the machines, hovering at about twenty thousand feet, capable of unleashing fire at any moment, like dragon’s breath. “Drones may kill relatively few, but they terrify many more,” Malik Jalal, a tribal leader in North Waziristan, told me. “They turned the people into psychiatric patients.”

Here's some articles:

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/08/nobody-knows-the-identity-of-the-150-people-killed-by-u-s-in-somalia-but-most-are-certain-they-deserved-it/

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/former-drone-operators-say-they-were-horrified-by-cruelty-of-assassination-program/

https://theintercept.com/2014/11/18/media-outlets-continue-describe-unknown-drone-victims-militants/

[Hay Ewe]

Interesting

If the drones were circling for hours and days, then, with out a shot being fired, it could have led the population below to reconsider their actions and motives and possibly surrender or other wise in a peaceful way.

Could be considered a stand-off weapon?

[Tombie]

Interesting

If the drones were circling for hours and days, then, with out a shot being fired, it could have led the population below to reconsider their actions and motives and possibly surrender or other wise in a peaceful way.

Could be considered a stand-off weapon?



I'd say Very much like the 20,000+ Nukes that existed...

[akula]

Interesting

If the drones were circling for hours and days, then, with out a shot being fired, it could have led the population below to reconsider their actions and motives and possibly surrender or other wise in a peaceful way.

Could be considered a stand-off weapon?

Shots are fired though, all too routinely.

More often than not the victims are civilians who have done nothing wrong besides living in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Tombie]

Shots are fired though, all too routinely.



More often than not the victims are civilians who have done nothing wrong besides living in the wrong place at the wrong time.



So let's return to the old methods hey?

[ozscott]

There are arguments either way but to add to Tombie's rhetorical question the old ways caused much more civilian death. For example the way carpet bombing was utilised in Vietnam and massive ordinance was used from the air via the waves of bombers in WW2 - lots of non stop low accuracy high explosive. Visit Dresden for example and you can still see signs of it. London, Manchester (where my father, aunt, and grandparents were terrorised often night after night... Even with false starts with air raid sirens going off most nights even if the bombers chose a different city) Dresden, Berlin. Many more casualties under the old methods and just as much terror (or more when residents see friends and neighbours often killed every night, Anti_aircraft guns parked at the end of every Street, watching your city being slowly levelled). Some people think terror is either a recent phenomenon or only comes with tech. It is not.

Cheers

[DiscoMick]

They are one of the reasons the Taliban can survive in northerrn Pakistan because drone attacks, often on community gatherings such as weddings and funerals, have turned the population against the West, including us, and against the government of Pakistan, and radicalised young men who want to fight to defend their people, so they join the Taliban who are now retaking parts of Afghanistan including Tarin Kowt, the region where Aussie forces were based.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/11/world-destroy-afghanistan-help-afghans-rebuild-9-september-anniversary

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

[akula]

So let's return to the old methods hey?


I agree with you that compared to an invasion much, much less loss of life using drones. This doesnt mean drones are a good idea/useful.

[Tombie]

Analogy... not on collateral casualties but on benefits of their use for enforcing...

A Shop is losing a significant amount due to a lot of shop lifting offences.

They fit roof mounted cameras - eye in the sky so to speak..
Shop lifting offences reduce.

But some 'harder' people continue to steal products from the shop.
So... (stay with me here) - they arm the cameras with high accuracy taser and put a protocol in place that confirms an offence before reaction.
Then, if someone is confirmed to be committing an offence they are shot with a taser, hit the floor and are immediately arrested.

I'd suggest that would reduce the offences....

[carjunkieanon]

Enjoyed Eye in the Sky. Worth watching for Rickman's last lines alone.

Would a real military officer in Helen H's role display as much emotion? (Think also of M's constant interruption during the first chase scene in Bond's Skyfall).

Nicholas Monsarrat, a Frigate Captain during WW2, wrote that as Captain his commands even in the most intense circumstances need to be clear and calm. If panic/stress/urgency/emtion in his voice caused a rating to hurry and thereby make a mistake the fault would be the Captain's not the rating.


On drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

[Sitec]

It was one of the movies I watched on the plane over here... Fairly full on!! If they really do have that technology where they can fly a thing that looks like a blow fly into a house for a look around, then its a scary world we live in!!! The other I watched was 'Extremely loud and incredibly close' with Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock.. That put a lump in my throat!!

[cuppabillytea]

Analogy... not on collateral casualties but on benefits of their use for enforcing...

A Shop is losing a significant amount due to a lot of shop lifting offences.

They fit roof mounted cameras - eye in the sky so to speak..
Shop lifting offences reduce.

But some 'harder' people continue to steal products from the shop.
So... (stay with me here) - they arm the cameras with high accuracy taser and put a protocol in place that confirms an offence before reaction.
Then, if someone is confirmed to be committing an offence they are shot with a taser, hit the floor and are immediately arrested.

I'd suggest that would reduce the offences....

I would certainly never go near such a store.

[Tombie]

I would certainly never go near such a store.



Why? I know you're an honest sort. So why would you give it a miss?

What if it was selling fantastic LR parts at silly discounts [emoji12]

[cuppabillytea]

Why? I know you're an honest sort. So why would you give it a miss?

What if it was selling fantastic LR parts at silly discounts [emoji12]

For fear of being the victim of an honest mistake, or an over zealous security person, or one that thought it might be fun to light up my freckle? :angel:

[ozscott]

Don't let them near your ginger unless they are well qualified mate.

Cheers

[vnx205]

I agree with you that compared to an invasion much, much less loss of life using drones. This doesnt mean drones are a good idea/useful.

I realise that drones work differently from machine guns, but I m still reminded of the fact that Dr Richard Gatling believed that his invention would save lives.

It didn't quite turn out that way..

BBC iWonder - Did the machine-gun save lives in WW1? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zwyyyrd)

When, in 1861, Dr Richard Gatling patented the Gatling gun ? one of the first reliable hand-cranked machine-guns ? his humanitarian vision was based on a desire to end wars. He believed that his invention would instantly convey to the military a reason not to go to war in the first place, or at least reduce the number of men who would be placed in harm's way.

[Tombie]

For fear of being the victim of an honest mistake, or an over zealous security person, or one that thought it might be fun to light up my freckle? :angel:



Every LEO has the ability to do that. [emoji13]

[DiscoMick]

I realise that drones work differently from machine guns, but I m still reminded of the fact that Dr Richard Gatling believed that his invention would save lives.

It didn't quite turn out that way..

BBC iWonder - Did the machine-gun save lives in WW1? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zwyyyrd)

When, in 1861, Dr Richard Gatling patented the Gatling gun ? one of the first reliable hand-cranked machine-guns ? his humanitarian vision was based on a desire to end wars. He believed that his invention would instantly convey to the military a reason not to go to war in the first place, or at least reduce the number of men who would be placed in harm's way.

I remember when people argued that nuclear bombs such as dropped on Japan saved lives but it didn't work out that way.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

[Tombie]

I remember when people argued that nuclear bombs such as dropped on Japan saved lives but it didn't work out that way.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app



How so?

[DiscoMick]

Having the bombs didn't deter people from starting wars, it just encouraged different ways of fighting.

[cuppabillytea]

Let's not forget Alfred Nobel. His genius enabled the carnage of WW1, supposedly the War to end all Wars. Just twenty years later we had WW2. So much for saving lives with Weapons of Mass Destruction.
It could be argued that so far Nuclear Weapons have saved lives because even our greatest Psychopathic lunatics have been afraid to use them. Probably because the fear that they would not survive if they did, or worse still, they would be left alone in a world with no one to intimidate, torture, Maim or Kill.
Nuclear Weapons so far have meant that war between Great Powers can't happen because of the inevitable consequences. That means great saving of life. They have bought us time until the next truly great lunatic comes along who can inspire or cajole enough people to follow him to Doomsday.




Oh wait!!!!:o I think I'm getting Combe Over Phobia.:eek:

[vnx205]

The article in my link mentions the potential deterrent effect of the Gatling gun.

Another book I read on the development of machine guns said that Gatling's theory about how his gun would save lives also included the fact that back then, many more soldiers died of disease than from bullets.

He argued that with a machine gun, a much smaller number of men would be needed to win the battle. With fewer men in the field, fewer would die from disease.

[DiscoMick]

The death toll from gun posts on the Western Front in Europe in WWI was just huge, so I don't think Gatling did much to save anybody there. The generals just demanded repeated suicidal charges against the gun posts.
I'm reading a biography of Sir John Monash at the moment and one of the reasons he was so respected was he actually tried to devise ways to avoid suicidal attacks on gun posts, which saved a lot of lives.
Currently, the gun buying frenzy in the USA proves that more people having bigger guns just makes society increasingly dangerous, I think.
As for nuclear weapons deterring attacks, does anyone really think the North Korean madman is too cautious to attack the South, Japan or even the USA just because of the inevitable retaliation? The fear is he's so crazy suicidal he'd do it anyway. He would attack the South just to provoke a retaliation so he could claim he was right all along that the North was under threat, when actually it was his own actions which caused the threat. He would regard himself as a hero for dying for his cause.

[carjunkieanon]

This is worth watching about deaths since WW2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBTRSFgS9_w

[akula]

I realise that drones work differently from machine guns, but I m still reminded of the fact that Dr Richard Gatling believed that his invention would save lives.

It didn't quite turn out that way..

BBC iWonder - Did the machine-gun save lives in WW1? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zwyyyrd)

When, in 1861, Dr Richard Gatling patented the Gatling gun ? one of the first reliable hand-cranked machine-guns ? his humanitarian vision was based on a desire to end wars. He believed that his invention would instantly convey to the military a reason not to go to war in the first place, or at least reduce the number of men who would be placed in harm's way.

This is a good point about recurring, often misguided or naive theme of 'saving lives' through improvements in violence and killing technology.