Thread: Eye in the Sky

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

Originally Posted by Tombie

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

Have you seen the movie?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by carlschmid2002

Have you seen the movie?

Yes. Enjoyed it.

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

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/...y-deserved-it/

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/...ation-program/

https://theintercept.com/2014/11/18/...ims-militants/

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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