What's all the fuss about?

[observer]

Seems the UK are using drone aircraft in Afghanistan, which appears to have sparked a protest from luvvies outside RAF Waddington(?). IF they're finally taking out the insurgents with these un-manned aircraft, surely we'll see less of our troops getting killed or returning maimed?

[Lt Kije]

How many on the protest, 2 or 3 hundred??????

[Bill]

I think the protesters are going to be in a very small minority on this one.

 

 

Bill

[inky pete]

The protesters also seem to be remarkably ill-informed.

 

They're claiming that these drones will mean that the armed forces will be able to participate in foreign wars without informing parliament that they are deploying troops overseas etc.

 

They're ignoring the fact that the drones themselves, their ground crews, weapons, security troops and all the rest of it have to be based in, or close to, the country where they're operating. It's only the pilots who are in the UK.

[wolfie]

[Bill]

I think the table's more an indicator of the global public perception of the USA than anything else so in that sense it's totally meaningless.

You'd probably get exactly the same result if you asked their views on a McDonald's quarter pounder with cheese.

 

Bill

[observer]

Wasn't aware that military tactics are now subject to opinion polls?  Unmanned craft are the future - better get used to it.

[Lt Kije]

They can do alot Obs, but not as much as you seem to think

[wolfie]

No doubting that drones are here to stay, as the main benefit is, they don't put American troops in harms way. 95% of targeted killings since 9/11 have been conducted by drones. Just another reason to make US politicians even more trigger happy.

[algy]

No doubting that drones are here to stay, as the main benefit is, they don't put American troops in harms way. 95% of targeted killings since 9/11 have been conducted by drones. Just another reason to make US politicians even more trigger happy.

Or British!.

[Bill]

That may be so Wolfie, but the topic under discussion here is the UK’s use of drone aircraft and I can’t for the life of me think how our use of them will make the Americans more trigger happy. 

 

Whether it’s a drone or a robotic bomb disposal device, using technology to protect our own service people will always get public support and how others see it is another mater altogether.

 

Bill

 

[wolfie]

I emphasise the point about US politicians being more trigger happy because upto now British drones are not being used for targeted assassinations, but that is only a matter of time. One of the main reasons why America and Britain eventually pull out of war zones is when their respective troops are being flown home in body bags. Deployment of drones ' to protect our own service people' as you put it, is a bonus, the real reason is to keep the general public onside with the 'trigger happy' rulers.

 

Thank you algy for adding the 'British' bit.

[Davy51]

Thin end of the wedge this....it won't be long before we're all jetting off on hols  in pilotless aircraft.

 

As for military use drones are a great idea especially where the pursuit of a target could possibly be influenced by the reluctance to send a manned flight into a dangerous situation.

[Lt Kije]

I agree Wolfie,

 

Does that mean Obs was taken in "again"

[fugtifino]

I'd guess that one of the main reasons these dastardly luvvies are protesting is that drone aircraft aren't very good at distinguishing between civilians and legitimate targets.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html

[Bill]

Deployment of drones ' to protect our own service people' as you put it, is a bonus, the real reason is to keep the general public onside with the 'trigger happy' rulers.

 

So if you don't agree with the reason for doing this, what's your alternative? 

 

Bill

[algy]

I emphasise the point about US politicians being more trigger happy because upto now British drones are not being used for targeted assassinations, but that is only a matter of time. One of the main reasons why America and Britain eventually pull out of war zones is when their respective troops are being flown home in body bags. Deployment of drones ' to protect our own service people' as you put it, is a bonus, the real reason is to keep the general public onside with the 'trigger happy' rulers.

 

Thank you algy for adding the 'British' bit.

Wolfie, we only have the word of the ministry of Defence and the present government that we have not used these drones to target specific terrorists and personally I would not believe either. My own view is that pilot error has cost innocent lives, always has done and always will do, whether the pilot is in the cockpit or piloting a drone remotely, human judgement is fallible. The concept and age of pilotless aircraft has arrived and as you so quite rightly say they are here to stay, the enemy whoever they may be, will eventually obtain the technology and use it against us at the earliest opportunity, I say carry on with remote drone operation and keep at least one step in front of our enemies.

[wolfie]

So if you don't agree with the reason for doing this, what's your alternative? 

 

Bill

Ah the age old war mongering justification of there's no alternative. If we don't do it they will.

Of course you can't stop new technology, how you use that technology is in question.

 

" In what types of conflicts are targeted killings justified? Does the deadly pursuit of all suspected terrorists, or only certain kinds, qualify for protection under international law? When is the argument of "anticipatory self-defense" recognized as a legitimate justification for a targeted killing?

 

 Do the attacks take enough care to prevent the collateral loss of life of civilians?

 

 Are the attacks proportional to the threat?

 

 Is there enough transparency and accountability surrounding the decision-making behind targeted killings? This is especially important for drone attacks, in which intelligence is gathered and analyzed thousands of miles away by civilians working for a high-secrecy intelligence agency, rather than by military personnel in the theater of operation who are subject to well-established rules of engagement."

 

[observer]

The ability of modern Western Societies to endure losses of military personel as in the trenches of WW1 or of civilian personel as in the mass bombings of WW2, was exhausted by the time the Yanks lost the Viet-Nam war in the living rooms of America. Whilst I oppose war in principle and certainly the deployment of our young lads and lassies to far flung hell holes to be killed and maimed; the use of conventional forces against terrorists and insurgents is imo a blunt weapon, and the pursuit of what are criminal cadres, requires an intelligence led international policing approach, with the surgical disposal of their command structures, and the use of technology for remote controlled weaponry or special forces for that purpose, seems a rather common sense approach imo. Yes, there's no such thing as clean and sanitized kills, when your dealing with explosive ordinance; this we know from the effect of terrorists bombs on our streets; and if drone attacks cause collateral damage, so be it, better them than lives being lost by our own nationals. Terrorism is the new game in Town, and is a activity perpetrated by criminals, so imo, all this nonsense about the Geneva Convention and rules of engagement, put about by flower power luvvies, is the kind of uninformed opinion that ties the hands of our service personel and makes us vunerable to these nutters.

[wolfie]

Many interpretations of 'Rules of engagement'

 

my favourite:-

 

"  The US forces are a bunch of cowboys who respond with overwhelming lethal fire to every actual or arguable threat.."

[algy]

Ah the age old war mongering justification of there's no alternative. If we don't do it they will.

Of course you can't stop new technology, how you use that technology is in question.

 

" In what types of conflicts are targeted killings justified? Does the deadly pursuit of all suspected terrorists, or only certain kinds, qualify for protection under international law? When is the argument of "anticipatory self-defense" recognized as a legitimate justification for a targeted killing?

 

 Do the attacks take enough care to prevent the collateral loss of life of civilians?

 

 Are the attacks proportional to the threat?

 

 Is there enough transparency and accountability surrounding the decision-making behind targeted killings? This is especially important for drone attacks, in which intelligence is gathered and analyzed thousands of miles away by civilians working for a high-secrecy intelligence agency, rather than by military personnel in the theater of operation who are subject to well-established rules of engagement."

 

Where any of the above considered when 911 and the London bus bombings also the latest Boston marathon murders were executed, what rules of engagement were consisered by the terrorists then Wolfie.

[wolfie]

Our strongest quality is that we strive to defeat terrorism not lower our standards as to be no better than terrorists.  .

[algy]

Our strongest quality is that we strive to defeat terrorism not lower our standards as to be no better than terrorists.  .

What a load of twaddle, what do you think we are doing, playing cricket!!!.

[Lt Kije]

I agree with Wolfie, We have to be better than them, are you advocating we go down to their level. Perhaps bomb them, before we bomb us.

[Robbo]

What a load of twaddle, what do you think we are doing, playing cricket!!!.

I think that was a load of twaddle. Fancy being a suicide bomber alg.