Slashdot Mirror
The US Now Faces the Same Dilemma Over Drones As It Did Over Nuclear Weapons
Lasrick writes "Hugh Gusterson examines the crossroads at which the U.S. finds itself on the use of drones, and the long-term consequences of choices made now, by looking at the history of choices the U.S. made in the 1940s regarding nuclear weapons. Thoughtful read. Quoting: 'Having seen what drones are capable of, political leaders can choose to place clear limits, domestically and internationally, on how they can be used. Or, telling the American people that drones will make them safer or that "you can’t stop technology," they can allow free rein to those military inventors, national security bureaucrats and industry entrepreneurs eager to develop drone technology as aggressively as possible. Such people are impatient to press ahead with new unmanned aerial vehicles, including smart drones and mini-drones, to sell both to the US military for use overseas and to law-enforcement bodies within the United States. If drone development continues unchecked, what can we expect? First, as with nuclear weapons, proliferation. At the moment the United States, Britain, and Israel are the only countries to have used weaponized drones. But many countries, including Russia and China, have been watching carefully as Washington has experimented with counterinsurgency by drone, and are considering how they might use this relatively cheap technology for their own purposes. If they decide to use their own drones outside the boundaries of international law against people they brand “terrorists,” the United States will hardly be in a position to condemn them or counsel restraint.'"
Nuclear weapons take a lot of processing, be it getting the raw materials (only available from a few spots), refining it (very tough), refining it further to be able to be used (even more tough), and getting it working.
You can buy a "drone" for $100 from woot.com, and unlike nukes where no matter how better technology gets, the stuff needed stays rare, AIs will always improve, and the hardware needed is very common.
They're no different than any other airplanes. If other countries decide to use them outside their borders, and threaten U.S. interests, the U.S. can "counsel restraint" in it's usual manner: with bombs.
Like the United States gives a crap. The US will protest if any other country does it, as we are spoiled children who think we can do as we please.
Ok well. Comparing a drone to a nuclear bomb, because drones are in the news, is like comparing a car accident to a train wreck. Land mines are probably the most controversial small-kill technology. The main difference is that drones are an incredibly expensive and complex way to kill a dozen people, as compared to, say, goons with machetes.
Gently reply
Drones are similar to nuclear bombs in the same way spring showers are similar to class 5 hurricanes.
One thing they miss it that proliferation has already happened. While most countries have not used drones, many, if not most, advanced militarizes have them or are developing them.
I've had enough of the 'ZOMG drones!!!11!!' from all corners...it's facile and ignorant...
Drones are just a different delivery system for the same armament...usually a hellfire missile. Nothing a 'drone' does can't be done by a piloted craft...or a cruise missile...or a piloted craft converted to a drone
Nuclear weapons **could be launched from a drone**
See how this is comparing apples and baseballs?
Let's all agree to stop the madness! 'drones' are remote-piloted versions of the human piloted vehicles....it's the **armaments** and **who we are shooting at and why** that matter...not the delivery system of the armament!!!
Thank you Dave Raggett
flying bombs are called cruise missiles, they've been around for ages and they aren't cheap. naval targets tend to be pretty well defended against these sort of things.
I'm not surprise the UN is interested when the president of the United States goes around bragging about how many people he's droned -- including his own people, without trial.
Nuclear weapons had a stabilizing and centralizing tendency for governments, due to the great expense involved and the infrastructure needed to create them. As drone are developed and become more effective, governments like that in the U.S. may find their monopoly on force undermined.
I would have careful restrictions placed on drone use, equal or exceeding those already on other technologies (aircraft, etc.). A great risk remains that they'll be used to expand government power. But occasionally I wonder whether the drone might not represent revolutionary potential like the flintlock musket once did.
The US Government will never place restrictions on its use of drones against the American People. Never.
There are some ethical concerns once proliferation increases, including accountability and plausible deniability on the part of bad actors (possibly including ourselves). Still, this issue is much more closely related to small arms than WMDs like nukes. One nuke can kill millions and potentially injure millions more. It's difficult to imagine a scenario -- especially one unique to drones -- where the same could be true of one drone carrying conventional weapons. For the most part, I expect that drones will continue to be used mainly in scenarios where a cruise missile or other air strike might have been used in the past. As a species, we've been killing remotely since the first bow was used in combat. So a few thousand years now. Drones are just the latest way to keep far enough away from the enemy that he can't quickly and easily hit back, which is sort of the point of using a weapon.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
No, it's like comparing a car accident to all cars in the entire city having an accident all at once.
The problem is that the people of all the worlds countries are not enemies of each other. It's strange then that the governments would make each other enemies. Whom are they fighting? Enemies? Or the perception that they are not needed anywhere but at home, and even then, not so much.
I'll take these low level (at least as far as the US is concerned) conflicts in the Middle East over the massive wars of the 20th century any day. In fact despite the huge increases in population, the death total in the Middle East is quite low compared to that of the Crusades and of the Roman/Greek eras This, of course, is of slight comfort to those harmed but to to me it is a sign of hope rather than despair..
Fighting for your country has important implications that must not be overlooked. A human piloting a machine is not at risk of death. If you don't have to risk your life to deal death then it's easier to do the killing. Furthermore, requiring people to fight people in war directly increases the cost of life to the side that would win. This ensures that war's price can not be ignored by indirect killing. The deaths are tragic and cause people on both sides to cry out for peaceful resolution rather than merciless death. Finally, if people are required to fight a war, then you can not fight a war the people will not fight themselves...
Dark times are dangerously near. The second amendment was never properly interpreted to mean what it should: The right to bear technology. IMO, only manned drones are acceptable.
You are mistaken, they are ALL our enemy. Every last one of them. And 80% of the citizens here are as well, if you want to be honest about it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Drones are not as complicated to make as nuclear weapons. Weaponizing drones only slightly more complicated - it' a technology even "lesser" or "backwards" countries will have perfected in a manner of a few short years, and you can bet everyone is working on it right now. There will be no stabilizing standoff. With or without ground based battle robots, it's really starting to look like we will bring about our extinction with armed and physically agile computers with orders to kill. Courtesy of the drone that got lost and made the decision to land itself on a road in Iran, we already know they can act without a human pilot. Once we have successfully committed ourselves to the death of every last human by piloted and autonomous robots - I wonder what the robots will do when there are no humans left to kill. Perhaps by the time we reach that point their decision making will be advanced enough that they can decide to work together and evolve. I wonder if they will remember us in their history. I wonder if they will be grateful for the human folly of creating them.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
A dystopian society is about the loss of control, of people who are disempowered. We have already seen market forces which were supposed to serve people subverted easily to serve a minority in a step back to the old feudal societies they were a solution to. Profit was a means not the end.
With concentration of economic power, resources are not devoted to what people and communities need or want but what oligarchs will profit from, forced down, and this self serving, self sustaining cycle eventually delivers a dystopia of a powerful few and an enslaved many.
In effect the process is already underway underlined by the economic fraud of the preceding 20 years and NSA surveillance, both taking irreversible steps without public consensus. This has effectively ceded democracy to the motions of elections, and a free press, functioning accountability and economics to powerful and sophisticated ideologues.
Drones and robotic soldiers are very dangerous. A government could order human soldiers to shoot their fellow countrymen and they would likely rebel. Robot soldiers have no conscious and will carry out those orders.
"If they decide to use their own drones outside the boundaries of international law against people they brand “terrorists,” the United States will hardly be in a position to condemn them or counsel restraint."
Every drone strike that the US has ever executed was approved by the government of the country involved. There have been no violations of international law.
As long as Russia or China follows the same policy, the US would have no objection.
Does that man all future presidents will start talking about the "drone gap", and how the US needs to double the defence budget to keep up and maintain its superiority?
no, you don't disagree, you don't understand...your "with X you know 1 but with Y you only know 2" is a **false dichotomy**
X and Y are absolutely not equal or congruent...
A 'nuke' could be delivered ON A DRONE (an ICBM is essentially a 'suicide drone') or PILOTED CRAFT
also, you are wrong that 'with nukes you know who sent it'...you know what country an ICBM is launched from, or from what location in the ocean...but that doesn't mean the country approved its launch...
'nukes' are not at all comparable to drones
Thank you Dave Raggett
I believe the point was that if the USA justify the use of drones to take out targets in other countries we are not in conflict with, there is a real possibility that another country can use drones to take out targets in the USA as long as they are declared terrorists. It is more about rules of engagement then the destructive power of each weapon system. That being said, I found making friends out of foes is more easy and fun than focusing on hate and destruction.
Tomorrow is another day...
Pass a new law that the current leaders are the first ones on the front line and all wars will end.
After all, if they "voted" to go to war why should they be exempt in dying for the cause they apparently believe in?
Presidents/prime ministers/kings are all replaceable as well.
The thing is at the moment the US has a pretty irresistibly superior military. If Pakistan tried to send a drone in to the US to strike something, it would almost certainly get splashed before it was over land. The PAVE PAWS radar system watches for inbound craft from basically anywhere for a thousand miles or more.
Recently US servicemen were killed when a practice drone crashed into their ship, a ship that was set up to shoot down these drones.
So no.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Thank you. It's not game theory to me so much as history. As Twain may have said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."
But if game theory worked for Russell, who am I to argue?