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.'"

Comments

Not the same...

[mlts]

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.

Re:Not the same...

[Penguinisto]

Well, there is one other small difference:

As expensive and technically tough as it is to make a nuclear weapon (and its delivery system!), even a small nuke can do a hell of a lot more damage in one go than even 1,000 drones can accomplish. Quake analogy? multiple blasters versus a given BFG (or rather, one very amped-up BFG).

There is also the fact that drones are still subject to interference, and that there is only so much room in the sky to hold a sufficient number of drones (to do the same damage as a nuke) on a practical level.

I honestly get that there is a huge potential for problems stemming from the use of drones-as-weapons, but unlike a 'fire-and-forget' ICBM/SRBM/SLBM*? The drone still has to call home, most have to get their instructions and updates from somewhere, a higher degree of accuracy is required, and as a practical matter they need sufficient safeguards built in to avoid having it turn around and attack its owner(s).

* note that I'm not even counting a missile (or any type) with a MIRV warhead.

Re:Not the same...

[bob_super]

Maybe, but it's not the point.

The main difference is that only 2 nukes were ever used to kill people, and then the world decided that doing that again would have to be an absolute last resort.
Drones, on the other hand, are dreamt as a clean way to "do business", and highly likely to get used more and by everybody.

Re:Not the same...

[Sarten-X]

Agreed. The big reason why nukes are bad is that there really is no way to use them without harming civilians. Even the smallest nuclear weapon, suitable for destroying just an enemy base, is still very likely to produce fallout that will spread to civilian populations.

Drones are not fully-automated killing machines. They aren't just thrown in the sky to exterminate an area. They're still piloted by humans from a distance. Yes, there are still civilian casualties, but that's not because the weapon of choice is remote-controlled.

LMAO, must not be paying attention

[hsmith]

the United States will hardly be in a position to condemn them or counsel restraint

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.

Re:LMAO, must not be paying attention

[AmiMoJo]

It's now basically open season on the US. Don't complain when Pakistani drones blow up a wedding trying to murder some suspected terrorists.

Seriously, the US has managed to make an American's life worthless in the eyes of much of the world because that's how the US treats everyone else.

Re:LMAO, must not be paying attention

[myowntrueself]

The people of the USA are remarkably squeamish about their own people going to other countries and getting killed while fighting a war, possibly more squeamish than most other nations.

Therefore it is massively in the interests of the government of the USA to be able to wage war in other countries without risking the lives of their service men and women.

The problem then becomes, for the people on who war is being waged, how to deal with this. Possibly the best solution is to take the killing to the American people, in their homeland.

Interestingly the American people, so cowardly that they can only use remote controlled weapons to wage war, then call the men and women who give their lives to fight, who go out knowing they will die, the suicide bombers, cowards.

WTF?

may ways they are not the same

[globaljustin]

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!!!

Re:may ways they are not the same

[NicBenjamin]

I agree, but there's a wrinkle you didn't mention.

The one thing you can do with drones you can't do with an F-16 is have the damn thing film a target for hours. Since an F-16 has a human pilot, who can't sit in that tiny-little cockpit for 12 hours straight, it's missions have to be kept short. Moreover since F-16 pilots are very valuable assets the plane has to be designed so that the pilot has a very good chance of getting home. That means it has to be able to run away real fast, it needs backup systems if something goes wrong, it needs all kinds of weapons to deal with threats, etc. There's a reason new F-16s cost $40-50 million and the latest generation combat aircraft is well past $100 million. You don't want those things hanging around a warzone shooting video 24/7 for a week. They might notice, and start taking pot-shots, and eventually they'll figure out how to bring it down.

Which means if you're fighting with conventional aircraft you have real motive to blow everything to smithereens. It wastes lots of your money (ammo ain't free), but it saves even more expensive planes and pilots.

OTOH a $10 million drone is expendable. It can hang out filming some suspected enemy's house all day. Literally. They have an endurance in the 30-hour range. Your drone jockeys do 80-hour shifts drinking Dew and eating Cheeto's. If you trade off drones you can easily have a house under observation for weeks. During that time you can gather a lot of data on whose in the House, when they're in the House (does the little kid always leave to play soccer in the mid-afternoon, or does he sometimes stay home?), etc. You burn a lot of AvGas, but in the mean-time you gain a lot of info. Info that lets you do things like wait until said little kid is out of the house to level it.

Which is why the hated drone war has only produced a few thousand casualties, less then a thousand a year, whereas a non-drone campaign would produce 10,000 a year.

And potentially destabilizing...

[cervesaebraciator]

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.

Restore the human element.

[VortexCortex]

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.