The author writes: "One way of distancing combatants from targets – and thus saving lives, at least on the attacking side – is by using drones (euphemistically known as unmanned aerial vehicles) armed with missiles or laser-guided bombs. The United States has used armed drones frequently in Pakistan and other war zones and so have Israel in Gaza and the United Kingdom in Afghanistan. Other countries are lining up to follow suit. The use of armed drones seems to be inevitable for any defence force that takes itself seriously, raising the prospect (noted by Joe Camilleri) of a "drones race" to rival the nuclear race of the previous century."

He points out in the above that drones are euphemistically known as unmanned aerial vehicles. The euphemisms that the militarists employ to sanitise the killing process are rife, and the author has fallen into the trap. He refers to the military as a 'defence force'. That is a key euphemism. If all the armed forces were truly defence forces there would be no wars as nobody would attack. It might help to stop using the euphemism, defence force, for military organisations that may in addition to defend also attack, occupy, threaten or employ either force or the threat of force in many ways.

I don't have any comment to make on the use of drones, but David's analysis is completely the wrong way around. He says we are more likely to tolerate the use of drones because of the glorification of past wars. Nope! the reason drones are tolerated is because governments, and their voters, don't want to get involved in wars, or risk soldiers on the ground. They also want to get rid of terrorists in a least cost fashion, and without all the collatoral damage that would result from an old-fashioned bombing raid or a full military strike.

Whether you agree with this form of assasination or not is another question, but it has nothing to do with the supposed glorification of war.. quite the opposite..

Would the author prefer his Child fly a drone or or be a grunt in the field?
It would be a lovely world without war but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

As Australia and the U.S. are, at this very moment, involved in a huge combined military extravaganza called 'Talisman Sabre', this article is very relevant.

Australia, in an obvious slight to China, is currently playing little boy's war-games with the Yanks. They are practicing "blockading", that is getting ready to stop ships from reaching China with needed resources. Thousands are involved plus warships and submarines. Oh, what fun!

These war-games show how involved Australia is in the machinations of the world's major warmonger and imperialist: America. It is an involvement that borders on insanity. Why?

China is our major trading partner and will soon become the world's premier Superpower! Only idiots would wave a red flag in front of such a nation especially as the U.S. is in decline.

We need politicians in Australia who have an I.Q, above 80. We need politicians who have the intelligence to realize how dangerous it is to throw in our lot with the Yanks who, filled with delusions about being 'exceptional', are seeking global domination.

When are Australians going to realize that becoming a pawn of America is foolish and threatens our survival as a nation?

Wake up, Australia. The Trojan Horse is within our city walls!

Thanks David Stephens

And yes Anzac was a criminally wasteful military disaster reconfigured into a celebration of nationalism:

- often by pro-conscription politicians at the time - living down the casualties-victims,

- resurrected by John Howard = khaki elections, and

- all PMs since

Who remembers the Western Front where many more Australians died than Gallipoli?

As already experienced by the War Memorial Brendan Nelson will continue his odd self publicity
- publically associating Anzac with his good self.

Our "VC" War in Afghanistan, a Taliban killing temporary occupation of a very small part of Uruzgan, is another wasteful example of military policy gone allied.

Rwanda, Bosnia, Syria, Chechnya,Taliban Afghanistan all very bloody, up close and personal recent wars. Millions killed by knives and small arms.
I really don't see the difference between a bomb dropped by an unmanned aircraft controlled from the ground or one dropped from a manned aircraft. The bomb (or aircraft) still goes bang when it hopefully hits the right target.
The trigger for bloodshed is the desire for power, not who has the most sophisticated weapon system.

"The trigger for bloodshed is the desire for power, not who has the most sophisticated weapon system," says Alan.

In the case of the U.S. it has an infinite desire for power AND the largest and most sophisticated weapons system on Earth.

That is why it is the world's major warmonger and is on a collision course with both Russia and China, both nuclear powers.

A nuclear war is in the offing. It's just a matter of time. And Australia, which is endeavoring to become America's proxy in the South Pacific, will pay a heavy price for its blindness and total lack of judgement by getting into bed with a hated superpower.

With friends like the U.S. we will pay a heavy price!

David G, it is always of interest to read your letters to OLO, your forward thinking is so very true.

I guess the weapons systems used to resolve conflicts is changing constantly on all sides and will continue to do so.

At the same time the moral outrage of some will be directed at the “inhumanity” or “unfairness” of evolving weaponry whilst the developers and users will seek to justify them.

Nothing has changed as power, politics, trade, greed, religion and economics still inspire humans to engage in conflict. This is a human failing and nothing to do with weapons development. Weapons are a symptom and not a cause.

Those who seek to get emotional about certain weapons or certain nations using them are simply trying to distance themselves from the human frailty they see in others.

In the thirteenth century Edward I was storming Stirling Castle in Scotland; he had to hold off until the Trebuchet he was having built in the North of England arrived. After hauling it all the way to Scotland Edward was miffed when the defenders ran up the white flag as soon as they saw it. Edward I used it anyway reduced Stirling Castle to rubble.

Like I said, nothing has changed, unless you see high jacking US planes and flying them into US buildings a change? But then you would have to make “excuses” for the terrorists also

Spindoc, it's time we stopped making excuses for 'human failings'!

It's time we took responsibility for the chaotic state of our world and made some attempt to change its downward spiral before nuclear war renders us extinct.

After all, we claim to be intelligent and civilized, don't we?

Obviously, to date, we are neither!

David G,

We, we, we, we, we, we and we.

Your pontificating arrogance knows no bounds. I do not wish to make excuses for anyone, it is none of my god damn business or yours either.

You on the other hand, profess precisely the criticism I leveled at your ilk, you seek to distance yourself from everyone else’s failings as humans because they are also YOURS, so cut out the “we” Tonto.

If you can’t accept that humans are flawed you are on the wrong planet, if you want to fix humans start with YOU.

For thousands of years through religions, politics, rules and laws, we have sought to “correct” human flaws. There are 34,000 registered religions with tens of thousands of rules. Add to that the politics, legislation, ideologies, laws and rules of every nation on the planet and you begin to get some idea of the effort that has been expended over thousands of years to “correct” human behavior.

And now we have yet another savior, David G.

You are Sir, one of those with too much information and no knowledge, too much ideology and no common sense, too much self opinion and no humility, too much to say and nothing to contribute, too much adopted opinion and none of your own.

It’s time to climb down from the high moral ramparts and actually join human society rather than pointing the fickle finger of accusation at the rest of us.

You sound like an advert for the Greens Party rather than a normal human being.

Ojnab and Spindoc seems to have a stark difference of opinion regarding my comments.

Thanks for your support, ojnab. I do my best.

Spindoc, your ad hominem rant demonstrates clearly that you are neither intelligent or civilized (or mature).

Get back on your medication is my advice!

Cheers.

Dear David G, many thanks for your reciprocal ad hominem response. As I said in my post, you view others that disagree with your ideology as “neither intelligent or civilized (or mature)”. >>, and in need of medication, I rest my case.

Thank you also for “feeling” my post rather actually reading it and addressing any specific points. I’m not sure we are ready for your version of reality.

Why is it that you are unable to (or avoid) responding to content? I guess you have reached rock bottom and started digging?

Looking forward to a rebuttal but as we all know I will have a long time to wait. The nice thing about intellect is that one can analyze information, ideologues on the other hand are stuck with the opinion they have adopted. Unless of course you can deal with content and convince us otherwise?

I await the prognostications of the hallowed, omnipotent David G. Sorry, forget that, I’ve just read the Greens Party manifesto and have all the answers I need.

"Argue not with fools, frauds and fanatics. Seek better companions!"

Spindoc, it's the motto that guides my path through life. Let me say in closing that some people, not many, fit into two or more of the categories.

Ah, yes David,

By arguing with “fools, frauds and fanatics” you can nicely avoid reality and content whilst labeling those who fail to agree with you as fools, frauds and fanatics. Doh!

Great and thanks for substantiating my point. Still waiting for your rebuttal?

As I said, your journey through life is neither a journey nor anything to do with life but hey, we still await your eminent appraisal of our lowly views.

When are you going to address the content of my post? I guess as an “intellectual” you don’t see a need. Which nicely positions you as one of those I described earlier, an advert for the Greens Party, or are you eventually going to “explain” how wrong I am? Unless you do, you stand as accused, a Green cretin. No offense unintended.

Hi David and (that critic of Edward I of the House of Plantagenet) spindoc

To pour fuel on the cross-fire

"...Chief of USAF Operations in the Pacific, General Herbert 'Hawk' Carlisle...[last week] is reported saying the US would send "fighters, tankers and, at some point in the future, maybe bombers on a rotational basis" to Darwin.

General Carlisle is reported to have said the aircraft would initially go to the RAAF base in Darwin before being rotated through the Tindal RAAF base near Katherine, about 300 kilometres south of the Northern Territory capital."

My RAAF moles report that US landings of stealth aircraft have occurred at Tindal-Katherine for years (particularly at night) but what is more notable is that the Americans have now decided to publicise it.

After the Snowden revelations could it by the US want to renew our junior allied faith in US power? Not to mention more cash for NT? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-31/usaf-plans-for-pacific-foreign-pol3bicy-magazine-report/4856112

Plantagenet

"stealth" mentioned because:

"The magazine report said General Carlisle had stated the USAF would use its "most capable platforms" for the Pacific rotation plan.

This could include large numbers of F-22 Raptors, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and B-2 stealth bombers."

see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-31/usaf-plans-for-pacific-foreign-pol3bicy-magazine-report/4856112

Hey, Pete, how do you respond to this amazing statement by Spindoc:

"Nothing has changed as power, politics, trade, greed, religion and economics still inspire humans to engage in conflict. This is a human failing and nothing to do with weapons development."

Yeah, Pete, when the Yanks nuked Japan, the further development of such hideous weaponry wasn't affected in anyway, was it? Of course not!

And the Yanks didn't get the idea after nuking Japan they might have a go at gaining complete global domination, did they? Of course not!

And the Yanks with their thousand odd military bases spread around the globe aren't engaged in imperialism are they and their nuclear submarines and space-launched missiles aren't anything to do with weapons development, are they? Of course not!

Spindoc should go back to reading Mickey Mouse comics.

In the context of Japan's aggression against China, Korea and Southeast Asia leading to the deaths of 30 million people in World War Two...

In the context of the alternative of an invasion of Japan likely to lead to the deaths of 2 million Japanese...

Damn good thing they nuked those buggers too, they would have succeeded in killing an Uncle in a prison camp, he was damaged for life (physical and mental), Dad was in Sydney to ship out as a stretcher bearer and millions more would have died in close fighting. Just more bodies of unintended consequences of Leftie compassion. Aren't the recent thousand or so you lot have killed in the Indian Ocean enough to slake you vanity?

David G,

What is behind your hatred of America, what have they done to you?

Also, who is this “Yeh, Pete” you keep having a conversation with? Why do you find it necessary to have your dialogue through a third party? Is it the real name of another OLOer or is it “your invisible friend”?

Why did you quote me to “Hey, Pete” then demonstrate that you did not actually read the quote yourself? Is this another case of "feeling" what was written and not what was written? Can you explain what your response actually means because it seems to have no relevance to what I wrote?

Look I know it’s hard to explain yourself, especially to fools but I still don’t understand what you said

"Look I know it’s hard to explain yourself, especially to fools but I still don’t understand what you said," says Spindoc.

And you never will!

P.S. But you are not alone so don't feel too bad.

Thanks for this interest in my article, though I venture that some of the later comments are a bit off track.
I just want to say something about the earlier comments from Curmudgeon and Kenny. I said it was paradoxical that commemoration of earlier more bloody wars could soften us and our children up for future more efficient and 'cleaner' wars. But I didn't use the word 'glorification' of war.
I would prefer to call it the relentless, ubiquitous, commemoration of aspects of war (the more heroic, sentimental bits, sanitised to remove the blood and guts). This combines with the attraction of an arms length weapon that doesn't require direct exposure of our blokes to danger. Easy war and clean weapon makes it easier to fight wars in the future.
Indirectly, though, there are great dangers from a drones arms race and from terrorists taking revenge on drone operators where they live (the Las Vegas/Creech base scenario mentioned in the article could work just as well for Alice Springs/Pine Gap).
All of this is, of course, without confronting the essential selfishness of the 'less cost/least collateral damage/reduced risk to our guys in the field' argument put by both Curmudgeon and Kenny. What about the other human beings involved? Try living in the Af-Pak borderlands for a month or two, where the CIA has treated all adult males as terrorists (check out the discussion of the kill statistics in Medea Benjamin's book Drone Warfare and on the site of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism) and fair game and have perfected the technique of the 'double tap' (drone strike, wait half an hour, another drone strike to take out the people milling around attempting to help).
I'd rather be a 'grunt in the field', Kenny, than live under that sort of terror. And to describe drone warfare as not being 'involved in wars' is rather stretching a point, Curmudgeon.

LOL, I call Bull that you would rather be a grunt. Decent, hard people who make the world safe for fools know statements such as this are mere "voguing".

Hi David G,

I didn’t expect you to explain your comments or respond to the content, this is because you borrow your opinion from others and therefore cannot explain them.

Given that you classify those who don’t agree with you as “fools, frauds and fanatics” and that you acknowledge that others likewise don’t understand you, I was just wondering if you have ever considered that it might be you that is the source of the problem rather than your audience?

If you can’t get your message through to these “fools, frauds and fanatics”, perhaps it’s time to follow your own advice and “Seek better companions”

David Stephens writes in "'Anzac', 'cyber' and 'drone' are all five-letter words" (30 July 2013) that the use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may be met with conventional military force or terrorist attack. However, the use of such "drones" is less controversial in conventional warfare, rather than counter-terrorism. Stephens mentions the centenary of the landings at Gallipoli. The Turkish army used artillery very effectively to defend Gallipoli. Under Stephens analysis, such weapons should not be used, as they place the war-fighter at a safe distance from the battle. There is little difference between firing an artillery shell over many kilometers and launching an armed drone.

Stephens comments that "cyberwarriors" will be in demand in defence forces. This is about the only part of his analysis I agree with. Australian can expect any future conventional conflict to be preceded by large scale cyber-attacks designed to cripple communications and other infrastructure. Yesterday I proposed the Australian Defence Force (ADF) raise an "Australian CyberWarfare Battalion" (ACWB) of 300 personnel, to protect Australia's national information infrastructure: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2013/08/australian-cyberwarfare-battalion.html

Yes, Tom, we should start up an ACWB and put a three star American general at its head.

We might as well give the U.S. control of all of our military institutions and installations because they'll end up controlling them sooner or later!

@tomw

You'll probably dismiss this but - the answer to your prayers http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/stories/2013/jan/0124.htm . As people with such cyber skills can demand high wages in the private sector their services for the government are not cheap.

There are already uniformed electronic warfare units that interact with civilian-defence cyber.

David, thanks for the suggestion of a three star general to head the Australian CyberWarfare Battalion, but it is usual for a Colonel to head an organization of this size. Having an American military officer in charge is not out of the question, as Australia and the US often exchange personnel. As an example, the Deputy Commander for US Army Pacific Operations is an Australian General: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2013/07/australian-deputy-commanding-general.html

I don't agree with your suggestion that we cede U.S. control of all Australian military installations. Australia can work closely with allies, while retaining the capability to operate independently.

Plantagenet, yes I would see the proposed Australian CyberWarfare Battalion working closely with the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC). But as you say, people with the required skills are expensive and so the government can't afford to employ many in the centre. Thus my suggestion of using the expertise of people employed in organisations, with their salaries paid for by those organizations (they would also receive a small amount pay as military reserve personnel). There are already some uniformed electronic warfare units, but we need a lot more such people.

Thanks to Tom W for raising the quality of the comments. I dispute, however, his comment that "There is little difference between firing an artillery shell over many kilometers and launching an armed drone". The big difference is that the artillery battery is somewhere in theatre while the drone operator is thousands of kilometres away, in a relatively safe environment. If we care enough about engagement in a particular war, we should be prepared to put skin in the game, boots on the ground, young men and women in harm's way. By making it possible to fight wars without skin in the game (or as much skin in the game) drones lower the political threshold and make acceptable wars that would not have been considered without the drone option.