There was an article in last Friday's Fin Review that has been bugging me all week. It described the use of Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) by the US, particularly along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

The idea is that these machines are launched from a nearby base, after which the controls are handed over to the CIA back in the US. The Predator can stay aloft for up to 40 hours, hovers over suspected targets and feeds back visual information.

If/when they identify a target (the resolution apparently enables visual confirmation of the identity of individual terrorist leaders) they fire their missiles.

The justification is that they "take out" the villains with the minimum of collateral damage - the standard euphemism for innocent civilians.

Obviously, if you build enough of these machines, you will gradually reduce the need for troops on the ground to put themselves in harm's way.

What bugs me, and I haven't been able to come to grips with, is the ethical basis for remote killing. It doesn't fit the pattern of any previous form of warfare throughout history.

It's a pretty sure bet that the Geneva Convention doesn't cover what is, effectively, live shoot-em-up games, where people are killed by a bunch of geeks in an office in Langley VA, in between coffee breaks.

Dear Pericles,

How different is the description you give of remote
killing to roadside bombs placed by Iraqis and
Afghanis and set off remotely killing Allied forces?

This remote killing appears to be more economical
than the CIA method - but it achieves the same result -
sometimes resulting in the death of innocent people,
not counting soldiers.

All this appears a means of revenge against the CIA
actions. And universally can be interpreted as
"partisan" activity - to drive out occupying forces.

In the case of the USSR and present day Russia - countries
formerly occupied and currently occupied - resorted to
partisan activity to drive out the enemy and gain
independence.

Take a look at the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
And what the Palestinians are trying to achieve.

The drones could be a highly effectual way of a US computer geek safely killing people in a video game but if they don't work extremely well they risk the target groups considering US people (particularly soldiers) to be insipid and pathetic (the term 'cowards' comes to mind) as they send in machines in their place. This could lower their respect for the US thus dehumanising their perception of US citizens and inspire more enthusiasm to engage in hostile activity in the US of A.

I believe drones can be distinguished from planting a bomb at a strategic location as that often requires putting oneself in harms way to set it up even if it is triggered remotely in order to achieve the most effect.

Not much, I guess, Foxy

>>How different is the description you give of remote killing to roadside bombs placed by Iraqis and Afghanis and set off remotely killing Allied forces?<<

But there is a subtle difference, don't you think?

Wars have typically been fought by soldiers, who employ the weapons at their disposal. Hand-to-hand combat was the norm, and people who defended their country with bravery were decorated.

Increasingly, this has given way to tactics that more resemble guerrilla warfare, or even terrorist attacks.

We have graduated, if that is the right word, to sophisticated "delivery systems" that progressively lessen the exposure of the protagonist, while increasing the vulnerability of the target.

I guess my question is, do we just shrug our collective shoulders, and say "c'est la guerre"?

Or do we - because the Langley desk-jockeys who "fly" these things are actually civilians - charge them with murder?

Given that this form of killing is likely to be increasingly prominent, we should at least give it a passing thought before chucking it in the too-hard basket.

I don't think it matters for the reasons you say. The only real opposition to military aggression comes from within countries when 'Our Boys' are killed in high enough numbers.

Take away any risk of casualties and the government has no opposition to waging war all over the place. 'Send the robots home' doesn't have the same ring to it as 'Send the troops home'.

Pericles, I would guess you don't have any folk in our defence forces. Your point of view may be different, if you did.

Your post has decided me to do a post on what some acquaintances were saying on the weekend. Their point of view is coloured by the fact a son of theirs will be going to Afghanistan in november. That will follow.

Perhaps you could explain to them why you believe their son should be put at greater risk, to fulfil some sense of fair play in war, as you see it.

We have long had a tradition of sending our blokes out in inferior equipment. I would believe the families of our pilots who flew wirriways, against zeros in WW11 would have liked some sort of equality of equiptment, as would the French who faced English long bows.

War has always been such. Just be happy that our short term advantage, for that is all it is, will bring a few more of our blokes home in one piece.

Oh, & also be pleased that we have people prepared to put their lives on the line for you, & their country, even if they don't necessarily believe in what ever government policy is current, at any particular time. They deserve our unqualified support.