The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The ethics of remote warfare

The ethics of remote warfare

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
I think that the current controversy over the leaked video of the 2007 American slaughter of 12 noncombatants in Baghdad is something of a precursor of what is likely to happen as these video-controlled drones inevitably proliferate.

<< The pilots in the video act "like they are playing a computer game and their desire is they want to get high scores" by killing opponents >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2864956.htm

If that's what happens when the pilots are actually there, how much more likely is it for them to get it so wrong when the targets are just images on a video screen?

Oh well, the Baghdad massacre was found by the US military to be "justified" under their rules of engagement, as will massacres by remotely-controlled drones undoubtedly be. Just collateral damage I guess, but it's hardly going to win over 'hearts and minds', is it?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 11:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@CJ Morgan: << The pilots in the video act "like they are playing a computer game and their desire is they want to get high scores" by killing opponents >>

That reminded me of the glee the older pilots like the Red Barron got from their kill counts. I don't think much has changed in that department.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 11:56:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'but it's hardly going to win over 'hearts and minds', is it?'

Beemmmm! Wrong.

As I said, the salient point is more about the hearts and minds of the drone owning counttries. The less of 'our boys' that are put in danger the more freedom our governments have to do as they please without any of that nasty political backlash.

Civilian deaths of arab-looking 'terrorists' doesn't generate negativity in the same way as coffins coming home covered in the flag.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 12:38:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't recall the Red Baron being known for machine-gunning unarmed civilians on the ground.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 12:42:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
civilians? terrorists is the preferred nomenclature. Where have you been living?

If the Red Baron (Julia G?) was shooting down boats of asylum seekers I don't think much of the population would be too concerned.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 1:23:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plus the Red Barron was able to be shot down as was his fate, not sitting in a comfortable chair 12,000kms from the action playing God in the ultimate of video games.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 1:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy