The US Now Faces the Same Dilemma Over Drones As It Did Over Nuclear Weapons 211
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.'"
Re:Not the same... (Score:4, Informative)
Ignorance (Score:3, Informative)
"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.
Re:may ways they are not the same (Score:2, Informative)
Since an F-16 has a human pilot, who can't sit in that tiny-little cockpit for 12 hours straight...
Not disagreeing with your overall premise, as it is correct, but your details are quite a bit off.
As an actual F-16 pilot, who has had the unpleasant experience of sitting in that tiny-little cockpit for anywhere from 8 to 16 hours on numerous occasions, I can vouch that this is not only possible, but we do it on a routine basis in-theater (and pond-crossings, i.e. crossing oceans).
Want to know what I was doing? Maintaining constant surveillance on target locations in the skies of Iraq. Almost 200 "combat" hours, and not a single munition dropped. My $36 million dollar multi-role fighter was being used as an ISR platform. It requires a lot of trips to the Tanker.
Your estimate on RPA loiter times is also a bit optomistic. Preds and Reapers can do 8-10 hours or so. And 80 hour pilot/sensor operator shifts? Try 12 max, typically less.
Your casualty count is based on current use of precision guided munitions (from all platforms) rather than unguided bombs/rockets, and has little-to-nothing to do with the "drone-war".