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.'"
And potentially destabilizing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nuclear weapons had a stabilizing and centralizing tendency [orwell.ru] 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.
Welcome change (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll take these low level (at least as far as the US is concerned) conflicts in the Middle East over the massive wars of the 20th century any day. In fact despite the huge increases in population, the death total in the Middle East is quite low compared to that of the Crusades and of the Roman/Greek eras This, of course, is of slight comfort to those harmed but to to me it is a sign of hope rather than despair..
Re:There is no real dilemma (Score:4, Interesting)
You are mistaken, they are ALL our enemy. Every last one of them. And 80% of the citizens here are as well, if you want to be honest about it.
Re:LMAO, must not be paying attention (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't complain when Pakistani drones blow up a wedding trying to murder some suspected terrorists.
It'd be interesting to see the reaction to something like that happening. I mean, it's considered acceptable for the US (by the US politicians) to do that in Pakistan, so I am interested to see what happens when a reverse event happens.
I am sure US politicians will understand the need to combat terrorism and suffer collateral damage as a result.