Drones in the American Military- Is it justifiable?

[Amy]

A few years ago, the whole idea of the iPhone would have been laughed at. It would have seemed too "sci-fi" to be possible. Today that is no longer the case. It seems only fitting that with our new technologies, something as science-fiction as military drones would come into regular usage. Will war vehicles like the new un-manned "Reaper" change warfare in the world forever? Will it make war easier? Is it 'OK' to have people in the United States, basically squishing bugs on the other side of the globe? Shouldn't our soldiers have to see the consequences of their actions? Where do you draw the line?

-from CBC's website-
The MQ-9 Reaper is the newest Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in the United States Air Force arsenal. By Fall, a full squadron of Reapers will deploy in the war theatres of the Middle East. Much like the Predator drones already in operation, Reapers can remain airborne for dozens of hours and keep an electronic eye out for trouble. But unlike the Predator, whose primary role is surveillance, Reapers are designed to be so called "hunter killers."

Should the American Military be using un-manned drone vehicles for combat?

[Jaaaman]

Should the American Military be using un-manned drone vehicles for combat?


Sure! Why not? Gives our enemies abroad more to worry about if they wish to engage our forces. ;)

It will also allow more of our forces to survive on the battlefield.

[Amy]

But, Jaaaman, don't you agree that if these "enemies" are allowed to use these same weapons against us, and it's 'fair play', then can't you see that posing a problem? And yes, though it allows more of our forces to survive on the battlefield in THIS CASE...won't it mean MORE of our forces DIE when our enemies are using drones to find, and kill us?? Warfare today is brutal enough without the complete detachment these drones will offer us. And how will we make sure that we "hunt and kill" the right people?? Or, "enemies" as you called them.

[BoogyMan]

Warfare is warfare Amy, and any tool that we can give our forces to do their job should be given to them. What "fair play" are you talking about? Do you think that we should give away our military technology? If you think that other nations of the world do not yet have such weapons I would submit to you that you are most likely mistaken. Our enemies, and we do have them, are not going to wait for our usage of such a weapon before they use the technology on us.

[PatrickHenry]

I have no international enemies.

Mine reside in Washington and exercise control over US military forces.

They are utterly ruthless and will kill me (and you) if they deem it necessary, regardless that I have commited no crime.

The Islamists? So impotent....

[Amy]

I think that we should ban the usage of drones. Think of it this way: It's one thing to have someone fly a plane into an american building. 9-11 was bad enough. It's quite another to have a squadron of un-manned vehicles fly over our biggest city and bomb the whole place. See where this whole drone movement could lead?? It could too easily get out of hand, if we don't put some sort of restriction on it. Every time a new technology is created, we need a new way to control it. Am I alone on this one?

[BoogyMan]

I think that we should ban the usage of drones. Think of it this way: It's one thing to have someone fly a plane into an american building. 9-11 was bad enough. It's quite another to have a squadron of un-manned vehicles fly over our biggest city and bomb the whole place. See where this whole drone movement could lead?? It could too easily get out of hand, if we don't put some sort of restriction on it. Every time a new technology is created, we need a new way to control it. Am I alone on this one?


Hmm, so our banning the use of UAVs is going to stop an enemy from doing this how exactly Amy? If you are going to try and setup a premise, at least setup one that works. We most certainly won't de-fang the bear that guards the gate.

[crimzonsol]

I see the Point Amy is making, I have to say i see some the problem, but Like Boogy said why de-fang the bear that guards the gate.
First the proble as I see it, what happens when they can create thousands of these kinda things and have them function with only one or two controlers. These would be very handy for dictatorships, they only have to have one loyal person to keep the people in line with his mechanical army. I know this sounds kinda sci-fi, but it is a real threat.

I see no ready solution to this problem, we need this equipment, but to use it we have to trust the government to not seize power(fat chance there)

[Questerr]

I'll post a more in-depth reply later, but here is why its not immoral to use "drones" as you call them:

UAVs all have human operators. Humans are not taken out of the loop anywhere in their operations. And yes, our enemies already have them, and we have taken countermeasures. Drones are not invisible to radar (except for some of ours) and any country with a half competent air defense system can destroy them long before they cause harm.

Am I the only one who remembers all the reports before the Iraq war about Saddam having lots of radio controlled planes equipped with chemical sprayers? Those would be UAVs too.

[Labrocca]

I think Amy has a point. In war there should be more human casualties so that we don't become detached from the horrors of war. More people should die and less drones. We certainly can't allow drones to do all the fighting for us. Maybe we should stop using guns too...get back to swords and shields possibly.