Drones are just like any other tools of war. The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real, the stakes any lower or the human cost to the operator any cheaper. War is hell because of the horrible decisions that have to be made. Distance doesn't make it any easier.<p>Drones don't kill innocent non-combatants, people do. There are many cases of civilians being killed by artillery shells or friendly fire by naval guns. I'm sure there was even an errant trebuchet or two. Long distance warfare is ok as long as there are people like Byrant on the other end of the weapon, people who worry and struggle with the moral consequences of what they have done. I feel for him and what he's had to go through, but at the same time I'm glad that drone warfare hasn't become the video game that people thought it would be.<p>Some of the commenters on this thread sound like the people who would throw things at veterans returning from vietnam. Have we learned nothing? The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to the weapons or the people who pull the triggers. We're all responsible for the things done in our names, and responsible for changing them if we don't like the outcome.
Considering Bryant is one of the only operators speaking out, his conscience seems to bother him more than the average.<p>Here's a comparison (an IAMA thread from reddit).<p><a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sensor_operator_i_have_flown_hundreds/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sens...</a><p><i>Q: Have you ever had to strike a target that you were not comfortable with?<p>sensor_operator: No, I trust our JTACs 1000000% they really know their stuff.</i><p>While this was the top voted comment, I found it very dark. To me, what the operator was implicitly saying was that he'd target whoever his superiors told him too.<p>I don't get outraged. More than being outraged I think this shows a fundamental truth about humans which is that they'll kill without losing too much sleep. I'd put myself in the 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' camp.
"Daddy, when I grow up I want to be a drone <i>warrior</i>, too!"<p>I assume this name came from the government/military itself, and GQ just used it without putting much thought into it, or maybe they just wanted to be sensationalist, but I'm becoming increasingly less patient and angry at these sort of Orwellian names.<p>Why a warrior? Why not its true meaning like "drone assassin" or even "drone terrorist". But if you really don't want to cause certain emotions (even they would be the accurate reaction to it), then you can at least call it "drone operator", I suppose, but I don't think that would do it justice. A drone operator could be someone delivering pizza by drones in the future. I'd rather they got a much more accurate, and less vague, name.<p>But <i>warrior</i>? What are they battling to deserve the honor of a <i>warrior</i>? The buttons on their gamepad? What's next? Calling them "drone heroes"? Don't laugh, they actually tried to give these drone assassins <i>medals</i>, until others in the military spoke out against it:<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-usa-pentagon-medal-idUSBRE93E12V20130415" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-usa-pentagon-me...</a><p>I think this is a very important issue that shouldn't be downplayed, because these are the sort of tools (just like the word "patriot") used to brainwash people with little education and coming from poor families, to get them to fight wars for them, and do even very immoral things, while making them <i>feel good about themselves</i> for doing it:<p>"Hey son, killing those men, their wives and children at the push of a button, made you a <i>warrior</i>, and you served your nation well, today!".<p>It disgusts me.
Killing distant people in a foreign country is most people's definition of a terrorist attack. A declared war is one thing but this type of terror weapon is likely to backfire some day, if it hasn't already.
I couldn't finish this article. It just makes me too angry.<p>Warrior? How dare anyone involved in this dignify themselves with such an honour-laden term. They're just murderers, and the fact they hide behind so many layers of technology just makes it all the more cowardly and despicable.
The historical trajectory of the "issue" of remote killing maybe starting with the ancient catapults, maybe earlier with spears or event the first rock ever thrown at an enemy;
this development of increasingly "safer" ways to kill from far away will follow the trajectory unless humanity decides this got out of hand, is not tolerable, not in line with some higher moral understanding of military conflict and decides to stop the progression of the trajectory. Similar to the way ever mightier bombs and nuclear weapons were put under quite heavy "restriction" and "control" in the end.<p>Also there is some bias in the representation of the way the "drone systems" are perfectly working (they are not faultless obliviously) and they are certainly NOT the uber-over-mega weapons the stories make them to appear. This has implications:<p>1.) collateral damage is quite common<p>2.) the insurgents learn to "fight" them over time (this will not be reported on)<p>Pure technocratic minds may wonder about the "latencies" and the infrastructure involved...BUT just watch the skies at the next protest and remember the first time "just" tear gas got very precisely administered to a crowd.<p>The sad part as always: convincing the "political" circle in the US is not enough, the huge weapons industry needs to be provided with some replacement idea/product/contracts should the killing drones become banished or more controlled.<p>ps: i'd love to see the good old RATM create a song out the first few paragraphs of this gq text; proposed working title:<p>“missile off the rail”<p>/edit: typos
Watching countless documentaries about this war zone I can't help but recall the numerous occasions that IED's are branded as cowardly weapons. Surely on the same scale this sort of thing is the most cowardly weapon of all.
This is the future of warfare, and i am afraid it will only get worse, much worse.<p>In a decade or two tanks and soldiers might be remote controlled too, and between nations fighting their playstation-wars there will still be innocent civilians.
> He was told that they were carrying rifles on their shoulders, but for all he knew, they were shepherd’s staffs. Still, the directive from somewhere above, a mysterious chain of command that led straight to his headset, was clear: confirmed weapons.<p>Can someone elaborate on how these decisions are made?
This is the future of warfare and it's a good thing. Way better than back when you would firebomb an industrial city or lob cruise missiles at poorly defined targets. No boots on the ground means none of <i>our</i> people at risk and drones are much more precise than bombs.<p>The reactions in this thread demonstrate the classic uneasiness with killing a few people while being okay with killing lots of people. The people complaining about drones likely had nothing to say about Clinton lobbing cruise missiles into downtown Belgrade.
From the article:<p>>And yet the very idea of drones unsettles. They’re too easy a placeholder or avatar for all of our technological anxieties—the creeping sense that screens and cameras have taken some piece of our souls, that we’ve slipped into a dystopia of disconnection. Maybe it’s too soon to know what drones mean, what unconsidered moral and ethical burdens they carry. Even their shape is sinister: the blunt and featureless nose cone, like some eyeless creature that has evolved in darkness.<p>I'm not sure how to feel about drone warfare myself but I think the media spinning narratives like the above (note that this comes from the author and not the subject of the article) only serves to legitimize disliking drone warfare on emotional grounds. That is an undesirable thing, if only because it discourages people from even considering the downsides to the alternatives.<p>This satirical piece titled <i>What if drone warfare had come first?</i> might serve as a counterpoint: <a href="https://squid314.livejournal.com/338607.html" rel="nofollow">https://squid314.livejournal.com/338607.html</a> (scroll down to the italicized description the scene). It may seem way over the top, especially in contrast with the OP article, but I think it gets the point across pretty well.
i wonder how come they're not psychologycally trained(brainwashed) to be immune to this. after 1-3 months of constantly telling them how cruel the terrorists are, showing them images of the attrocities that their future targets perform, i believe the operators will begin to feel like heroes for taking them out. I guess US is not that good at propaganda afterall
When I hear drone warfare, I always wonder what would happen if someone puts on his uniform and guns down a drone operator in a crowded shopping mall. Obviously he distinguished himself as a combatant and engaged in a act of war.
<p><pre><code> military drones, a projection of American power that won’t risk American lives.
</code></pre>
Yet burning some Muslim books places Americans at risk?<p>I'd say that the collateral damage caused by "Signature Strikes" is as an effective terrorist recruiting agent as is burning some old religious books.
<i>"Most Americans—61 percent in the latest Pew survey—support the idea of military drones, a projection of American power that won’t risk American lives."</i><p>I sincerely hope this survey is wrong, though something tells me it isn't...
That's not a warrior, that's a serial murderer hiding behind a screen.<p>It's disgusting. Then again, it's for "defence" so it's OK.<p>If a nuclear holocaust is coming, we more than deserve it, some more than others.
The worst human beings on the planet are the ones:<p>1) Building the guns/drones
2) Pulling the trigger of the guns/drones
3) Telling others to pull the trigger.<p>No one in that chain is less responsible than the other.
Sorry, if you are not putting your life on the line, you do not deserve to call yourself a "warrior" or any other term which implies duty and honor.
What happens the first time an autonomous weapon refuses to fire because the target is not positively identified, or because non-combatants would be harmed?