Emnesty - i highly doubt the military values lifes of soldiers as much as you think they do. A soldier is as valuable as the cost of his training, time needed to train him etc.. plus it's a balance of how effecting the drone is on a mission compared to classic warfare substitute.. i can imagine drones' learning curve being far superior to that of a human, though probably his neural algorithm has to make some mistakes before it gets to reasonable level.. drones are or will soon be much more manouverable than classic planes due to no g-force restrictions for pilot (since he is not there), no cockpit which obviously ruins aerodynamics, they can operate on higher altitude etc.. so i think it's a way of no return this one.. which is sad, since i believe there should be no AI weapon capable of firing at it's whim... in my opinion drones are a necessity, and as you said they save soldiers' lifes, but they should be operated remotely, and controlled all the time (with the exception for direct self defense and return-to-base algorithms).. I disapprove them in their current shape. but let's be serious - what can we do about it? nobody cares about what anybody thinks.. even if it would be the voice of vast majority of the population.. The drone is much to powerful tool for the authorities to abandon it's development and implementation..

- Drones have no AI. They are remote controlled.
- Drones lower the "willingness" to take lethal action.
- Drones are easier to operate out of democratic control.
- Drones cause more collateral murder than most other conventional forms of engagement.

Drones are effective. But there 'targets' need to be checked first.

Sorry. myhand is right, i am wrong. i have mistaken the whole thing to PDT (perculative disrupting trestinginitators) from star trek, stargate, star wars, top gun, and the america's next top model..

Sarcasm aside - i might have mistaken drones for a different type of an unmanned aircraft type...

i don't know anything about this tbh, but if they're remote controlled then how are they any different from simple soldiers?
even better because there's no fear of having to kill before being killed

You ask why is it a bad thing if less soldiers are prone to die in a war?

Simply because

The soldier is not the first victim in the modern war.
Its the innocent.

If you compare deaths in wars throughout the time from antiquity to nowadays, you will find something very interesting and disturbing.
The ratio of combatant to civilian deaths in a war is constantly changing.
The amount of civilians dying for each soldier constantly rising.

In antique or medieval times only combatants met up on the battlefields.
Direct Civilian deaths were much lower to nonexistent.
In WW1 the ratio of combatants to civilian deaths has been somewhat 3:2. Three dead soldiers for two dead civilians.
In WW2 the ratio of combatants to civilian deaths has changed to somewhat 2:3. Two dead soldiers for three dead civilians.
In the Korean War the ratio had already shifted to 2:1. Two dead civilians to one dead soldier.
The 1982 Lebanon war : 6 dead civilians on 1 dead soldier.
First Chechen war: 10 dead civilians on 1 dead combatant.


So now for your comparison, how about Drone strikes?

Drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen: 800 dead civilians on 22 dead Al Qaida combatants. Making it a ratio of 40 to 1.

I am fully aware they don't value the lives of the people, but they value the size of the military, it's just a given that they would want to minimize casualties if possible.

Oh good myhand finally posted.

Why did you select those specific wars to evidence your point? I think your selection is biased. Didnt the Mongols wipe out entire cities? Baghdad etc. The chechen war is not in any way a typical example of modern war, why did you choose not to quote the ratio in the gulf wars? Why didnt you expand by explaining the reason this ratio is shifting? It is relevant to your point.

Why are you fixating on the ratio of human beings killed? Isnt 800 civilians killed in years of military presence much better than most wars? Isnt the strategic importance of killing 22 leaders extremely high? Much higher than of killing ~800 combatants.

It seems like youre pushing an agenda with your post. On the surface youre anti-drones, why? There seems to be a big backlash against drones, and I dont think its justified. Did you research these numbers and examples yourself or are you parroting another website?

Oh good myhand finally posted.

Why did you select those specific wars to evidence your point? I think your selection is biased.

- the selection was random. There were many conflicts to chose from, making my point.
Also i could have simply quoted various International Red Cross Comitee studies, proving that the civilian to combatant death ratios have constantly risen throughout the 20th century warfare.
The IRCC claims the total ratio for the second half of the 20th century to be around 10 civilians for 1 combatant.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0734_arms_availability.pdf

Didnt the Mongols wipe out entire cities? Baghdad etc.

- Yes they did. And I admit that the Mongols seem to be the foremost exception to this rule. Since their death toll reaches up to 60 million people, they have been an all time high menace for mankind. But their vicitims didnt necessary die in "war" or conflict, but generally were slaughtered after the fighting. So the mongol conflicts should be considered genocide much more than war.

The chechen war is not in any way a typical example of modern war,...

- why is the chechen war no typical example of a modern war? A superpowers warmachine invading a small country is as modern as the vietnam war and the various afghanistan wars by russia or the "coalition" forces.

..., why did you choose not to quote the ratio in the gulf wars?

- Because the gulf war is more difficult to put into numbers.
Even though the terrain in which the fighting occured very much favored the superior state of the art US warmachine (being all flat open desert and wasteland) against 1960s to 70s russian wargear deployed by the iraqis, which obviously should lead to a more favorable combatant to civilian death ratio, it did not.
Estimates claim around 35.000 iraqi soldier deaths to about 100.000 civilians.
The problem with this war: Due to the ammuntion used it left a tremendous ecological catastrophe as heritage which still claims many deaths decades after the actual fighting.
So US veterans did still die after the war on its effects as much as the iraq civilian population still continues to suffer and die on its effects.
For instance the the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, Iraq rose from 1.37 per 1000 life births in October 1994 to October 1995, to 23 per 1000 lifebirths in 2003.
US Veteran Initiatives or other independent sources claim the US soldier death toll in the Gulf war to have reached more than 70.000 by now.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2007/09/23/department-of-veterans-affairs-reports-73-thousand-u-s-gulf-war-deaths/
http://www.vaccineinitiative.org/?p=332

Why didnt you expand by explaining the reason this ratio is shifting? It is relevant to your point.
Why are you fixating on the ratio of human beings killed? Isnt 800 civilians killed in years of military presence much better than most wars? Isnt the strategic importance of killing 22 leaders extremely high? Much higher than of killing ~800 combatants.

-You touch various topics that would demand more explanation than I am willing to give for the time being. It could easily be a topic for an own thread. But let me ask you this? What is Al Qaeda? Do you know anything about it? Did you read into it? Do you know how it functions or what is summarized under its banner?
Who is a leader of an organization that is split into countless cells that operate independently from each other. Al Qaeda is an idea or ideology more than a stiff organization. So everyone operating under its lose idea can be considered an Al Qaeda leader.
So killing an Al Qaeda "leader" is no different from killing an Al Qaeda combatant.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagih.html

It seems like youre pushing an agenda with your post.

-Yes I am pushing an agenda with my post. Everybody is pushing an agenda of some sort. My agenda is to inform you and enlighten you beyond the information that is given you by jingoistic, propagandistic mainstream media. In fact, I am doing what you should do by yourself.
But what is your agenda? Produce yourself in yet another forum thread? Or are you seriously interested in filling gaps of knowledge or trading superficial information with solid facts?

On the surface youre anti-drones, why?

-I thought i gave you some good reasons why in my previous post. If that wasnt clear to you, let me elaborate it some more.
Drones can easily be operated out of any democratic control. It is not much needed to deploy a drone and commence a drone strike.
The foremost goal of all people all over the world will be to realize that they are on the same side. That their true fight is forcing their governments into accepting international law and making people in charge accountable for all their actions before international courts of justice. This will be the challenge of the 21st century and the only way to enforce permanent peace and justice all over the world.
The pluto- and autocratic governments realized that already and they will do whatever they can to prevent this from happening. Misinformation and propaganda being their favored tools of action.
Furthermore drones cause more collateral murder than most other forms of engagement. How could i possibly sanction this? How could anybody else?

There seems to be a big backlash against drones, and I dont think its justified.

-Maybe thats because no rocket killed your brother/sister/lover/mother/father/child yet, claiming to have hit a terrorist as well. Why it is so difficult for some to apply the same basic human rights to every living being really does elude me.

Did you research these numbers and examples yourself or are you parroting another website?

-Thats a pretty pretentious assumption. You have contributed nothing substantial to this discussion yet yourself, but you accuse me of parroting other webstites. My knowledge comes from countless various sources and i can provide you with links for every to direct sources for every claim i make.
That is far more than you do by having a superficial "feeling" of things not being quiet right.
Start arguing piggy, or listen and learn.

I posted a ton of questions because I wanted you to say more. It seems like you know a lot about drones and have a lot of thoughts to share on the subject, and I wanted to read them. I dont think I have anything major to contribute, besides more questions. To quickly answer a few of yours: Al Qaeda is a mess of different things, young men, freedom fighters. I realise they dont have a fixed command structure, but there are certainly people with higher strategic value. The Mongols arent the only major exception. Taiping rebellion started in 1850 and had a crazy civilian death toll. Chechen war is not a typical example because the chechens used the civilians as human shields and held them hostage, the russian army didnt allow civilians to evacuating and didnt give humanitarian agencies lee way to assist civilians, they used airstrikes and artillery first and foremost on populatd areas. To select it as an example when youre talking about civilian death rates seems very suspicious.

I dont think theres anything wrong with questioning you, and asking you to explain yourself. The selection of wars you made isnt random, there is no such thing as random data selection. Everyone has an objective and a slant on the information they share.

I dont believe in human rights, saying that people have the "right" not be killed by drones does nothing to help when noone enforces human rights, and they dont. I am well aware that I have far more in common with the people dying than the ones doing the killing. If my brother were killed by a rocket attack I wouldnt start harping on about human rights, nor would I think it any worse than him being starved to death in N korea or tortured to death in Africa or blown up by a car bomb. What is so special to you about drones?

You seem to be saying that drones are bad because they lead to civilian deaths? Thats absurd, drones have killed LESS THAN A THOUSAND CIVILIANS that is not a big number, it is a small number of human beings, dressing it up as a ratio does not fool anyone. I know you know this, why are you making civilian deaths the core of your argument against drones?

There is a holocaust going on in africa and in north korea, why do people fixate on fucking drones?

That was me, piggy, sorry eeyore.

Are you on drugs piggy?

Is that it?

i'm assuming dead piggy's interest in the subject is in understanding why people focus on complaining about drones in particular instead of human rights in general.

to answer that i would say it's because drones are relatively new technology which governments are exploiting it for war and surveillance instead of peaceful and humanitarian uses. humanitarians see the slipery slope in this, it's a step further towards dehumanizing warfare and bringing on the surveillance state, which, like myhand was saying, will only incite to more killings and probably bring on the thought police.

Yeah, thats right ps. It seems to be a republican and libetarian strategy to defame Obama. I also agree that the anti-drone argument seems to rely on a slipper slope fallacy.

I mean aren't drones better than sending in troops that could get into trouble; Such as going out on a shooting spree or raping a local girl.

i still think that remote controlled drones will lead to fewer civilian deaths because a soldier won't be scared of a civilian shooting him/her, so will only shoot when they should, rather than killing everyone they see on sight because 1/100 could be a military person in disguise =/

personaly, as far as remote warfare goes, i would suggest the top commanders play a game of warlight and get their quarels done with. as opposed to involving troops and civilians on their matters. but unfortunately that doesnt bring much money to the military industry.

I 'm against drones because they make killing easier, not just in the sense that you kill your opponent even before he sees you,(which makes killing easier psychologically and saver thus much easier to decide to kill.)
but also in the sense that it enables killing someone who doesn't even know you're after him yet, and they can be used in any country that doesn't have good surveillance/radar/douane to detect their use.
(we already know the USA have no problem going behind their allies' backs,
let alone the countries they have no special relation with)