Predator Drones = Enemy Combatants?

Cosmo

I thought about this...
The use of U.S. Air Force Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in tactical attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan raise some ethical and moral issues regarding combatants and non-combatants within a warzone. In conventional aerial warfare, the pilot of the aircraft is considered to be an enemy combatant and killing him would be considered a casualty of war... right?
Well, what if the pilot of the UAV is in Arizona or Nevada? He flies his mission, engages and destroys the target... then goes home to his wife and kids. The people on the business end of a laser guided missile would be considered enemy combatants and any civilians in the vicinity regarded as collateral damages, right?
...
So... what is the pilot? Isn't he considered a combatant even if he is not physically within the borders of a warzone?
If so... then if the enemy sends someone stateside to kill him... and kills his wife and kids during the operation... is THAT considered a casualty of war and collateral damage?

catefrances

it becomes just a video game to them. i mean tis not like youre actually killing people you can see, right?

Cosmo

catefrances wrote:

it becomes just a video game to them. i mean tis not like youre actually killing people you can see, right?

...
Yes, i can see that.
But, are they fair game to their enemies? That is, can al Qaeda or Taliban leaders dispatch hit squads to the U.S. to kill those pilots as part of the war that is being physically waged in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Would any civilians that were killed be considered collateral damage?

gimmesometruth27

Cosmo wrote:

I thought about this...
The use of U.S. Air Force Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in tactical attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan raise some ethical and moral issues regarding combatants and non-combatants within a warzone. In conventional aerial warfare, the pilot of the aircraft is considered to be an enemy combatant and killing him would be considered a casualty of war... right?
Well, what if the pilot of the UAV is in Arizona or Nevada? He flies his mission, engages and destroys the target... then goes home to his wife and kids. The people on the business end of a laser guided missile would be considered enemy combatants and any civilians in the vicinity regarded as collateral damages, right?
...
So... what is the pilot? Isn't he considered a combatant even if he is not physically within the borders of a warzone?
If so... then if the enemy sends someone stateside to kill him... and kills his wife and kids during the operation... is THAT considered a casualty of war and collateral damage?

deep thoughts, by cosmo...

i am not really sure...
i would think that anybody controlling a weapon of war and maneuvering it and ultimately pulling the trigger to release it's deadly payload would be an enemy combatant...will the people that control these drones be in line for promotion to a higher rank? can they win a medal for their "valor" in combat?? i don't know the answer to any of these, but if they are eligible for the same promotions and honors as soldiers then i guess they would be enemy combatants...

it is not just the air force using these drones.. many of these drones are piloted by cia operatives. in that situation would the operative be committing an act of war or carrying out a black op??

i have voiced my disdain for these aircraft and their tactics a number of times. i do not like the idea of someone being 10,000 miles from a war zone being responsible for indiscriminately raining missles down on whatever is below it...these things have been proven to be less than accurate and there are reports of civilian casualites every other day. IMO it would be the same thing if a terrorist used a remote control unmanned van full of explosives and set it off in a public place stateside. they were not in the vehicle, yet they are responsible for the explosion..

gimmesometruth27

Cosmo wrote:

catefrances wrote:

it becomes just a video game to them. i mean tis not like youre actually killing people you can see, right?

...
Yes, i can see that.
But, are they fair game to their enemies? That is, can al Qaeda or Taliban leaders dispatch hit squads to the U.S. to kill those pilots as part of the war that is being physically waged in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Would any civilians that were killed be considered collateral damage?

i think they are all fair game. if you are killing people in a war zone, you assume the same risks as the people on the ground or those that fly actual manned missions over there.

Cosmo

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

catefrances wrote:

it becomes just a video game to them. i mean tis not like youre actually killing people you can see, right?

...
Yes, i can see that.
But, are they fair game to their enemies? That is, can al Qaeda or Taliban leaders dispatch hit squads to the U.S. to kill those pilots as part of the war that is being physically waged in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Would any civilians that were killed be considered collateral damage?

i think they are all fair game. if you are killing people in a war zone, you assume the same risks as the people on the ground or those that fly actual manned missions over there.

...
Here is a scenario...
An active UAV pilot is heading into the Costco with his wife and daughter. He snags a shopping cart and heads inside. A Pakistani with ties to al Qaeda wearing a dynamite laden vest walks next to him and detonates the vest. The pilot is killed, but so are his wife and daughter... as well as other customers and employees of the Costco.
Act of Terrorism or tactical mission as part of the ongoing war?
The pilot was specifically identified and targeted... the people around him killed in the explosion... are they just collateral damage?
...
I ask this becuase I think we need to answer these types of ethical and moral issues if we are going to conduct warfare in this manner.

gimmesometruth27

Cosmo wrote:

Here is a scenario...
An active UAV pilot is heading into the Costco with his wife and daughter. He snags a shopping cart and heads inside. A Pakistani with ties to al Qaeda wearing a dynamite laden vest walks next to him and detonates the vest. The pilot is killed, but so are his wife and daughter... as well as other customers and employees of the Costco.
Act of Terrorism or tactical mission as part of the ongoing war?
The pilot was specifically identified and targeted... the people around him killed in the explosion... are they just collateral damage?
...
I ask this becuase I think we need to answer these types of ethical and moral issues if we are going to conduct warfare in this manner.

you raise great questions. i can not support war or any killing over political differences in any situation, so i have a biased opinion....but i'll go along for fun...

if the pilot was a designated target and he was killed then i believe it is a tactical mission. there was a target and that target ceased to exist. the poor unfortunate souls that just happened to be there were collateral damage in that situation because they were unintended targets.

if the pilot was not targeted it was not a specific hit or specific mission other than to blow it up inside costco and take out as many people as possible then it was terrorism.

in my opinion all war is government supported, taxpayer funded terrorism on a massive scale.

i agree that these are ethical dilemmas that need to be addressed. otherwise we will be having leaders on trial for war crimes....oh yeah, who am i kidding, that will never ever happen to an american preisdent, but i digress..

Dirtie_Frank

The bigger problem would be how the "Al Qaeda operative" knew he was the pilot. That is something that usually is not posted anywhere.

Cosmo

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

The bigger problem would be how the "Al Qaeda operative" knew he was the pilot. That is something that usually is not posted anywhere.

...
That is beside the point and does not address the question. Is the UAV pilot operating out of bases in the U.S. considered a combatant or not? Is the warzone confined to the base of operations or does it extend to his home and any of the places he visits?
If he is... would missions to take him out be acts of terrorism or acts of war? Any civilian casualties in these missions... murder or collateral damage?
If he is not, why not? Considering his actions a in the direct fight overseas.
...
It isn't an easy question to answer. What are the moral and ethical implications surrounding this type of warfare? Are there any?

Jason P

I think the easy answer is yes, it would immediately be declared an act of terrorism by the U.S. government. It would be denounced within 24 hours.

For the purpose of debate, I think that the U.S. mainland is outside the “theater of war”, therefore it would be an act of terrorism by a faction if an attack took place within the US. If a government was behind the attack, such as Russia or Pakistan, then it could be considered an act of war.

But to make the question more interesting, what if a UAV, piloted by a Taliban operative in Afghanistan, was sent to kill the UAV pilot in the US while he was at home? Hmm . . .

MotoDC

Jason P wrote:

I think the easy answer is yes, it would immediately be declared an act of terrorism by the U.S. government. It would be denounced within 24 hours.

For the purpose of debate, I think that the U.S. mainland is outside the “theater of war”, therefore it would be an act of terrorism by a faction if an attack took place within the US. If a government was behind the attack, such as Russia or Pakistan, then it could be considered an act of war.

But to make the question more interesting, what if a UAV, piloted by a Taliban operative in Afghanistan, was sent to kill the UAV pilot in the US while he was at home? Hmm . . .

There's absolutely no question in my mind that our gov't would immediately condemn such an attack (al-Qaeda attacking the drone pilot at costco) as a terrorist attack on civilians. But that doesn't really address the moral question Cosmo is trying to pose.

In general, yes, I would say the UAV pilot is a combatant. However, your specific example of suicide-bombing a costco doesn't stand up. If I'm supposed to believe that al-Qaeda's true intention there is to take out the military combatant and that they actually concern themselves with minimizing collateral dmg, then said suicide bomber could just as easily have found the UAV pilot in the parking lot and and stabbed/shot/strangled/bored/whatevered him to death. And hell, the al-Qaeda dude would have lived to fight another day. Double bonus for aQ. Goodie for them.

Drowned Out

Cosmo wrote:

So... what is the pilot? Isn't he considered a combatant even if he is not physically within the borders of a warzone?
If so... then if the enemy sends someone stateside to kill him... and kills his wife and kids during the operation... is THAT considered a casualty of war and collateral damage?

By who's definition? By the US's, of course not.
No conventional military attack will occur on US soil in the foreseeable future....if it did (or was possible), it would be a sure way to get nuked. A 'terrorist' attack would be the only reprise for the vicitims of drone bombings....
So....the only reason the 'enemy combatant' label matters at all, is in defining whether the retaliatory attack could be defined as terrorism....or an act of war. But....no act of war on US soil would ever be considered an act of war, it would be 'terrorism' despite the provocation.....so it's all kinda moot - the US makes their own labels for such things and doesn't really seem to care what the international community has to say about the 'proper' definition.

Cosmo

MotoDC wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I think the easy answer is yes, it would immediately be declared an act of terrorism by the U.S. government. It would be denounced within 24 hours.

For the purpose of debate, I think that the U.S. mainland is outside the “theater of war”, therefore it would be an act of terrorism by a faction if an attack took place within the US. If a government was behind the attack, such as Russia or Pakistan, then it could be considered an act of war.

But to make the question more interesting, what if a UAV, piloted by a Taliban operative in Afghanistan, was sent to kill the UAV pilot in the US while he was at home? Hmm . . .

There's absolutely no question in my mind that our gov't would immediately condemn such an attack (al-Qaeda attacking the drone pilot at costco) as a terrorist attack on civilians. But that doesn't really address the moral question Cosmo is trying to pose.

In general, yes, I would say the UAV pilot is a combatant. However, your specific example of suicide-bombing a costco doesn't stand up. If I'm supposed to believe that al-Qaeda's true intention there is to take out the military combatant and that they actually concern themselves with minimizing collateral dmg, then said suicide bomber could just as easily have found the UAV pilot in the parking lot and and stabbed/shot/strangled/bored/whatevered him to death. And hell, the al-Qaeda dude would have lived to fight another day. Double bonus for aQ. Goodie for them.

...
I wonder about the drone attacks on suspected Taliban homes? Are those acts of terror?
Are combatants only combatants when they are on the field of battle, pointing their weapon at you... or are they fair game even when sleeping in their beds... driving up a road... or going to a Costco? What are the rules?
The 500lb bomb dropped from a drone on a home does not only kill the one specific target in the home. It kills anyone withing close proximity to the impact point as well as neighboring buildings and people nearby. It has no disgression. That is why I used the suicide bomber, rather than an assassin in my example.
...
I'm asking these questions because I read about the drone attacks and initially think, 'That's good because our pilots are not placed in harm's way". Then, later think about him being an active participant in the war and may be standing next to me in the flat screen aisle at the Costco. I sure as Hell ain't going to Afghanistan... but, are our actions bringing Afghanistan to us?

ONCE DEVIDED

I place drones in the same basket as IED's
A wimpy way to wage war.
A bomb blown by remote
A bomb flown by remote

ONCE DEVIDED

Oh and also.If you declare war you are at war. So if it was brought to any mainland involved I see it as just that War.
This terrorism crap is just propaganda
How dare they kill innocent people whilst we only have collateral damage

gimmesometruth27

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

I place drones in the same basket as IED's
A wimpy way to wage war.
A bomb blown by remote
A bomb flown by remote

i agree, i think they are both equal on the unethical strategy index...

Commy

there is no moral difference between a bombing run carried out by jets or drones, with collateral damage, and a suicide bombing.



the pilot of the drone is in a war, as such should be considered a military target.

Tenzing N.

Get used to drones. They will become more and more utilized as long as we fight enemies who have no air forces.

Cosmo

Tenzing N. wrote:

Get used to drones. They will become more and more utilized as long as we fight enemies who have no air forces.

...
I understand that... but, what are the ethical and moral questions? Does that expand the battlefield to include the pilot's location? If a UAV pilot is targeted by a suicide bomb in his home... what is it? Terrorism? Act of War?

cajunkiwi

Cosmo wrote:

Tenzing N. wrote:

Get used to drones. They will become more and more utilized as long as we fight enemies who have no air forces.

...
I understand that... but, what are the ethical and moral questions? Does that expand the battlefield to include the pilot's location? If a UAV pilot is targeted by a suicide bomb in his home... what is it? Terrorism? Act of War?

I think "war" and "ethics and morality" are usually mutually exclusive. Reminds me of an old line in the West Wing when Leo McGarry was being investigated for war crimes... "everything in a war is a war crime."

Cosmo

I know... and isn't 'Civil War' an oxymoron?

gimmesometruth27

i understand what you are getting at, but i think you are thinking of the wrong definition of "civil" Cosmo. of course you are right in that no wars are "civil" meaning that they lack adequate amounts of courtesy and politeness.

but the definition of the term "civil war" is a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. they do not happen very often, but they are devestating to that country and potentially that entire region of a continent.

just thought i would throw that out there....carry on :wave:

tybird

Tenzing N. wrote:

Get used to drones. They will become more and more utilized as long as we fight enemies who have no air forces.

My Brother in law is a Lt. Col in the USAF....he told me that the drones are the future reality of warfare....and drones are now goal in the arms races.....China, Russia and most everybody else with the money and know-how are rushing to get in the drone business. This issue echoes where the business of war stood a century ago with the development of airplanes, dreadnought ships and machine guns. That evolution in our killing ability lead to the concept of "total war." In "total war," everybody in either(all) belligerent nation-state(s) is fair game. So in Cosmo's original scenario, yes, the drone pilots state-side are fair targets according to the "rules" of "total war."

gimmesometruth27

tybird wrote:

Tenzing N. wrote:

Get used to drones. They will become more and more utilized as long as we fight enemies who have no air forces.

My Brother in law is a Lt. Col in the USAF....he told me that the drones are the future reality of warfare....and drones are now goal in the arms races.....China, Russia and most everybody else with the money and know-how are rushing to get in the drone business. This issue echoes where the business of war stood a century ago with the development of airplanes, dreadnought ships and machine guns. That evolution in our killing ability lead to the concept of "total war." In "total war," everybody in either(all) belligerent nation-state(s) is fair game. So in Cosmo's original scenario, yes, the drone pilots state-side are fair targets according to the "rules" of "total war."

and to add to this, fighter planes will be a thing of the past in the next 20 years or so. when is the last time there has been a true aerial war complete with opposing air forces having actual dogfights? maybe the first gulf war? maybe if we fought countries with actual airforces there might be a need for fighter planes. but if we are going to keep going after things like al-queda then the fighter plane in the classic sense is obsolete...they will be more of a combo pursuit/light bomber instead of being a pure fighter plane.. i don't think we will ever see true aerial dogfights again...

Cosmo

The problem with remotely controlled drones is this...
Since the aircraft are remotely operated, it means these needs to be a signal sent to it. This signal is encrypted, but can still be intercepted. If it can be intercepted and decrypted and sent back... someone else can gain control.
This is an extremely slim probability because of the security built into the system... but, it still relys on a broadcast signal. The atmosphere is open to everyone.
...
The next generation drones will be autonomous. Pre-programmed for a tactical mission, but maintain the ability to recognize targets of oppurtuniys along the way. They will assess the threat, prioritize the targets and dispatch of the greater threat.
Example: A craft is dispatched to take out a target. Along the way, it encounters troops and vehicles, distinguishes whether they are friend or foe... if foe, it assesses the threat and decides if this new target is more of a threat than the original target. If it is not, it continues on its original mission... destroys that target and (if possible) leaves enough munitions onboard to take out the secondary target in its way back.

catefrances

shall we play a game?- joshua

gimmesometruth27

catefrances wrote:

shall we play a game?- joshua

NICE!!

i have not seen that movie in years...

tybird

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

tybird wrote:

Tenzing N. wrote:

Get used to drones. They will become more and more utilized as long as we fight enemies who have no air forces.

My Brother in law is a Lt. Col in the USAF....he told me that the drones are the future reality of warfare....and drones are now goal in the arms races.....China, Russia and most everybody else with the money and know-how are rushing to get in the drone business. This issue echoes where the business of war stood a century ago with the development of airplanes, dreadnought ships and machine guns. That evolution in our killing ability lead to the concept of "total war." In "total war," everybody in either(all) belligerent nation-state(s) is fair game. So in Cosmo's original scenario, yes, the drone pilots state-side are fair targets according to the "rules" of "total war."

and to add to this, fighter planes will be a thing of the past in the next 20 years or so. when is the last time there has been a true aerial war complete with opposing air forces having actual dogfights? maybe the first gulf war? maybe if we fought countries with actual airforces there might be a need for fighter planes. but if we are going to keep going after things like al-queda then the fighter plane in the classic sense is obsolete...they will be more of a combo pursuit/light bomber instead of being a pure fighter plane.. i don't think we will ever see true aerial dogfights again...

The latest Balkan wars might be the last conflict with both sides having combat air forces that were used...shadow organizations like al-Queda may have the money to buy planes, but the infrastructure to support those planes requires space....to store, land and repair those planes.....not many planes that can hide in caves....drones on the other hand.

tybird

catefrances wrote:

shall we play a game?- joshua

Tic Tac Toe?

catefrances

wouldnt you prefer a nice game of chess?

gimmesometruth27