Drones - underhand, unfair and damned un-English?

[pap]

According to this Guardian article, the RAF are buying five more Reaper drones, doubling the UK's complement to 10.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/22/uk-double-drones-afghanistan

 

The forces haven't always welcomed change. In 1901, Admiral Sir Arthur Smith, Controller of the Royal Navy, denounced Holland One, the Royal Navy's first submarine, claiming it was "underhand, unfair and damned un-English".

 

His comments seem blinkered in hindsight. German U-Boats terrorised the oceans over two world wars while boomers crawled the depths of Cold War oceans ready and able to kick off global thermonuclear war. They still do.

 

Admiral Sir Arthur Smith missed his mark then, but are his comments perhaps applicable to the role of drones today? Essential component of an evolving modern military, or underhand, unfair and damned un-English?

[Colinjb]

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

 

The drones are simply a sign of things to come. Get on board or get left behind.

Edited 22 October, 2012 by Colinjb

[doddisalegend]

Drones are unfair compared to what? IEDs, suicide bombers, flying planes in to buildings, ethnic cleansing or conscripting child soldiers...............the idea that war in someway has to be "fair" is perverse. The whole idea of a war is to win it for some sort of gain and if you get into a war you win it anyway you can get away with.

 

If we go to war with a country that has no tanks are we supposed to leave ours at home to make it more "fair"?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I'm certainly no war monger but I just don't get the moralising about drones. In war people get killed and maimed - what difference does it make if a bomb is delivered by a pilot in a plane or by a drone controlled by a guy using a computer?

[pap]

I've got a measure of agreement with all of the above comments. I don't like the idea of drones in principle, but I'm a pragmatist. Even if we don't get into this tech, others will.

 

I'll go further. Deadlier and more autonomous machines are almost a certainty. Someone somewhere will rightfully suggest pilot fatigue and human expertise as a limiting factor in combat. If you're a wannabe super-power, would you be remotely interested in tech that'd allow you to scale your military without considering the human factor? Of course you would.

 

So yep, I hate drones. Problem is, genie is already out of the bottle. Any moral stance I might take is immediately liquidated by the fact that if I had my moral way, we wouldn't have people with drone pilot experience, which would ultimately make us less safe against people who might seek to lob a million our way. I think the potential scale of drone attacks is probably the most disturbing thing about them. We really can't be in a position where we know jack sh!t about them.

[alpine_saint]

Dont see the difference when comparing to cruise missiles or ballistic missiles, to be honest. Both have been part of "accepted" military doctrine for decades.

 

They all kill with the trigger finger thousands of miles away.

[PhilippineSaint]

Dont see the difference when comparing to cruise missiles or ballistic missiles, to be honest. Both have been part of "accepted" military doctrine for decades.

 

They all kill with the trigger finger thousands of miles away.

 

The problem with them is that nobody will use them and everybody knows you will not use them. This is why we have soldiers in Iraq Afghanistan and where ever else. If they had zapped Baghdad with a nuke the first time most of the last 15 years fighting would not have happened.

 

If you've got them use them. other wise why have them??

[Thedelldays]

Don't like the idea of drones?

Would you feel better with someone sat in the cockpit when/if it is shot down?

[alpine_saint]

The problem with them is that nobody will use them and everybody knows you will not use them. This is why we have soldiers in Iraq Afghanistan and where ever else. If they had zapped Baghdad with a nuke the first time most of the last 15 years fighting would not have happened.

 

If you've got them use them. other wise why have them??

 

Hundreds of cruise missiles have been fired over the past 20 years.

 

Not all of them have nuclear warheads.

[CB Saint]

I like drones for two reasons

 

1 pilot safety

 

2 as a tax payer they don't cost as much to replace when they get shot down

[Thedelldays]

Hundreds of cruise missiles have been fired over the past 20 years.

 

Not all of them have nuclear warheads.

 

If talking about the UK. None have

[Sheaf Saint]

If talking about the UK. None have

 

Is that the actual truth, or is it just what you are allowed to tell everyone? I seem to recall reports of British ships and subs being involved in the 'shock and awe' tactic - firing missiles from vast distances away - but I accept my memory could well be wrong in that respect.

[Saint in Paradise]

Not nuclear as such but could have had depleted uranium somewhere in the mix. Extremely nasty stuff that.

[norwaysaint]

Couldn't all of this be said about guns? Press a trigger here and somebody a mile over there dies. Maybe about any missile based weapon, right back through bow and arrow and throw-able spear, people have been killing people without coming into direct contact with them. It's not like submarines were the first and next it's drones. At points in history it was common for one side to show up with swords or spears and the other to show up with guns and cannons. Remote killing has been part of war from way, way back. In that sense, it's very very English.

[alpine_saint]

Is that the actual truth, or is it just what you are allowed to tell everyone? I seem to recall reports of British ships and subs being involved in the 'shock and awe' tactic - firing missiles from vast distances away - but I accept my memory could well be wrong in that respect.

 

Since the WE177 gravity bomb and the nuclear depth charge (Green parrot ?) were retired, the only nukes we have sit on top of Trident missiles.

[View From The Top]

I'm 'kin deadly with one on MW3!

[Gambol2K9]

I'm certainly no war monger but I just don't get the moralising about drones. In war people get killed and maimed - what difference does it make if a bomb is delivered by a pilot in a plane or by a drone controlled by a guy using a computer?

 

A hell of a lot of civilians have been killed in the Middle East by unmanned drones, they don't quite have the accuracy you'd want them to.

 

This sort of technology is the future of war though.

[alpine_saint]

Not nuclear as such but could have had depleted uranium somewhere in the mix. Extremely nasty stuff that.

 

DU is used for penetrating armour due to its density. It has no other military use whatsoever, its not even particularly effective in a "dirty bomb"

[alpine_saint]

Not nuclear as such but could have had depleted uranium somewhere in the mix. Extremely nasty stuff that.

 

Not proven.

[doddisalegend]

Don't like the idea of drones?

Would you feel better with someone sat in the cockpit when/if it is shot down?

 

Although drones lack some of the admiration guys like this get...Imagine how boring war films will be in the future:(

[PhilippineSaint]

It Appears to be getting of topic

 

Poll please mods

 

1: Drones to be used and finish war with no casualties on your side

 

2: Drones not to be used but armed servicemen sent in possibly not coming back.

 

3: Nuke the ****ers before they think about it in the first place

[Thedelldays]

Is that the actual truth, or is it just what you are allowed to tell everyone? I seem to recall reports of British ships and subs being involved in the 'shock and awe' tactic - firing missiles from vast distances away - but I accept my memory could well be wrong in that respect.

 

The actual truth. I know my cruise missiles

[pap]

Although drones lack some of the admiration guys like this get...Imagine how boring war films will be in the future:(

 

Some? Try most.

 

A Klingon would not consider a drone pilot honourable.

 

Military types: where does a drone pilot sit in the pecking order of military badasses?

[Thedelldays]

Some? Try most.

 

A Klingon would not consider a drone pilot honourable.

 

Military types: where does a drone pilot sit in the pecking order of military badasses?

 

It's pretty cool to be honest

[pap]

It's pretty cool to be honest

 

Have you not seen any of the Terminator films?

[Thedelldays]

Have you not seen any of the Terminator films?

 

Yes. It won't be long till they are real

[PhilippineSaint]

Yes. It won't be long till they are real

 

Your already in the past mate the Xray machines have already been used at Manchester airport.

[Ohio Saint]

Crossbows never caught on in England because they were unsporting and un-English. I think it's time we started using crossbows.

[pap]

Yes. It won't be long till they are real

 

Actually do not doubt it. So what happens to you lot when you're replaced by dog-bothering cyborgs?

[PhilippineSaint]

My old man made one once when he worked in Esso had no proper bolts for it but a ball point pen would penetrate a wooden door so what it would do to you i dread to think.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

A hell of a lot of civilians have been killed in the Middle East by unmanned drones, they don't quite have the accuracy you'd want them to.

 

 

Are they any less accurate than manned aircraft? The civilians killed/hurt in an airstrike couldn't give a crap about whether or not the missile was fired by a drone or a manned jet.

[ecuk268]

Crossbows never caught on in England because they were unsporting and un-English. I think it's time we started using crossbows.

 

Both Crecy and Agincourt showed that the longbow was more effective.

[buctootim]

My old man made one once when he worked in Esso had no proper bolts for it but a ball point pen would penetrate a wooden door so what it would do to you i dread to think.

 

I really wanted one I saw in the paper when I was about 14 - advertised with an effective range of 1/3 of a mile. Mum would never let me have it.

Edited 23 October, 2012 by buctootim

[buctootim]

Both Crecy and Agincourt showed that the longbow was more effective.

 

It wasnt that each shot was more damaging, simply that it had a much faster rate of fire.

[Whitey Grandad]

A crossbow did not need any training and could be fired by anybody.

[This Charming Man]

Can someone contact the Taliban and tell them to stop laying IED's. It's unfair.

[Spudders]

Drones are unfair compared to what? IEDs, suicide bombers, flying planes in to buildings, ethnic cleansing or conscripting child soldiers...............the idea that war in someway has to be "fair" is perverse. The whole idea of a war is to win it for some sort of gain and if you get into a war you win it anyway you can get away with.

 

If we go to war with a country that has no tanks are we supposed to leave ours at home to make it more "fair"?

 

In a nutshell.....this for me.

[Thedelldays]

drones...just a step up from guided missiles....that have been around for ages

[Gingeletiss]

I love civilians discussing the morals of war.....try being there lads, then discuss this subject.

[Lighthouse]

Drones are the future, like it or not. There is just no sense in sending a bloke in a plane over hostile territory so he can get his arse blow off, need rescuing, getting captured, interogated, demands for ransom etc. Not if you've got the technology to do it all from the safety of a Royal Navy destroyer 400 miles away.

 

Plus aircraft technology has come on massively in the last 100 years. The most obsolete piece of kit in them now (by a long way) is the human being Mk.1. They need air supplies, ejector seats, survival gear, a big glass canopy and a shed load of heavy and expensive instrument displays. All of which can break and need regular maintenance. The latest RAF Typhoon is capable of mavoeurves far beyond the g-force limits a human being can endure.

[pap]

I love civilians discussing the morals of war.....try being there lads, then discuss this subject.

 

So drone pilots not allowed to comment then?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I love civilians discussing the morals of war.....try being there lads, then discuss this subject.

 

What a lame comment.

[Deano6]

Drones are the future, like it or not. There is just no sense in sending a bloke in a plane over hostile territory so he can get his arse blow off, need rescuing, getting captured, interogated, demands for ransom etc. Not if you've got the technology to do it all from the safety of a Royal Navy destroyer 400 miles away.

 

Plus aircraft technology has come on massively in the last 100 years. The most obsolete piece of kit in them now (by a long way) is the human being Mk.1. They need air supplies, ejector seats, survival gear, a big glass canopy and a shed load of heavy and expensive instrument displays. All of which can break and need regular maintenance. The latest RAF Typhoon is capable of mavoeurves far beyond the g-force limits a human being can endure.

 

So you're saying we need to bring out the human being Mk 2?

[Lighthouse]

So you're saying we need to bring out the human being Mk 2?

 

If the MK2 can sustain forces of over 20g and has a bullet proof rectum then yes, it's exactly what we need.

[View From The Top]

I love civilians discussing the morals of war.....try being there lads, then discuss this subject.

 

Civvies have every right to discuss the morality of war and to hold to account those who wage it. They don't however, possess the insight of those who have taken part in it.

 

There is a huge difference but it's hardly surprising that someone with your limited thinking would fail to see that.

[View From The Top]

Interesting chat on the radio yesterday with some septic who was saying why the USA decided you use SEALS instead of a drone or airstrike when hunting OBL.

 

Mk1 eyeball was required.

[Lighthouse]

Interesting chat on the radio yesterday with some septic who was saying why the USA decided you use SEALS instead of a drone or airstrike when hunting OBL.

 

Mk1 eyeball was required.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. Close air support and the front line soldier serve 2 completely different purposes.

 

SEALS were needed because there isn't a robot out there close to matching a person for articulate movement, coordination and communication. A pilot essentially just sits there pressing buttons, which can often be easily be done in a safe location hundreds of miles away.

[Window Cleaner]

I refer you to John Lyly in his 1578 work Euphues . This renaissance poet being the first to assert that in love as in war the rules of fair play do not apply, hence the idiom "all's fair in love and war".

[Thedelldays]

if you look through time...Battles have been fought from further and further away ast time passes by

[View From The Top]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Close air support and the front line soldier serve 2 completely different purposes.

 

SEALS were needed because there isn't a robot out there close to matching a person for articulate movement, coordination and communication. A pilot essentially just sits there pressing buttons, which can often be easily be done in a safe location hundreds of miles away.

 

Wasn't commenting on your post, just found the interview interesting as to why such a choice was made.