Is The Use Of A Domestic Drone An Act Of Cowardice?

[The Northbreather]

I've been thinking about this question for a while now and I would like some opinions on the subject.

I would like to get to the root of the matter and I feel like having a dialogue about drones and cowardice might be just as effectual as the constitutional standpoint at finding some conclusions. Since we now have this weapon and it appears to be embraced by some, I believe that this conversation is fundamental.

I also would like some help defining and adding a poll to the title.

It seems that we have to divide the subject in two right off the bat. Surveillance Drones and Combat Drones


Surveillance Drones:

Is the use of a domestic surveillance drone by the government/police/military cowardly?

I would assume that many people would not consider the use surveillance drones outside the US cowardly so I wont ask that question. I believe it is generally accepted to use any technological advantage possible in a military surveillance situation.

That said, is it cowardly for the goverment to use a technological advantage over their citizenship? If there is a question of legality, isn't confronting the the problem up front and out in the open the upright thing to do? Spying from an unseen and unaccountable position seems cowardly to me.



Combat Drones:

Is the use of a government domestic combat drone cowardly, if the target has similar technology?

Is the use of a government domestic combat drone cowardly, if the target does not have similar technology?

[JK/SEA]

The problem i see is drones in the near future acting on their own. Pre-programmed.

[Sola_Fide]

I think it is cowardly, and on top of cowardly, it is one of the coldest forms of murder. Think about how warfare has progressed through the centuries, from taking swords and personally stabbing your enemy to death, to sitting behind a computer screen thousands of miles away and pressing buttons to murder dozens of people at once.

There is a psychology to the use of drones that should be the scariest thing that government has ever conceived of. This is going to come back to haunt us.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Yes it is.

[kcchiefs6465]

Killing someone from miles away, miles in the sky, is very cowardly.

I assume you are talking about using lethal force with a drone, anyways. Definitely not medal worthy. Hell they can't even stomach to see the child whose leg they inadvertantly blew off (or worse). While the one on the ground who has to respond to the carnage can't sleep at night, develops PTSD and possibly kills himself, they go home daily distanced from the tragedy.

I don't even think cowardly properly describes it.

[The Northbreather]

I think it helpful to frame the drone question from both the moral and domestic stance before we even get into its use as weapon of war.

Do we as citizens now approve of the goverment using technology that is far beyond our personal reach?

I know someone is going to say that they don't care if this happens as long as the citizens can have drones also, but lets face it, that isn't a reality when these machines cost millions of dollars not to mention the fact that their development is not only secret, but is payed for by our taxes which puts the government at an even greater advantage.

One of the reasons that many disagree with any incremental increase or acceptance of drones is the fact that since this technology is not available to both parties (the citizen and goverment), you have a situation where the strong is attacking the weak which is immoral and cowardly. Do we accept this as free society?



I think that more discussion on the morality of these machines is in order

[The Northbreather]

Has the technological gap between the abilities of the government and the populous ever been as great with anything used domestically as it is with drones?

For something as invasive and lethal as these machines are capable of, this is a very important question as well imho.

[paulbot24]

Killing someone from miles away, miles in the sky, is very cowardly.

I assume you are talking about using lethal force with a drone, anyways. Definitely not medal worthy. Hell they can't even stomach to see the child whose leg they inadvertantly blew off (or worse). While the one on the ground who has to respond to the carnage can't sleep at night, develops PTSD and possibly kills himself, they go home daily distanced from the tragedy.

I don't even think cowardly properly describes it.

Agreed. Maybe in the future somebody will have coined a special word for it......like the holocaust.:rolleyes:

[Natural Citizen]

Has the technological gap between the abilities of the government and the populous ever been as great with anything used domestically as it is with drones?

For something as invasive and lethal as these machines a capable of, this is a very important question as well imho.

It's a very good question. These devices are synced up to satellites in space. This means that because the technology is there to see every single inch of the landscape of Earth and that because the technology has been militarized because of it's capability to do that then by default every area of land on Earth is a warzone in the minds of politicians who are heavily lobbied by them. Supply and demand of sorts if you exist on a military economy.

That's a very shallow response but until we can evolve to discussion on these sciences we'll be relegated to social perception of what the problem actually is. You just can't discuss it properly among politically driven people with a half baked notion of what the free market is versus what we actually have in scope and just a whole host of issues that are impeded by the same social/shallow vision of how things really are. This, of course, is where the true gap exists between generations regarding literacy of the applicable technology.

Bottom line? Business is boomin. Literally. Until people wise up and start asking their representatives what their position is on the science of it instead of the social implications then business will most certainly continue to boom.

[fr33]

Until the victims of drones have access to an equal weapon, it will be looked upon as cowardly. It's not all that different from when the first gunmen shot down the spear-carrying savages.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Until the victims of drones have access to an equal weapon, it will be looked upon as cowardly. It's not all that different from when the first gunmen shot down the spear-carrying savages.

Of course it is. There used to be a time when a leader would fight with their men, or their children if they are too old.

[tod evans]

I think the use of drones is cowardly.

[KingNothing]

I think it is cowardly

What does that word even mean? There are no Marquess of Queensberry rules in war, and predator drones are certainly weapons of war.

[KingNothing]

I think the use of drones is cowardly.

Is sniper fire cowardly? Is covering fire cowardly? Is air superiority cowardly? Are missiles cowardly? Are tanks cowardly? Are bow and arrows cowardly? Are swords cowardly? Are brass knuckles cowardly? Is being stronger than an opponent cowardly? Is being smarter than an opponent cowardly? Why does the technology or skill employed in the use of killing someone imply cowardice?

[tod evans]

Is sniper fire cowardly? Is covering fire cowardly? Is air superiority cowardly? Are missiles cowardly? Are tanks cowardly? Are bow and arrows cowardly? Are swords cowardly? Are brass knuckles cowardly? Is being stronger than an opponent cowardly? Is being smarter than an opponent cowardly? Why does the technology or skill employed in the use of killing someone imply cowardice?

Let's keep going..........NBC warfare too!

What the hell, we've got the technology...

Why not just turn all parts of the world that oppose our divine leadership into parking lots?

By golly we're entitled..:rolleyes:

[tod evans]

When the first hot-air balloon was used to provide battlefield reconnaissance men with muskets and their foot scouts bemoaned it's use as cowardly too.

Look how far we've come as a people..

Puke!

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Yes, yes, yes.

If you want to spy on my family, have the balls to come take a look in my window. Let's see how that works out.

It's creepy to spy on people. People who feel the need to do such often have ill intentions. It makes people uncomfortable to be watched. These are some of the reasons we have laws against peeping toms.

In a sense, I would say using a telescope makes a peeping tom more of a sissy, as they are still performing the same shameful act, but doing it from a longer distance to avoid detection.

I guess... whether the method makes them a coward or not, I don't see how it matters much. It's like saying fraud perpetrators are cowardly while armed robbers are not cowardly. Clearly, in the latter, the chances of a confrontation go up. Maybe it makes them more stupid instead of more cowardly.

[moostraks]

Is sniper fire cowardly? Is covering fire cowardly? Is air superiority cowardly? Are missiles cowardly? Are tanks cowardly? Are bow and arrows cowardly? Are swords cowardly? Are brass knuckles cowardly? Is being stronger than an opponent cowardly? Is being smarter than an opponent cowardly? Why does the technology or skill employed in the use of killing someone imply cowardice?
Someone has to have a conscience in order to understand this. If you can honestly ask these questions and not know the answer why then you have not successfully had that portion of your personality developed.

[KingNothing]

Someone has to have a conscience in order to understand this. If you can honestly ask these questions and not know the answer why then you have not successfully had that portion of your personality developed.


No. The distinctions you make are totally arbitrary. No war is moral, and no manner of killing men is moral. Understanding that, how can anyone say that the advent of technology makes an act less or more cowardly? The best way to win a war is to limit the casualties on your side. To that end, why denigrate drones in and of themselves? Rip the act of killing. Rip the destruction of life, particularly innocent life. The technology employed is totally inconsequential.

[KingNothing]

Let's keep going..........NBC warfare too!

What the hell, we've got the technology...

Why not just turn all parts of the world that oppose our divine leadership into parking lots?

By golly we're entitled..:rolleyes:

Your desire to construct straw men arguments is completely infuriating and reinforcing my belief that you are either delusional or an idiot.

[KingNothing]

When the first hot-air balloon was used to provide battlefield reconnaissance men with muskets and their foot scouts bemoaned it's use as cowardly too.

Look how far we've come as a people..

Puke!

And muskets are also violence acting at distance. I'm sure men with swords looked down on guys who used gunpowder. And swords, too, provide an advantage unbecoming of Men - why, only a coward needs something more than his own two hands!

[tod evans]

Your desire to construct straw men arguments is completely infuriating and reinforcing my belief that you are either delusional or an idiot.

Well in your happy world I suppose I'm both...

In my world wars entered into by politicians should be fought by politicians, not drones or children!

[KingNothing]

Well in your happy world I suppose I'm both...

In my world wars entered into by politicians should be fought by politicians, not drones or children!


Agreed. But what in the holy hell does that have to do with ANY of the arguments I've put forth? You're just inventing a stance for me, then beating it up.
Why are you doing that?

[tod evans]

Simply because you wanted to argue my opinion that drone use is cowardly.

There's no amount of typing that's going to convince me otherwise..

[KingNothing]

Simply because you wanted to argue my opinion that drone use is cowardly.

There's no amount of typing that's going to convince me otherwise..

So, you make an argument. I make a counter-argument. You ignore it, and argue a totally different point that you project onto me, just because you wanted to.

Alrighty then. Carry on.

[tod evans]

So, you make an argument. I make a counter-argument. You ignore it, and argue a totally different point that you project onto me, just because you wanted to.

Alrighty then. Carry on.

Try again bucko...

I made a statement voicing my opinion and you challenged it..

[KingNothing]

Try again bucko...

I made a statement voicing my opinion and you challenged it..

Wow. Read again. You said it was cowardly. I said it wasn't. You moved on to the morality of war, and who should actually be forced to fight them, as if the cowardice of politicians mattered in this conversation. I never challenged that opinion.

[moostraks]

No. The distinctions you make are totally arbitrary. No war is moral, and no manner of killing men is moral. Understanding that, how can anyone say that the advent of technology makes an act less or more cowardly? The best way to win a war is to limit the casualties on your side. To that end, why denigrate drones in and of themselves? Rip the act of killing. Rip the destruction of life, particularly innocent life. The technology employed is totally inconsequential.

Lol! I agree with your position on the moral nature of war. However, if two parties in of a mind to settle a score through violent means then to think that using an unfair advantage is not cowardly is lacking a conscience. So I disagree with your conclusion that there is no cowardice involved.

Bullies use might to keep power and control over others. They only seek to control those who have less of an advantage then themselves. That doesn't make them successful. It proves their cruelty and cowardliness.

[pcosmar]

Try again bucko...

I made a statement voicing my opinion and you challenged it..

http://craigconnects.org/wp-content/uploads/troll-meme.png

[belian78]

http://craigconnects.org/wp-content/uploads/troll-meme.png
The only problem with that though, is around these parts these days, if we didn't feed the trolls there wouldn't be any conversations. This is not the website I joined all these years ago, anymore.

[TheTexan]

I would go a step further and say that using a domestic drone to kill someone is an act of war against the american people

[belian78]

I would go a step further and say that using a domestic drone to kill someone is an act of war against the american people
I realize that drones can have greatly beneficial uses outside of law enforcement/war, I can see and accept that. However, as another poster said, they are pandora's box. They can never be reigned back in and only used for commercial purposes, never, there are those that would never allow that to happen.

So, for me, when it comes to drones they have to be looked at as a tool of war and only that. To use a drone period, is an act of war.

[tod evans]

Actually I could see some good and productive uses of the technology, problem is if we as a people permit uses such as looking for lost children in the "wild" then evil people will want to use the technology to arrest and prosecute other people who say, grow weed...

Really it's a shame that one must choose based on the potential behavior of government....

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The only problem with that though, is around these parts these days, if we didn't feed the trolls there wouldn't be any conversations. This is not the website I joined all these years ago, anymore.


It's still a lot better than most. Dissenting opinion (or even trolling), refines the discussions.

When we joined, this was an action forum. Now it's largely a philosophical discussion forum, news website, with hints of activism.

[asurfaholic]

Meh cowardly or not isnt the issue. The issue is the use of any weapons in and out of war. The real question i ask is what constitutes a war, and who are we at war with.

In the scenario where we have been attacked by a govt of another country, and we as a nation properly declare war, I do not feel that any use of a drone would be "cowardly" because we are fighting a defensive war. Why risk human lives if we have the tech to avoid that? Take down the threat, minimize civilian casualties, and end the war. There is nothing cowardly about that.

However, fighting offensive all over the world hitting civilians as much as suspected enemies in undeclared wars is pure cowardice. Right now America is the worlds biggest bully, and we all know that bullies are bullies because they are insecure inside.

[paulbot24]

The idea of using drones to fight back or send a message seems an awful lot like the cowardice behind keying somebody's car in their driveway when you know they are sleeping inside as opposed to facing them and telling them your beef with them. At least when the first people that only knew spears or bows and arrows encountered guns, they still (for the most part) were able to know who it was that killed them. Maybe this is a trivial detail to some, but if somebody cut me down in gunfire while I was walking down the street, and I never even knew them or had any idea what had happened and I was just dead, that seems worse than being able to look my killer in the eye. Just a weird principle thing, but one that resonates with me.

[The Northbreather]

What does that word even mean? There are no Marquess of Queensberry rules in war, and predator drones are certainly weapons of war.

That's why I want to confine this talk to the domestic citizen/government realm for now.

Surveillance and combat. Once we acknowledge the question then we can form an opinion.

[The Northbreather]

Meh cowardly or not isnt the issue. The issue is the use of any weapons in and out of war. The real question i ask is what constitutes a war, and who are we at war with.

In the scenario where we have been attacked by a govt of another country, and we as a nation properly declare war, I do not feel that any use of a drone would be "cowardly" because we are fighting a defensive war. Why risk human lives if we have the tech to avoid that? Take down the threat, minimize civilian casualties, and end the war. There is nothing cowardly about that.

However, fighting offensive all over the world hitting civilians as much as suspected enemies in undeclared wars is pure cowardice. Right now America is the worlds biggest bully, and we all know that bullies are bullies because they are insecure inside.

What about surveillance drones then. Is it cowardly for the government to use an advanced technology against a citizen being aware that the citizen doesn't have any where near the same ability as recourse.

Like I asked before:

One of the reasons that many disagree with any incremental increase or acceptance of drones is the fact that since this technology is not available to both parties (the citizen and goverment), you have a situation where the strong is attacking the weak which is immoral and cowardly. Do we accept this as free society?

Has the technological gap between the abilities of the government and the populous ever been as great with anything used domestically as it is with drones?

For something as invasive and lethal as these machines are capable of, this is a very important question as well imho.

[The Northbreather]

I would go a step further and say that using a domestic drone to kill someone is an act of war against the american people

Is a surveillance drone as well?

[tod evans]

Any aggressive use of technology by government against a citizen should be discouraged, so if there is potential for prosecution then surveillance should not be permitted.

The mere thought of armed drones controlled by this government flying over the country gives me chills!

[belian78]

Is a surveillance drone as well?

I would say it is. I'm supposed to have an inherit right to my privacy. What expectation of privacy could I even dream to have, if there's a flying spyglass over me and my property at any given time? Even if they are not looking at me directly, going after a neighbor or someone in my community, my property will still be able to be viewed, will it not?

IMO if drones were to be used domestically, they would have to be strictly regulated by a private organization to only be used in very specific actions (search and rescue i.e.) and would have to be documented and tracked while in the air.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

A drone is a tool.

Just like a plane, helicopter, satellite or gun. No they are not inherently cowardly.

Using a drone to spy on the American people; using a drone to bomb a wedding in Afganistan; yes that's cowardly-tyranny.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I would say it is. I'm supposed to have an inherit right to my privacy. What expectation of privacy could I even dream to have, if there's a flying spyglass over me and my property at any given time? Even if they are not looking at me directly, going after a neighbor or someone in my community, my property will still be able to be viewed, will it not?

You must of been up in arms when planes and satellites were invented. :rolleyes:

[belian78]

You must of been up in arms when planes and satellites were invented. :rolleyes:

Strawman, you defeat me again.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Is a surveillance drone as well?


That's not the right question.

The right question is this:

"If I'm not hurting you or even bothering anyone, then why can't you mind your own fucking business?"

I want to boil this down to an individual interaction. Let's say you have 5 neighbors, and if one of them explains that they're gonna start monitoring your activities on the internet, you'd look at them like "What the fuck are you talking about??"

Only, I'll add one more thing. The neighbor then explains that they need to buy a lot of equipment to spy on you, and you will be paying for it.

Who's going to give that dipshit money? He can only make that happen by absolutely robbing, or intimidating you. Or scaring the other neighbors is a successful tactic too.

[The Northbreather]

That's not the right question.


I want to boil this down to an individual interaction. Let's say you have 5 neighbors, and if one of them explains that they're gonna start monitoring your activities on the internet, you'd look at them like "What the fuck are you talking about??"

Only, I'll add one more thing. The neighbor then explains that they need to buy a lot of equipment to spy on you, and you will be paying for it.

Who's going to give that dipshit money? He can only make that happen by absolutely robbing, or intimidating you. Or scaring the other neighbors is a successful tactic too.


Exactly.

And for those who think it fine for the gov to use them as long as we can too, I agree in theory but I understand that its impossible in realty so I take the no drone for government position because:

1) The government is stealing from you to pay for these things. Not only does that give them a huge advantage and head start. but now you have less money to finance the development of your own.

2) It cant be seen as the same as small arms. Yes you buy a gun similar in technology at a decent price to the ones the gov can buy. You CANNOT buy a drone similar in technology as the gov can buy

[bolil]

If using a drone is an act of cowardice, killing someone with anything other than your fists is also an act, lesser or greater, of cowardice.

[asurfaholic]

What about surveillance drones then. Is it cowardly for the government to use an advanced technology against a citizen being aware that the citizen doesn't have any where near the same ability as recourse.


I think you are asking very good questions, and these questions are important to revisit because as you are aware, new technology makes govt abuse easier and less visible.

The domestic surveillance drones are not much different than a combat drone when it comes down to it. As with anything there needs to be proper procedures followed. Americans should be secure from warrant less searches and surveillance.

But I would approve of the use of drones if there was a warrant signed by a judge.

Of course time has proven that government will abuse the power and capabilities, look at CIPSA and the Patriot act. Those are bigger issues that attack the very existence of freedom in America.


Edit- to clarify I absolutely do not agree with armed drones. As Tod Evsns said, it would be chilling.

[The Northbreather]

If using a drone is an act of cowardice, killing someone with anything other than your fists is also an act, lesser or greater, of cowardice.

I would contend that shooting a man holding a knife from 300 yards in a domestic setting is cowardice. Or an unarmed man.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I think it is cowardly, and on top of cowardly, it is one of the coldest forms of murder. Think about how warfare has progressed through the centuries, from taking swords and personally stabbing your enemy to death, to sitting behind a computer screen thousands of miles away and pressing buttons to murder dozens of people at once.

There is a psychology to the use of drones that should be the scariest thing that government has ever conceived of. This is going to come back to haunt us.

Most definitely. + rep

[The Northbreather]

I think you are asking very good questions, and these questions are important to revisit because as you are aware, new technology makes govt abuse easier and less visible.

The domestic surveillance drones are not much different than a combat drone when it comes down to it. As with anything there needs to be proper procedures followed. Americans should be secure from warrant less searches and surveillance.

But I would approve of the use of drones if there was a warrant signed by a judge.

Of course time has proven that government will abuse the power and capabilities, look at CIPSA and the Patriot act. Those are bigger issues that attack the very existence of freedom in America.


Edit- to clarify I absolutely do not agree with armed drones. As Tod Evsns said, it would be chilling.


Thanks.

It seems that many people don,t realize that their are trying to create drones not for rare, specific, warranted use bit for permannant, fixed, hovering type surveillance.

They are trying to make them so they don't have to refuel for months or even years and be able to track and record entire cities in real time high resolution video.

These are far more evasive than satellites


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA

They are moving to put that onto these....

http://thefutureofthings.com/upload/image/articles/2007/solar-uav/helios.jpg
http://ecofriend.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/auroras_solar_uav_image_title_4js4o.jpg

Also in development by Darpa:

Five full years. That is the time for which Aurora Flight Sciences’ UAV can fly continuously. If you’re wondering how this UAV can manage to fly for so long, it can do so as it powered by an inexhaustible source of power, the sun. This solar powered UAV will charge its batteries while flying around in the daytime. The recharged batteries will power the UAV at night when it’s cruising speed also will decrease from 63 m/s to 43 m/s. This solar powered UAV has been developed by Aurora Flight Sciences as a part of DARPA’s Vulture Program.