View Full Version : Unmanned Drones to be banned?
Lord Bingham, who retired last year as a senior law lord, said the aircraft could follow other weapons considered "so cruel as to be beyond the pale of human tolerance" in being consigned to the history books.
He likened drones, which have killed hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Gaza, to cluster bombs and landmines.
Unmanned drones could be banned, says senior judge - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5755446/Unmanned-drones-could-be-banned-says-senior-judge.html)
Have 'drones' really killed hundereds of civillians? Or is fleetstreet up to it's usual standard of scaremongering?
Yeoman_dai
6th Jul 2009, 09:04
Unless the USAF and CIA is using the rather horrendously expensive option in Pakistan et al of using enitre Predators to crash into the ground to kill Taliban, I'd rather suggest that it is the weapons being dropped and fired by the drones that kill and main 'beyond the pale' - but those same weapons are fired from other aircraft without such awful results, apparently?
angels
6th Jul 2009, 09:07
Have 'drones' really killed hundereds of civillians? Or is fleetstreet up to it's usual standard of scaremongering?
Drones may well have killed hundreds of civilians. At the end of the day the drones are operated by humans, who make mistakes be it because of duff intelligence, mis-identifying of a house etc.
Therefore, the piece from the article stating -
However, they have been known to make errors and kill civilians.
is cobblers. 'They' have been told what to do.
Manned bombers have killed hundreds of civilians as well as some of our own troops. Anyone that thinks war is 100 percent clean is bonkers.
green granite
6th Jul 2009, 09:21
It seems to be nowadays that, to use any weapon that might give you an advantage over the terrorist/enemy, is considered to be cruel. It's about time we stopped listening to these muppets.
GG,
quite correct, in that case our guys are going to start strapping explosives to them and running into crowded markets to blow them and everyone else up. And cutting the enemies heads off with carving knives.
That is obviously not cruel in this Judges opinion.
Whenurhappy
6th Jul 2009, 10:53
I suggest before posters develop Daily Mail Appoplexsus, you should read the interview conducted by Joshua Rozenberg. The Press (shame on you Telegraph!) have sensationalised one small comment by one of the finest legal brains produced in the UK over the last century. Here's the interview in full:
http://www.biicl.org/files/4422_bingham_int_transcript.pdf
What he actually said seems sensible.
Indeed, it reflects a common view several years ago that, with the end of the possibility of unrestricted warfare, the Brimstone in it's original configuration was just about unusable.
It also reflects the legal position concerning the use of weapons around civilians and acceptable levels of collateral damage.
In fact, nothing contentious at all.
It may be—it may be, I’m not expressing a view, that unmanned drones that fall on a house full of civilians is a weapon the international community should decide should not be used.
mystic_meg
6th Jul 2009, 11:09
Can somebody please explain exactly what an unmanned drone is? Surely drones are all unmanned? :confused:
Saintsman
6th Jul 2009, 11:14
I'm sure that lots of people liken an 'unmanned drone' to a WW2 V1 and have no idea of what they are capable of or really do.
I still do not agree with holding back with the use or deployment of certain weapons because we are the 'good guys'.
AP Mines are very usefull for defending an area when you do not have the manpower to cover it.
Depleated Uranium is a very usefull can opener.
Napalm is very useful for clearing a large area of life and creates a usefull safety curtain between friend and foe.
At the end of the day, bullet, bayonet, napalm mine. they still kill and maim and civilians will still get caught up in war.
If these super intelligent leaders and 'finest legal brains' want to save lives then work out a way to stop the war in the first place. But once they have failed in their jobs they should STFU and let the military get on with the job of nuetralizing the enemy whilst minimising it's own loss of life.
War should not be micromanaged from seats of govt. It should be controlled by the person that has been put in charge in theatre. That includes what weapons they can deploy and how. Up to but not including chem/bio/nuke.
Regarding these people who cry foul whenever an effective weapon is used and it actually kills or hurts someone. If the evils hordes were landing on our shores and invading.... I wonder if they would be quite so picky as to what we used to repel them?
Would it be ok to use mines and a rusty pitch fork if it was to protect them and their family?
VinRouge
6th Jul 2009, 11:32
Not to forget the psycological effect of UAVs on station, constantly watching must have on the taliban.
I dare say lives have been saved on our side by this effect alone.
I say sod the politicos, there is nothing in the GC that prevents using remote weapons, nor is there really a moral issue in using them. THe only difference between a UAV and weapons such as the AGM 130 are the distance over which they are controlled as well as loiter time.
YouTube - GBU-15 Glide Bomb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0W58g_GIKM)
I believe you should read his comment concerning "unmanned" drones to be ones where there is no human in the loop - autonomous robot weapons (http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/23sharkey.pdf).
This is an area of current legitimate concern. I think you can forgive his use of the incorrect terminology.
Wader2
6th Jul 2009, 12:31
A mine field or buried mine, a stealth aircraft, a high flying bomber, MLRS, a super tank, a UAV are all unchivalrous. They are all means of killing at no risk to the soldier. This is patently unfair and unsporting.
Similarly the use of dumb ordnance to coerce a population is wrong. You might kill a terrorist in their midst but why should you try and coerce them in to surrendering that terrorist for fear of retribution?
A bit like submarines being ungentlemanly at the start of the last century.
Amazing just how gentlemanly they become when the enemy is suddenly using them to great effect.
Funnily enough the chap that pooh -poohed the submarine was also one of this countries greatest minds. Doesn't mean that he wasn't wrong on this occasion.
VinRouge
6th Jul 2009, 12:47
A mine field or buried mine, a stealth aircraft, a high flying bomber, MLRS, a super tank, a UAV are all unchivalrous. They are all means of killing at no risk to the soldier. This is patently unfair and unsporting.
Similarly the use of dumb ordnance to coerce a population is wrong. You might kill a terrorist in their midst but why should you try and coerce them in to surrendering that terrorist for fear of retribution?Because that is effects based warfare in its purest form. People need to stop getting their knickers in a twist abut fighting dirty to achieve the aim; if you think what I am suggesting is bad, then go off, read machiaveli and realise that war is an inherently costly business in terms of national resource.
We cant go around winning wars by being 'nice' all the time. To achieve a specific effect sometimes, we need to play a little dirty. History is littered with thousands of examples where deception and psy-ops were used to achieve the aim. And I have no issue with it whatsoever.
It was considered ungentlemanly in WW1 for pilots to wear parachutes. In my mind wader, what you suggest is no different. Our boys need to be put at increased danger in order to fight a gentlemanly war against uneducated religious savages is, i believe , what you suggest.
If we are unwiling to do what is neccessary to achieve the stated aims of the state, if we as a nationa re unwilling to commit the resources, then the war is at best unwinnable at at worst will lead to a legthy entrenchment and a war of atrittion. Which, as someone who deeply believes in effects based warfare, is a pointless, costly exercise.
Wader2
6th Jul 2009, 13:01
:(
I thought that was a well baited hook but it came up clean.
History is littered with thousands of examples where deception and psy-ops were used to achieve the aim
Quite agree and Confrontation was a case in point. Had it turned really hot we could have been up sh1t creek. We had a limited number of overcrowded airfields and were faced with 4 times as many medium bombers to what we fielded, supersonic fighters of which we had none and they had SAM whereas we didn't. Deception possibly included just 4 nuclear bombers and an effective psyops capaign against an adversary that was not wholly committed to the Confrontation.
Returning to the issue of technological superiority, the principles of war include concentration of force and economy of effort and a general recognition that massive force and effectiveness can lead to far fewer casualties than in an evenly matched conflict. Contrast the casualties in the Iran-Iraq war with all the casualties in the GW1+GW2+post-conflict resolution.
The issue of indicriminate use of landmines of course is quite different, especially when it comes to taking and holding ground where you previously laid an offensive mine field. The para casualties from Russian mines is a case here.
Post-conflict munitions clearance is another case where UXO continue to cause casualties and in counter-insurgency can even be utilised by the enemy.
50 years ago your Grandparents would not have got onto a train without a driver, yet we do this all the time at airports, monorails etc, and think nothing of it.
...We need to acknowledge that technology can progress (and indeed change) our way of life - in more and more aspects.
Technology can also change our way of death, which is I think is the point being made.
Yes A2, thats wot I ment....
LowObservable
6th Jul 2009, 18:50
Wader2 - Curiosity killed the cat - what do you mean by "confrontation"? Is that some specific event/era?
angels
7th Jul 2009, 13:23
And I see that just today (according to Reuters) a drone has knocked off 14 militants on the Pakistan border.
If they were militants, then great stuff and that's a few scumbags out of the way.
If they were civvies, you can't blame the drone.
GreenKnight121
8th Jul 2009, 04:37
Wader2 - Curiosity killed the cat - what do you mean by "confrontation"? Is that some specific event/era?
Quick & dirty answer:
Indonesia?Malaysia confrontation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia%E2%80%93Malaysia_confrontation)
Bayonets, trench knives, entrenching tool blades and sharp stones are inherently cruel, uncilivized and unquestionably legal in combat.
How far down the scale of disarmament we chose to let ourselves be taken obviously depends on how long we chose to let political entities emasculate us, how many unnecessary casualties we chose to take, and how long our enemies give us the option.
Having suffered firsthand the results of our politician commanders dithering around about words like 'proportionality' I say the Commander has a moral responsibility to use whatever weapons he has to accomplish the misson and save allied lives.
If you don't want to be a civilian casualty these days don't let the targets set up in your village. If they do, leave. The military aren't trick shooters and if you get your house blown away by the hit that takes out your neighboring terrorist way-station, well doom on you.
Doctor Cruces
8th Jul 2009, 11:26
Hey Guys and Gals,
On an everyday basis, judges are so far removed from reality that Law Lords must be beyond the pale.
Tell 'im to wind his neck in and go back to sleep and leave the people in the real world to know what's best.
Doc C
barnstormer1968
8th Jul 2009, 12:04
Many folks seem to enjoy making similar statements to yours about judges, but you are all wrong. Many also talk of a 'real world' whatever that may be. I feel confident that Queen Elizabeth's world is just as real to her, as a beggar man in New Delhi to him. Oddly none of these lives would be remotely similar to yours!
Now back to judges (apology for thread drift), I have no idea just how much you are aware of wrong doings or mis justice in society, but I am aware that ALL a judge sees in his 'day to day working life' are scumbags, murderers, child molesters and bank robbers etc, day after day. So as a Judge once pointed out to me, they are in fact much more aware of the bad side of life than almost anyone else.
Of course you could argue that because they see the very worst members of our society daily, then they do not see the 'reality' you might do, but then for a completely different reason than most would think.
Apologies for thread drift here. One of the main problems with a subject like this IMHO is lack of public knowledge about any UK military ops or gear, which allows stories like this one to be blown out of all proportion. This is something I fear our government has no intention of doing anything about:(
angels
8th Jul 2009, 13:32
Scratch another 25 or so Tangos.....
Will someone tell me why this is 'wrong'
.....?
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Drones 'kill dozens' in Pakistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8139739.stm)
Doctor Cruces
9th Jul 2009, 11:52
BArnstormer,
I wasn't referring to the scumbags etc.
My reference was based on hearing (albeit filtered through the media) of a judge awarding a teenager convicted of rape a two week Afican Safari holiday as his punishment and the unfortunate victim a few quid compensation. Many years ago but the one that sticks out.
There are too many reports of "off the wall" judgements by loonies who can't be removed to make me believe anything else, until proven otherwise. There are many sound judgements on a daily basis, I am sure, but we din't get to hear about, this one just looked to me like another out of touch, old ivory tower dweller spouting about something of which he knows little (again).
Doc C
angels
9th Jul 2009, 12:25
Today the Taliban have heroically blown up 25 people -- including 15 children -- outside a school in Mohammad Agha, Afghanistan.
While this sort of thing goes on, we should use drones. Period. End of. Over and out.
Blacksheep
9th Jul 2009, 12:30
Curiosity killed the cat - what do you mean by "confrontation"? Is that some specific event/era?You're too young to know about it; prevention of the whole of SE Asia being coerced into an Indonesian Superstate. Jungle warfare, that sort of thing.
A bit like Vietnam, except for the outcome. ;)
Some of the tactics employed were a bit naughty, such as allowing the native population to resume head-taking for example.
barnstormer1968
9th Jul 2009, 19:18
Some of the soldiers head hunted too. I knew of one (obviously years later), who did it for the beer money he got for the 'head and hands' of CT's.
Luckily for me, he was in a different Sqn to me, and thus I bumped into him rarely. I will admit to finding him a very outspoken, and a VERY scary man to be near. My biggest memory of him was one night on guard. He was guard commander, and when he entered the guard house, not only did I stand up, but a passing Lt stood up too (so at least it was not just me scared of him).
There is a good book which covers some issues from the confrontation (from memory) called 'jungle warfare' by J P Cross.
Sorry for the lecture, but I found the whole subject of the confrontation tactics fascinating.
Sir George Cayley
9th Jul 2009, 19:59
Drones? Wasn't Bertie Wooster a member, eh, what?
Can we, at least, get the lingo right? The thing that flies around is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Uninhabited if you're pc.
Command and Control is an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS).
Launch and recovery can be very sepaerate from the 'pilot' and the 'bombardier'.
Like Garlic Bread it's the future;)
Sir George Cayley
The time to worry is when in 'UACV' the "A" stands for Autonomous. That's crossing a line.
Unfortunately there are some in the Press that think such air vehicles exist already. A lot of modern UAVs have autonomy - ie can do automated tasks (emergency mission, systems redundancy switching, etc), but I an unaware of ANY UAS that looks and kills without someone in the loop.
Wader2
10th Jul 2009, 10:57
Some of the tactics employed were a bit naughty, such as allowing the native population to resume head-taking for example.
Such as the SAS at one side and Gurkha and natives at the other :}