Unmanned Drones to be banned?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Have 'drones' really killed hundereds of civillians? Or is fleetstreet up to it's usual standard of scaremongering?
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
Have 'drones' really killed hundereds of civillians? Or is fleetstreet up to it's usual standard of scaremongering?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have 'drones' really killed hundereds of civillians? Or is fleetstreet up to it's usual standard of scaremongering?
Therefore, the piece from the article stating -
However, they have been known to make errors and kill civilians.
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.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Lord Bingham
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_bing...transcript.pdf
http://www.biicl.org/files/4422_bing...transcript.pdf
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by GPMG; 6th Jul 2009 at 12:01.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I believe you should read his comment concerning "unmanned" drones to be ones where there is no human in the loop - autonomous robot weapons.
This is an area of current legitimate concern. I think you can forgive his use of the incorrect terminology.
This is an area of current legitimate concern. I think you can forgive his use of the incorrect terminology.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
...We need to acknowledge that technology can progress (and indeed change) our way of life - in more and more aspects.