Should Drones be classed as a WMD?

[SevenStarsHK2N]

definition of drone used =
A machine which has an artificial intelligence and is capable of making decisions to use lethal force to take human life,attack property or other targets. Is capable of carrying out missions given to it with no further human interaction beyond the initial mission briefing and mechanical maintenance

So drones - they certainly have come along a bit havn't they.

Weve gone from little propeller driven slow and gentle crafts that require constant human supervision and laggy satalite uplinks.
To super sonic stealth drones with advanced on board AI, they are capable of flying air to ground and air to air missions completely autonomously.

The development and advancement of drones is only likely to increase. With V-TOL capabilities and automated re-arm and refuel capabilities expected in the not too distant future.

Once you have the design, and manufacturing capabilities - the force limitation would really only be limited by storage, production and site specific launch capacity.

Because you don't need expensive pilots with their expensive training. Each one comes off the production line a cold blooded fighter ace.

on it's own a drone is only an automated fighter-bomber.

But what about a swarm of 30,000 of them?
If 30,000 Ai controled drones were launched by China against Tokyo for example. Should that be classed as a WMD?
and what if they kept it up for a week. just flying supersonic, attacking, flying back, refuel-and rearm in 20 minutes then back in the air (they don't need to sleep)

would a nuke aimed at bejing be a legitimate response?
after all it wouldn't take 30,000 drones very long to reduce even a mega city like tokyo to dust and rubble, even if you miraculously managed to shoot down half of them.

How long before we see the first mass Ai drone vs Ai drone nationwide combat?

Of course drones are not just limited to the air.
The first drone to have been made (by the definition that i am using) was made by Samsungs weapons arm in Korea.

 

[Petaris]

I don't agree with that definition of drone as it seems to indicate that all drones are used as weapons or weapons platforms. Drones have been around for a long time, some fly, some drive, some swim. Most were for scientific use before someone watched too many terminator movies...

Even military drones wouldn't be a good term to use as, again before they added weapons, they were used as surveillance platforms.

What you seem to be asking about is weaponized military drones, but I would still say they don't qualify as WMD because that term generally describes weapons that have such a large area of devastation/destruction/killing that they are far worse then any conventional weapons. We know that many conventional weapons can go from something like a handgun to something like a bunker buster. WMD seems to be reserved for things like nuclear/atomic, chemical, and biological weapons.

 

[Tamayo]

I've actually never known an AI to be advanced enough to be able to pick out enemies objectively without some sort of guidance by a human. Would you elaborate on that AI bit?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I wish I could say I appreciate this thread, but I think the poor choice of poll question is going to do nothing but further the weak-minded acquiescence to the abject horror, cowardice, selfishness and stupidity that is called the drone.

No, drones in any form do not remotely fit the definition of WMD. But I am pretty sure I could cobble a case together for their use being a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Back in 1899 bombardment from the air was outlawed by a Hague Convention. But, but....that was before the airplane you say! Yes it was. At that time they were only talking about hot air balloons. What do you think they would have had to say about B-17s, stealth bombers and drones? Unfortunately for us all that convention was not renewed.

Baron Manfred von Richthofen, aka The Red Baron, along with his squadron, Jasta 11, refused direct orders to strafe ground troops and it was for many of the same reasons. This is horse$#!T and no one who prosecutes a war anywhere should be allowed to prosecute it from a position of such cowardice. All this will lead to is the mass murder of civilians...no wait...it already has! No, what its going to lead to is us, you and I, who have been insulated from war and the selfish, murdering choices of our own politicians, having the chickens finally come home to roost.

Every country that uses these sort of weapons will (and have) wind up killing civilians in such a carefree and reckless manner that the populations of those countries will hate the people of the user countries like never before. And it will get harder to condemn terrorist attacks on those people.

I am sorry, but if you support drones, you deserve to have some guy kill you by blowing himself up at the local mall. At least he had the balls to take himself out to get you.

Its been bad enough with stay-at-home war mongers like George W. Bush get control of the wheel. But what is going to happen when even the people doing the personal killing can stay home too? This path is nothing but madness and should be stopped merely out of shame, something the makers of these weapons do not remotely have. But there is still the cowardice and the civilian carnage to consider.

And even if these things were limited to attacking tanks and attack aircraft, it would still make prosecuting war all too easy, and that simple fact would mean more civilians dead in wars that were totally unnecessary. If you don't have the determination to fight a war bodily yourself, you definitely do not believe in the cause nearly enough to have any business supporting it.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I've actually never known an AI to be advanced enough to be able to pick out enemies objectively without some sort of guidance by a human. Would you elaborate on that AI bit?

Not even humans can that, or at least that is what the record shows, despite Obama getting on the TV and lying his @$$ off, probably at the behest of his handlers. (and I say that as someone glad Bush is gone and Mitt lost the election).

 

[Tamayo]

I wish I could say I appreciate this thread, but I think the poor choice of poll question is going to do nothing but further the weak-minded acquiescence to the abject horror, cowardice, selfishness and stupidity that is called the drone.

No, drones in any form do not remotely fit the definition of WMD. But I am pretty sure I could cobble a case together for their use being a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Back in 1899 bombardment from the air was outlawed by a Hague Convention. But, but....that was before the airplane you say! Yes it was. At that time they were only talking about hot air balloons. What do you think they would have had to say about B-17s, stealth bombers and drones? Unfortunately for us all that convention was not renewed.

Baron Manfred von Richthofen, aka The Red Baron, along with his squadron, Jasta 11, refused direct orders to strafe ground troops and it was for many of the same reasons. This is horse$#!T and no one who prosecutes a war anywhere should be allowed to prosecute it from a position of such cowardice. All this will lead to is the mass murder of civilians...no wait...it already has! No, what its going to lead to is us, you and I, who have been insulated from war and the selfish, murdering choices of our own politicians, having the chickens finally come home to roost.

Every country that uses these sort of weapons will (and have) wind up killing civilians in such a carefree and reckless manner that the populations of those countries will hate the people of the user countries like never before. And it will get harder to condemn terrorist attacks on those people.

I am sorry, but if you support drones, you deserve to have some guy kill you by blowing himself up at the local mall. At least he had the balls to take himself out to get you.

Its been bad enough with stay-at-home war mongers like George W. Bush get control of the wheel. But what is going to happen when even the people doing the personal killing can stay home too? This path is nothing but madness and should be stopped merely out of shame, something the makers of these weapons do not remotely have. But there is still the cowardice and the civilian carnage to consider.

And even if these things were limited to attacking tanks and attack aircraft, it would still make prosecuting war all too easy, and that simple fact would mean more civilians dead in wars that were totally unnecessary. If you don't have the determination to fight a war bodily yourself, you definitely do not believe in the cause nearly enough to have any business supporting it.

In other words, "If we're going to kill an enemy, it's only right to go through the work of training someone for years to handle guns, fight with martial arts, transporting a person there safely, keeping them clothed and fed, keeping them in top physical shape, keeping them under cover, having them risk getting killed by crossfire/mines and leaving their family with an unrepairable void so that the enemy has a fighting chance to kill one of our own."

At least he had the balls to take himself out to get you.

Try telling that to families who've lost a loved one to kamikaze, bus bombings, subway bombings, abortion clinic bombings, religious establishment bombings and 9/11. Your extremist attitude is as appalling as ever, Zorro.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

In other words, "If we're going to kill an enemy, it's only right to go through the work of training someone for years to handle guns, fight with martial arts, transporting a person there safely, keeping them clothed and fed, keeping them in top physical shape, keeping them under cover, having them risk getting killed by crossfire/mines and leaving their family with an unrepairable void so that the enemy has a fighting chance to kill one of our own."

Yes. Because its the only way to ensure that the "enemy" really is an enemy, and not just someone scapegoated for the crimes of another, or someone sitting on resources your corporate masters desire.

You still have not made it to Afghanistan I presume?

Try telling that to families who've lost a loved one to kamikaze, bus bombings, subway bombings, abortion clinic bombings, religious establishment bombings and 9/11. Your extremist attitude is as appalling as ever, Zorro.

And your silliness knows no bounds. All those people are separate and not all of them support the stupidity and cowardice of using drones in war.

You can stop trying to shove words in my mouth now.

 

[Tamayo]

Yes. Because its the only way to ensure that the "enemy" really is an enemy, and not just someone scapegoated for the crimes of another, or someone sitting on resources your corporate masters desire.

I find it interesting that you would assert the idea of people actually being there would help confirm whether or not someone is an enemy when you had something very different to say in your thread against the troops in Afghanistan. In your other thread, you insisted that we're not fighting enemies and that anyone who thinks otherwise is blind, so how do the situations differ?

All those people are separate and not all of them support the stupidity and cowardice of using drones in war.

You can stop trying to shove words in my mouth now.

I was simply following your "logic". I wasn't talking about the relation to the topic at hand (because there is none), I was talking about the way you commemorate the act of suicide bombing/killing.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I understand your confusion. But remember how much of the invasion of Afghanistan was NOT carried out by troops on the ground, but by planes in the sky and with missiles, and still is.

Of course having troops on the ground helps us to discover the truth about people who have been labeled "enemy" but that can only last so long. We are enemies now, because there is no longer any second thoughts about shooting each other. Its far too late after the invasion for our troops to see the truth. Now its just kill or be killed.

Also I probably should have said "helps us ensure" or that drones "ensure we never find out". But the American propaganda machine is so effective, and the American people so weak-minded, granted, it may not matter one lick. These guys kick innocent people's doors down on all the time in Afghanistan and terrorize people by waiving guns around women and children and families. But I really don't think drones are going to help or are helping. They are making it worse.

Anyway, a lot of Vietnam vets came home to protest the war. Its because they were there, among the people.

I was simply following your "logic". I wasn't talking about the relation to the topic at hand (because there is none), I was talking about the way you commemorate the act of suicide bombing/killing.

Commemorate??? Look, it takes more balls to make a suicide attack than it does to kill by predator drone. In fact it takes ZERO balls to kill by predator drone. And a suicide attacker probably has reasons as poor for choosing his or her targets as a drone jock and just as much chance of killing people who are not even on the target list.

I despise suicide attacks UNLESS they are on a completely clear battlefield and kill only those deserving to die. But all in all, suicide attacks beat attacks with drones. Can't you see that?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

"I was one of the more optimistic soldiers, who I got on the ground in Afghanistan and I wanted to participate in this liberation of Afghans and defending the country from terrorists and all that nonsense," said McIntosh. "The on the ground experience completely contradicted all of the preconceived notions that I had when I entered the country, and what tends to happen with a lot of soldiers is

US veterans protest Afghan war ? RT USA

Relation to the topic? It shows that drone use reduces the chances that anyone will hear from people like McIntosh who KNOWS the mission is full of $#!T.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Yes. Because its the only way to ensure that the "enemy" really is an enemy

a nuke does not need to discriminate between who is an enemy - who is not.

A nuke is a simple machine with simple logic.

"I am released - I wait until i am over my target co-ordinates - at my target altitude - when i am there i will do my very best to wipe out all life within a 5 mile radius"

The samsung drone which i pictured earlier. this has a similar AI.
it makes the friend or foe decision - completely autonomously if need be - in the following manor.

Do you I have you [moving object] classed as a human, based on heat signature, shape and movement parameters programmed within me?
YES - proceed
Is target within operator-designated "Kill zone"
YES - Proceed
Is "autonomous fire mode active" set to [1]?
YES - ENGAGE AND DESTROY TARGET

and it is this indiscriminate nature of the Drone - which i think may in numbers class it as a WMD

the wmd drone will not limit itself to soldiers,
it's programming will be simple.

report to target area -
move throughout target area - make sure you don't crash into any of the 29,999 other drones in the area..
If it moves - call the target (so we don't all attack it at once)
and kill it.
is it still moving?
no - good job done - goto step 2
Yes - kill it some more - perhaps get some other nearby drones involved

So we class a nuke a wmd because it has the capacity to wipe out all* life within a defined radius
so does a swarm of 30,000 drones.....

 

[Petaris]

So we class a nuke a wmd because it has the capacity to wipe out all* life within a defined radius
so does a swarm of 30,000 drones.....

So does carpet bombing with a bunch of aircraft, like your example, but we don't call that a weapon of mass destruction. The difference that I see is that you only need one, or a few, instead of hundreds or thousands to accomplish the task.

 

[Tamayo]

But the American propaganda machine is so effective, and the American people so weak-minded, granted, it may not matter one lick. These guys kick innocent people's doors down on all the time in Afghanistan and terrorize people by waiving guns around women and children and families.

I can just see it now, asking where your proof and source are, and seeing you flee like a fuzzy animal from a car on the highway like you did in the other thread. This thread isn't so popular, so I don't think you can hide behind the usual "OMG GUYS you're all confusing me so much, there are too many questions, I don't know what's real anymore!!"

Anyway, a lot of Vietnam vets came home to protest the war. Its because they were there, among the people.

First of all, I'm not sure that this was is comparable to Vietnam. Secondly, how many vets came home and protested? What was the percent of vets who disagreed with it comparatively?

Look, it takes more balls to make a suicide attack than it does to kill by predator drone. In fact it takes ZERO balls to kill by predator drone.

That is a laughably stupid reason to try and say that the moral gap between suicide bombing and operating a drone is thin. Do you have this ridiculous idea that the whole world is a bunch of high school kids who are only out to impress one another? Why are you so obsessed with the idea of unnecessarily putting oneself in harm's way?

It also takes "balls" to commit suicide because you're depressed and hate yourself, but that doesn't make the decision any less retarded. If you were ever in a position to go to war yourself, you'd learn to respect and appreciate the way civilized nations will go out of their way to hide and protect their weak points. If you get into a knife fight and you put your head up to overexpose your neck, it's not because you're brave. It's because you're a downright idiot who apparently doesn't value their life. Your hilarious idea of "war honor" is reminiscent of "gang respect".

And a suicide attacker probably has reasons as poor for choosing his or her targets as a drone jock and just as much chance of killing people who are not even on the target list.

Proof? Source? Show me some statistics.

kill only those deserving to die.

No one could ever gauge that. You're being 100% unrealistic. Terrorist or not, everyone has a family and friends, with their own reasons for being in a war. That's why war is terrible.

But all in all, suicide attacks beat attacks with drones. Can't you see that?

This is why no one takes you seriously.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

This is why no one takes you seriously.

I can just see it now, asking where your proof and source are, and seeing you flee

Have you seen how many links I posted in the other Afghanistan thread? How many have you posted?

Proof? Source? Show me some statistics.

How about just some estimated numbers? Since the U.S. government won't tell us anything, its about all I can offer, you know, in addition to the simple fact that the U.S. government lies like a rug, has been proven to, and has done it for decades.

are known to have been killed by drones in the past decade, the strikes have killed an estimated total of 2,600 to 4,700 people over the same period.

Read more: The Part Of The Drone War We Still Know Nothing About - Business Insider

That is way more than could possibly be fairly targeted leaders on a list. Anyone with a functioning brain could realize that despite the CIA and White House hiding as much as it can and lying about the rest.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Reports of the number of militants versus civilian casualties differ.[11] According to the Pakistani authorities, 60 cross-border predator strikes in the period from January 2006 to April 2009 killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders and 687 Pakistani civilians.[12][13] In a 2009 opinion article, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution wrote that drone strikes may have killed "10 or so civilians" for every "mid- and high-ranking [al Qaeda and Taliban] leader."[14] In contrast, the New America Foundation has estimated that 80 percent of those killed in the attacks were militants.[15] The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.[16] The CIA believes that the strikes conducted since May 2010 have killed over 600 militants and have not caused any civilian fatalities, a claim that some experts disputed.[11] The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.

Drone attacks in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is just in Pakistan.

Don't tell me...you believe the CIA right?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

and it is this indiscriminate nature of the Drone - which i think may in numbers class it as a WMD

the wmd drone will not limit itself to soldiers,

7Stars, I suppose you have a right to define WMD any damn way you want. Everybody else does. The military has their definition, the government another and the civilians others.

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

But I think most of us consider WMDs to be NCBs, Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Which of course begs the question why anybody even uses the far less precise or self-explanatatory term of WMD. NCB says what most of us want to say. I think it might have just been that George W. Bush, that ignoramous, was partial to the letter "W".

Perhaps I would be willing to lump them all together with drones if the acronym were WCD, standing for "weapons of cowardly deployment".

But I don't think anyone here is going to agree that any weapon that kills kinetically but has no potential to, by itself, kill or poison at least a small village, is a WMD. I mean, you speak of 30, 000 drones. How about 30,000 hand grenades taped together? 30, 000 land mines? 30,000 guns rigged to one single trigger? If you amass enough, anything would be a WMD by that definition, so whats the point of the definition?

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

hmmmm I thought the CIA stopped running drones a long time ago - perhaps wikipedia is not such a great source after all eh.

and yea that's a fact - a beurocratic one - but one none the less

from your own wiki quote: "it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry"

Drones have the potential to be far more devestating than pretty much most existing WMD's

you can quite happily drive a 'good' tank or other ground vehicle through a chemical, biological or radiological threat.

The Russians have thousands of tanks that are designed to withstand nuclear emp's and are pretty much in effect nuke proof.

no tank could survive a drone swarm (though perhaps the ones sporting the latest version of Active Cammo the British have developed as an exception)

not to mention the long term capabilities of a drone.

Drones are the future - how long before we see drone on drone combat i wonder?

also - you need to get off this drones have no honour or that war has honour...

suicide bombings have no honour. To say that they do in 99.99% of the cases is just stupid

 

[alecgraham]

It's a very interesting question, SevenStars. I was just reading about China's new drones last month.
I suppose that whether or not you or I classify a swarm of weaponized drones as a WMD, they could certainly be used for mass destruction.

Remember when Iran sent that drone into Israel and Israel tried to remotely hack it before finally shooting it down? It's truly frightening to think that one country's entire arsenal of drones might be hacked by another party and hijacked to do their bidding. (And yes, it's frightening enough just to think about one country having so many drones in the first place).

 

[Mark of Zorro]

hmmmm I thought the CIA stopped running drones a long time ago - perhaps wikipedia is not such a great source after all eh.

Wikipedia is not the source. Wikipedia cited sources. One source was the New York Times. C.I.A. Is Disputed on Civilian Toll in Drone Strikes (Published 2011)

If you have a problem with the information, you need to post countering information in the form of links.

YOU "DON'T THINK" is NOT a source. YOU are not a link.

So do you have any, or are you just going to ignore facts and stick with your imagination?

 

[Tamayo]

Have you seen how many links I posted in the other Afghanistan thread?

So if I write out a bunch of links in a standalone post which isn't meant as a direct response to anyone's questions/concerns, you'd consider that to be backing up my argument? You haven't actually given me "I think this, because [link] proves it." All I really see is you saying that we need to put bullets in people's heads and a bunch of random posts with links that pertain to the discussion in a blanket-sense.

How many have you posted?

Not to seem lazy, but I don't think anything I've said puts any burden of proof on my shoulders. This whole time, the only thing I've ever really said is that I want proof of these huge accusations and that until we have that (at least somewhat), we shouldn't be so quick to accuse. I would think that it's not so much to ask, so long as you're interested in looking at the situation objectively.

How about just some estimated numbers? Since the U.S. government won't tell us anything, its about all I can offer, you know, in addition to the simple fact that the U.S. government lies like a rug, has been proven to, and has done it for decades.

I don't have a problem with estimated statistics (so long as they're reliable). I do, however, have a problem with people who assert extreme conspiracy upon that which they advocate against without having some proof, or at least showing me how all of the evidence directly relates to it and strengthens their case.

Every link you've posted here is old news -- We all know that war is terrible, and that innocent people die, and that we as civilians can't confirm whether or not the drones are accurate enough to rely on. What I want to know is how any of this evidence gives you the right to call our government a terrorist regime. I really don't know how I can spell that out more clearly, to be honest.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

What I want to know is how any of this evidence gives you the right to call our government a terrorist regime.

Do any terrorist regimes exist in your mind?

What is your definition?

And if a terrorist regime gave some money to an orphanage, would they cease to be a terrorist regime in you mind?

Have you not seen enough evidence yet of the U.S. government lying boldface repeatedly that I have to dredge it up for you? How many individual instances would you like to see before you can declare that the U.S. government is not worthy of trust?