Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Dingdongs

Usage of UAVs in the War on Terror

Recommended Posts

Dingdongs

So... the topic title about explains it. We've discussed this all around the forum before, especially in the US presidential election 2012 thread but it hasn't really gotten the attention it deserves. Basically there are some central questions here...

 

1) is it against international law?

 

2) is it justified as a method to kill terrorists

 

3) is it effective (i.e. does it stand up to cost benefit analysis)

 

 

I think it's hard to argue that it isn't against international law - but international law itself tends to just be a crock of sh*t employed by the countries with power anyway. As for it being justified, I do believe it is - but is it effective? Are there long term repercussions from employing UAVs to kill AQ leaders? Does it end up making a more angry and radicalized population in the long run? Not sure the answer to these but I can hypothesize that it probably isn't viewed favorably. Whether it truly radicalizes new terrorists like we saw with waterboarding years ago remains to be discussed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's not against the laws of war to use unmanned weaponry. Most of the arguments against UAVs are made with the ignorant presumption that they are autonomous, when in reality armed ones are always entirely human controlled and only display autonomy when loitering. In fact, I actively support the idea of using more unmanned combat vehicles- not just aircraft but ground vehicles too- on the battlefield .

 

Now, the question of targeted killing? It can be argued to be both legal and illegal, the primary issue being consent. It's a violation of international laws to maliciously target non-combatants or illegal combatants in a foreign country with armed attacks without the prior consent and agreement of the host nation. Lots of people are under the incorrect assumption, especially in the light of the killing of Bin Laden, that Pakistan is unaware of the UAV operations for the most part and therefore hasn't given consent for them to occur. I'm sure that's Pakistan's public position but there are several indicators that privately it isn't true. Firstly, Pakistan has a reasonably well-armed and modern air defence corps in both its army and air force. Current UACVs are slow, unstealthy and make easy prey for SAMs and AAA- just look at the numbers of their unarmed surveillance versions being brought down in Iran at the moment. So why would Pakistan not be intercepting or bringing down these aircraft if they were unidentified, potentially hostile vehicles conducting armed attacks inside their territory. The second piece of evidence is this:

 

user posted image

 

Those are Predator aircraft, photographed in 2006, at Shamsi air base in Pakistan. The US withdrew from using the base for UACVs in December 2011 but if you don't consent to a foreign nation conducting attacks on your soil, you don't let them store, operate and even fly UACVs from your air bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Using UAVs in the battlefield? Sure. Justified and probably effective as well. But hovering around cities and other civilian inhabited areas? No way. That can't be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

I heard that UAVs have a 2% success rate and that 98% of the time they kill innocents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

I heard that UAVs have a 2% success rate and that 98% of the time they kill innocents.

You've heard wrong, then. There is absolutely no reason why an unmanned aircraft piloted remotely would experience any higher rate of civilian attrition than the manned COIN aircraft they replace. In fact, with their payload of advanced electronics and imaging devices and with the pilot isolated from the stress-induced, judgement-altering effects of physical battle, I would argue that the hypothetical civilian attrition rate per combat strike would be lower than with manned COIN aircraft.

 

The difficulty in assessing civilian casualties versus insurgent ones comes from the difficulty in determining between civilian and insurgent, not from the tool used. Especially when one side (that is,tthe US) have an attitude of plausible deniability about targeted attacks and the only press reports tend to come from suspect sources (Press TV and RT love reporting on "drone" strikes, and militant groups don't win public support if targeted attacks succeed in damaging their operational ability)

Edited by sivispacem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo
I heard that UAVs have a 2% success rate and that 98% of the time they kill innocents.

it's actually the opposite.

 

drones usually kill their targets with very limited "splash" damage.

the only time an innocent is caught up in a drone strike is the unfortunate situation in which they happened to be sitting right next to - or in the same room as - the intended target.

 

drones rarely just "miss" their target.

if someone other than the intended target is killed, it's because they were too close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

How much splash is there involved in a typical UAV strike? Say we had to target Slamman while he's pissing into a fountain at a park - would the people sitting in the benches nearby be killed?

 

Also - do you think any credence can be given to the idea that these empower terrorist cells/radicalize previously non-violent Muslims?

 

 

But hovering around cities and other civilian inhabited areas? No way. That can't be right.

 

In a spying capacity or a killing capacity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

But hovering around cities and other civilian inhabited areas? No way. That can't be right.

 

In a spying capacity or a killing capacity?

Either. It's pretty creepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
How much splash is there involved in a typical UAV strike? Say we had to target Slamman while he's pissing into a fountain at a park - would the people sitting in the benches nearby be killed?

Depends on the munitions used. One of the reactive-metal warheaded Hellfires or an SDB and the kill radius is very small- a couple of meters in the case of the former. Standard Hellfire or some of the other stand-off weapons like the various JDAM and Paveway munitions and your talking much larger kill zones.

 

I don't give a great deal of time to the idea that UAV strikes increase radicalisation. It was brought up by Amnesty International in their report critiquing unmanned combat vehicles but that report was so fundamentally and technically flawed (mostly written on the incorrect assumption that fully or partly autonomous combat was possible with current vehicles) that I seriously question the veracity of anything in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Very interesting.

 

 

I don't give a great deal of time to the idea that UAV strikes increase radicalisation. It was brought up by Amnesty International in their report critiquing unmanned combat vehicles but that report was so fundamentally and technically flawed (mostly written on the incorrect assumption that fully or partly autonomous combat was possible with current vehicles) that I seriously question the veracity of anything in it.

 

But who cares if the report originated with amnesty international? I've felt that the use of waterboarding and other torture methods aided in radicalization - a thought echoed by John Brennan and some other people in the top echelons of counterterrorism for the US. It's very possible that a UAV killing some civilians could radicalize people. Does that make it worth it though? With regard to Anwar al-Awlaki, it's pretty clear it was worth it as that guy was radicalizing more people than 100,000 UAVs ever could. But using these things just to kill mid level AQ members just seems counterproductive to me. Is there not a way to make the strikes more surgical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Put simply, we've not experienced increases in recorded radicalisation, nor a swelling of the ranks of militant organisations, nor an increase in militant activity in response to UAV strikes. In fact, all three activities have been declining for the last 18 months or so according to our best estimates. It certainly makes sense in theory to think that such strikes to lead to increased radicalisation, and AI made a big song and dance about getting a counter-terrorism expert to say that this was likely to be the case, but in reality all evidence is to the contrary. Sure, people don't like it, but the vast majority of people in these small communities being targeted don't like the militants either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

But hovering around cities and other civilian inhabited areas? No way. That can't be right.

 

In a spying capacity or a killing capacity?

Either. It's pretty creepy.

too late....

 

...satellites sneaky2.gif .

 

 

Collateral damage from many UAV attacks seem to be the main downside. If we were aiming to be candid and value all human lives the same, then it could still be justified since most of those targeted should pose a greater threat to human life than the drone's collateral damage does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
too late....

 

...satellites sneaky2.gif .

Common myth. The imaging systems on satellites are only really useful for strategic purposes, and even then best can't be used for tactical reconnaissance- that's why the US still operates battlefield reconnaissance aircraft rather than just scrapping them all. Also, surveillance satellites are usually not "free-roaming" and have an allocated area of operation- re tasking or re-purposing one for monitoring a civilian population in the US would be incomprehensibly expensive and potentially very risky, and wouldn't even achieve a level of persistent surveillance akin to that of a few CCTV cameras on a pole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal
too late....

 

...satellites sneaky2.gif .

Common myth. The imaging systems on satellites are only really useful for strategic purposes, and even then best can't be used for tactical reconnaissance- that's why the US still operates battlefield reconnaissance aircraft rather than just scrapping them all. Also, surveillance satellites are usually not "free-roaming" and have an allocated area of operation- re tasking or re-purposing one for monitoring a civilian population in the US would be incomprehensibly expensive and potentially very risky, and wouldn't even achieve a level of persistent surveillance akin to that of a few CCTV cameras on a pole.

That's great news then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Icarus
Also, surveillance satellites are usually not "free-roaming" and have an allocated area of operation- re tasking or re-purposing one for monitoring a civilian population in the US would be incomprehensibly expensive and potentially very risky, and wouldn't even achieve a level of persistent surveillance akin to that of a few CCTV cameras on a pole.

This.

 

Satellites are already on a generated trajectory, so you can't just say to control, "Wait a minute, stop the satellite and back it up a notch. I think we found something!" You can change its course, but if you already went past the target area that you wish to look at, you'll have to wait for the satellite to make another pass, which would likely be around another 90 minutes (if we're talking about a typical satellite at geosynchronous orbit).

 

Also, geosynchronous orbit is very common for satellites, so you can't just throw it on some course change you decide last second without checking for other equipment up there. If two satellites collided, besides the financial factor, you're going to have some people who aren't going to be too pleased, not to mention the adverse affects it may have, depending on the actual purpose of the satellite (e.g. telecommunications satellite).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.