Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Drones, Computer Viruses and Blowback

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the fighting-never-gets-cleaner dept.

The Military 257

Hugh Pickens writes "Michael Crowley writes that using drones rather than soldiers to kill bad guys is appealing for many reasons, including cost, relative precision and reduction of risk to American troops. But there's plenty of evidence that drones antagonize local populations and create more enemies over the long term than we kill in the short term. The failed 2010 Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, has said that about the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan, and the Washington Post has described how drone strikes may be breeding sympathy for al-Qaeda in Yemen. 'It is the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness. It plays well domestically and it is unpopular only in other countries,' says Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence until May of 2010. 'Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.' Now there's another component to the new warfare that threatens blowback: cyberwar. Like drones, cyberweapons are relatively cheap and do their work without putting American troops in harm's way. The blowback comes when those viruses get loose and inflict unintended damage or provide templates to terrorists or enemy nations that some experts think could lead to disaster and argue that cyberweapons are like bioweapons, demanding international treaties to govern their use. 'We may indeed be at a critical moment in history, when the planet's prospects could be markedly improved by an international treaty on cyberweapons, and the cultivation of an attendant norm against cyberwar,' writes Richard Wright. 'The ideal nation to lead the world toward this goal would be the most powerful nation on earth, especially if that nation had a pretty clean record on the cyberweapons front. A few years ago, America seemed to fit that description. But it doesn't now.'"

cancel ×

257 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (4, Informative)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268969)

Well known, and has been for quite a long time. The use of overwhelming force may satisfy some primitive emotional desires, but it basically never leads to a win in any conflict. I am surprised that people are still surprised at this.

As to malware created by states: Just make them responsible for the full damage caused if they miss their target. With the incompetence displayed recently, that is bound to happen quite often.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (4, Interesting)

yoctology (2622527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269007)

I respectfully disagree. When you give the opposition hope that resistance might prevail, you simply discourage their elements that counsel diplomacy or other political engagement over armed response. That is why you don't send a single officer to quell a riot.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269073)

You are both right, it depends on the definition of overwhelming. You don't sent tanks and machine guns to put down a riot, because in doing so you will (and rightfully so) create enemies who don't care about their own lives anymore and whose only reason for existing from then on is to damage you in any way possible - as much and as frequently as possible. We call those people terrorists these days, but they are not necessarily interested in terror, just vengeance. You are much less likely to get that kind of result from sending an over-sized squad of policemen with rubber batons, so in that sense overwhelming force isn't necessarily so bad compared to sending an under-sized squad of policemen. Though it still can be, since the police (or any other group of humans) is inevitably going to behave in inexcusable ways if you make it so that they know they cannot get themselves into a bad situation no matter how much they provoke the people they have been sent to manage.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269149)

History proves you completely wrong. Please learn some history before you post further. Not only that, but you comment is contrary to 100% of the world's military's doctrines.

Why does slashdot attract so many people who have no clue on the subject matter yet insist on sharing their ignorance with everyone?

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269405)

Thousands of years of military doctrine became obsolete after WWII. Asymmetrical warfare is the only kind of warfare left.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269521)

Why? Did we magically lose our ability to build massive armies capable of extraordinary destruction? Did we uninvent peasant/citizen soldiers and nuclear weapons? Did we devolve ambition in men?

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269605)

Did we uninvent peasant/citizen soldiers and nuclear weapons?

I think his point was that it is because of nuclear weapons that warfare has become asymmetric. There are relatively few nations with nuclear capability, and the IAE is desperately trying to keep it that way. Look at what's going on with Iran right now, for example.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (5, Insightful)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269637)

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Strategy and, to some degree, tactics have not changed fundamentally since Alexander. Technology has altered the way that strategy is applied, and changed how tactics are implemented, but the fundamentals remain the same. Military doctrine, if by that you mean a sort of understanding of the role of various elements of the military and their proper application, tends to change as technology alters capability. Even so, it doesn't change that much.

Consider the role of armored cavalry (by which I mean everything from mounted knights to modern tanks). It has always played the traditional role of cavalry. It screens moving columns, light cavalry scouts ahead of a main army, heavier cavalry breaks defensive lines. Whether you're talking about lancers or tanks, the role is basically the same. It is as true today as it was four hundred years ago that cavalry is only effective when it support infantry. Equally true is that infantry is the basic unit of warfare. You've gotta have boots on the ground to occupy territory, and you have to occupy territory to control it. If you call asymmetrical warfare by it's more traditional name, i.e. guerrilla warfare, you will see that it hasn't changed much, either. Whether you're talking about American revolutionaries harassing British troops during the Revolutionary War, or insurgents in Iraq detonating IEDs, asymmetrical warfare is the only way a smaller, weaker combatant can fight against a stronger, larger combatant. And even then, the goal isn't to defeat the enemy, but to make occupation more trouble than it's worth.

The only real thing that changed after WWII was the geopolitical structure of the world, and even that wasn't something completely alien in the history of international relations. To claim that the only warfare left is asymmetric warfare is to propose that all future conflicts will be between a state and a non-state actor, or between two dramatically mismatched states. I think that such a viewpoint ignores the potential for interstate conflict between rivals in the near and distant futures.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269407)

Overwhelming force against people who feel they have nothing to lose is meaningless.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269735)

In addition, the use of overwhelming force may also convince people they have nothing to lose.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269587)

No, he's completely right. No wars have been won with asymmetric force. For example, WWII was won by Captain America. Just as Chuck Norris protects America today, Captain America's left jab defeated the Nazi army, and his right hook killed Hitler.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269623)

He is largely wrong, but not completely wrong.

If any one nation were to develop overwhelming military technology and begin to use that force indiscriminately, they would quickly run out of allies around the world. Eventually you reach a point where overwhelmingly powerful technology is defeated by sheer numbers.

that's not "overwhelming force" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269217)

The US is using targeted, small scale means to attack people we don't like. I won't claim it's perfect, or that we don't kill people we shouldn't.

But "overwhelming force"? Hardly. We're not leveling entire cities with fleets of a hundred bombers. We're not turning the entire nation into a glass parking lot. We're not even attacking the nation at large, but trying (again with admitted imperfection) to surgically attack specific elements within it. We're even trying to befriend and assist other segments of the population.

The US is capable of using far, far, far more overwhelming force than it is doing.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269343)

Well known, and has been for quite a long time. The use of overwhelming force may satisfy some primitive emotional desires, but it basically never leads to a win in any conflict. I am surprised that people are still surprised at this.

A. I don't see what this has to do with the subject you picked.
B. Overwhelming force is a great way to win a conflict, unless you run into asymmetric tactics (see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan)

Car analogy time:
Cyberweapons are like hot rods. You can build one in your garage or get one made if you know the right shop to do it for you.
There's no way to regulate that the same way we regulate bioweapons.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269425)

The use of overwhelming force may satisfy some primitive emotional desires, but it basically never leads to a win in any conflict.

WTF? You are retarded beyond belief. I don't even know what to say.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269525)

So the US didn't win against the Japanese in WW2 then? You don't get much more "use of overwhelming" than nuking two cities when no one else has nukes at all.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269627)

We didn't win WWII because of nukes. It's well known that by the time they were dropped, the Japanese were already defeated by Captain America. He was the Chuck Norris of his day.

Excluding wars won by Captain America, Chuck Norris, Super Man, and (going back even further) Zorro, the Lone Ranger, etc... you'll find no wars have been won with asymmetric force.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269681)

The US versus Japan was nothing like "overwhelming force" for most of the war, it was two forces of similar strength fighting each other.

Japan had mostly lost by the time the nukes were dropped. They did not "win the war", they just ended it a little earlier than it would have ended otherwise.

Re:Asymmetric warfare is a bad idea (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269789)

The use of overwhelming force may satisfy some primitive emotional desires, but it basically never leads to a win in any conflict.

Well, never always leads to a win. OTOH, it's certainly one of the best advantages to have in conflict.

Part of a large choice of tools (1)

yoctology (2622527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268979)

I am not a hawk by any means, but having a broad spectrum of tools for any task, including war, means that response can be calibrated more exactly with the underlying political and diplomatic passion. I would rather not have a tech who had only her bare hands and a mallet work on my pc.

Treaties (3, Insightful)

morgandelra (448341) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268995)

The problem is that since WWII the groups we tend to fight ignore all treaties. So if we agree not to use "cyberweapons" and thus do not buld effective counter measures, we leave our stuff open to attack by groups who would not give a second thought to vilating a treaty, be it for cyber, biological, nuclear or chemical weapons.

Re:Treaties (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269057)

Except, of course, for the fact that we can build counter measures without building actual cyberweapons. Basically, the counter measures consist of good security practices and quickly plugging exploits.

Re:Treaties (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269101)

So you just sit around waiting for something to make an exploit? How about making them yourselves as a premptive way to find out... Gee, thats swell.

Re:Treaties (1)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269781)

You've just described the US approach to bioweapons.

Re:Treaties (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269139)

And the problem is that during and before WWII the groups we tend to fight ignore all treaties.

The result of treating cyberweapons like bioweapon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269021)

Will be have secured labs for coding, cut off from the rest of the world with security clearance required?
Coding at home becoming illegal, stuff like that

Elephant in the room (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269033)

This is just an extension of what people really object to: the US coming to their country and killing people. You were not invited, you kill civilians and there is no justice or consequences. You develop drones to make this even easier.

I'm not sure why US commentators can't see this. Imagine if every now and then a Pakistani drone blew up a random wedding or accidentally killed some people trying to do their weekly shopping in your neighbourhood. Wouldn't that annoy you?

Re:Elephant in the room (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269109)

To be fair, Americans don't celebrate their weddings by shooting rifles. If you don't want to mistaken for an armed force, don't behave like one.

Re:Elephant in the room (4, Interesting)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269205)

Ahem... Shotgun wedding. Seriously, what you're arguing almost amounts to it being justifiable for a government (admittedly, foreign in this case) to kill anyone who owns a gun. Isn't that precisely what the NRA, a very powerful and influence political force in the US, is precisely against? I mean, that's just sweet, sweet irony on the tallest order. I guess those sorts of rights, supposedly inherently to all people--and merely explicitly guaranteed in the Second Amendment--, don't count when it comes to "other" people...or the NRA just can't bother/afford to defend non-US citizens. :/

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269245)

To [wisegeek.com] be [youtube.com] fair [zombieshoo...iation.com] ?

Re:Elephant in the room (2, Insightful)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269713)

You call that fair? It's none of our business if a wedding party is shooting rifles in a foreign country! It's THEIR frikken' country!

I live in a part of the country that's frequented by bears. Consequently, when I go hiking -- or for that matter, even when I'm working in my yard, since I've seen a momma bear and her three cubs in my driveway several times this summer -- I often carry a .44 Magnum. In Japan and Canada, private citizens aren't allowed to even own handguns. Would you still maintain that same attitude if Japanese or Canadian drones started flying over Alaska, enforcing THEIR idea of what a private citizen should or should not be allowed to do since, "in our country, people aren't allowed to own handguns. If you don't want to be mistaken for an armed force, don't act like one!"?

Re:Elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269759)

Errrr... Americans shoot explosives into the air to celebrate just about everything.

Ironic elephant in the room (5, Insightful)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269177)

Good points. A fundamental question after 9/11 was "Why do they hate us?" The knee jerk response was "They hate us because we are free and wealthy and they hate freedom and wealth". But a truer answer is more likely "They hate us because we fund their oppressors and so have contributed to their relative unfreedom and poverty".

The biggest issue with all this is that advanced technologies of abundance like robotics, networked computing, nanotechnology, nuclear, aerospace, biotech and so on must be used from a perspective of abundance. Such technologies, like Bucky Fuller talked about, could create universal abundance for all of humanity -- and then some, as we spread into the solar system and to the stars, But, people are often using such technologies of abundance from the perspective of scarcity and so they are adapting advanced technology to fight the last century's wars over perceived resource scarcity. Thus we have ironies like people creating nuclear missiles to fight over oil fields, rather than using advanced materials and knowledge about how the atom works to make clean cheap energy for everyone (whether via nuclear means or solar panels or hot or cold fusion or whatever). I wrote a related essay here:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]

The same is happening with the misguided energy going into creating stuff like Stuxnet, especially given that what goes around comes around, and now everyone has access to Stuxnet as a prototype platform to build even worse stuff. Obama's escalations of the drone wars and the cyber wars just adds more ironies to his Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, ultimately, "war is a racket", and that racket sadly drives much of US foreign policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket [wikipedia.org]

In general, everyone globally needs to totally rethink our collective economy and geopolitics for new 21st century realities. That will happen eventually because we can't survive the way we have been going on. It's only a question of how long until that change in mindset happens and how much suffering the world experences (including from nucelar war) until then. Here is another related website:
http://anwot.org/ [anwot.org]

Re:Ironic elephant in the room (-1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269355)

Good points. A fundamental question after 9/11 was "Why do they hate us?" The knee jerk response was "They hate us because we are free and wealthy and they hate freedom and wealth". But a truer answer is more likely "They hate us because we fund their oppressors and so have contributed to their relative unfreedom and poverty".

No, that's not a truer answer; that's just a knee-jerk leftist response instead of a knee-jerk jingoist response. Doesn't make much sense, since the only freedom they're interested in is the freedom to oppress others.

Thus we have ironies like people creating nuclear missiles to fight over oil fields

Nobody has created a nuclear missile to fight over oil fields. Nukes in the US were created first to fight against Nazi Germany (too late), then Imperial Japan, then as a deterrent against Soviet Russia, and later China as well. Nobody, not even North Korea's Kim, wants to get into a nuclear war where someone else can nuke back.

Re:Ironic elephant in the room (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269539)

Most of the people of Afghanistan are uneducated and illiterate. Foreign policy and global affairs are meaningless to them. Meaningless because they don't understand the adjacent tribe let alone any other nation outside its borders. They really are that clueless. They may have heard of a nation called American and its red white and blue, but that's it. That's all the majority of Afghans know.

So then why do they hate us? Religious fundamentalism. To the extreme Taliban, freedom and self-determination is an act of hubris. I grave sin according to the teachings of Islam. There is no other form of law, governance, or way other than what's written in Quran. That's why they hate us. America to the Taliban leadership (and its followers) is the absolute antithesis to their message. But I agree. Bombs alone will not win the hearts and minds of the Afghans in the long run.

Re:Ironic elephant in the room (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269591)

The knee jerk response was "They hate us because we are free and wealthy and they hate freedom and wealth".

I used to always think statements like this were complete BS, but recently I've come to believe that is actually true now. Looking domestically we have a president that is telling us if you have money you are the enemy and are not paying your fair share. Constant class warfare based soley on wealth, and liberals have organized into occupy protests in order to make that hatred even worse causing violence and stabbing police officers.

In addition you have a DOJ head that is shipping guns illegally to Mexican drug lords and causing hundreds of civilians to be killed. Why? He hates our freedom to keep and bear arms, and it was an attempt to turn public opinion against that freedom.

You have Bloomberg that doesn't think we should have a right to drink a Coke in NYC and is trying to ban such things, as he has already done with many other things in NYC.

Lets not even get into if you own an SUV because you like camping on the weekends.

If you want to put your own TV ad supporting a candidate you like paid for by yourself, the left now tells you that you are subverting democracy and shouldn't be allowed to. Pelosi even proposed amending the Constitution so Congress would be the only ones to determine what political speech was allowed (Yes, this actually happened a month ago)

Other countries are nothing compared to the hatred the left has for freedom and owning of wealth in the US. I've never been called a racist or a bigot by a Pakastani for merely leaving everyone else alone, but I am constantly called such names by the left because I have things like a job, or a rifle.

Re:Ironic elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269733)

You have Bloomberg that doesn't think we should have a right to drink a Coke in NYC and is trying to ban such things, as he has already done with many other things in NYC.

You should have expected that from a man who thinks he's above term limits.

Re:Elephant in the room (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269201)

I'm not sure why US commentators can't see this.

you sir ARE the elephant.

Re:Elephant in the room, and then some... (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269203)

A few years ago, America seemed to fit that description. But it doesn't now.

Hmmm.....was that before or after the Eisenhower Administration, on behalf of the oligarchs, overthrew the democratically elected and sovereign governments of Iran and Guatemala, etc., etc., ad nauseum?????
While I fully agree with AmiMoJo's comments, I would hasten to add that the "US commentators" are extremely well paid to make such propagandistic bullcrap pronouncements, and haven't either the morality, ethics nor credibility to ever be taken seriously by sane people.

Re:Elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269225)

Exactly! My thinking is that if you wouldn't tolerate a practice under the same conditions in your own country, it's a no-go in someone else's country too. Golden Rule, and all that.

Re:Elephant in the room (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269279)

Brilliant! We never should have dropped bombs on Germany or Japan in WW-II, for example, because we wouldn't have wanted bombs dropped in our own country.

I'm not implying we're doing anything good or right in Iraq and so on, but independent of other mistakes, your statement is just idiotic.

Re:Elephant in the room (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269287)

I'm not sure why US commentators can't see this.

They do see this but as far as I can see. no one will say it. Maybe Keith Olbermann may have in one of his rants.

Back when all this shit started, anyone who criticized military action, the killing of civilians in terrorist harboring countries and any other attitude that was "Weak on Terror" was considered anti-American and you "hate America".

We have a culture that worships brute force and all ends well when the "bad guy" gets his ass-kicked.

Watch any action flick that has come out of Hollywood.

In America, diplomacy is for sissies. Real Americans kick ass!

Until the common American understands the importance of diplomacy and develops a long term view on Geo-politics or politicians get the balls to say "enough is enough!", we will be forever in this cycle of pathetic little wars.

Has the killing by drones of Al-Qaeda's leaders weakened that organization? Yes. Has it improved our long term security? Nope.

Re:Elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269365)

Before America goes broke, the rest of the world will just have to put up with your reign of terror.

Re:Elephant in the room (2)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269311)

Hey, but US have the right to invade any country, they are freeing people or at least resources from surely evil regimes there, no? And put in the arsenal of cybeweapons social engineering too, if everything else fails, you can make enough people of that country to ask to be invaded.

Re:Elephant in the room (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269465)

Hey, but US have the right to invade any country, they are freeing people or at least resources from surely evil regimes there, no?

Not sure if you are joking... The problem with the way the US and its allies liberate countries is that it tends to be very bloody and result in a fractured state with a joke of a democracy. Plus you can't just make a country a democracy, it has to be fought for by the population if it is going to be appreciated. Parts of Afghanistan actually prefer Taliban rule to the "democratic" government, not least because there was no ideal or popular movement to create that administration. They are just another bunch of crooks imposed by a foreign power with some highly dubious elections to try and legitimise it. Funny how the guy that the US picked to run thing was re-elected president, despite widespread unpopularity, no?

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269555)

I'm not sure why US commentators can't see this.

Commentators are propaganda, they are paid to justify those actions.

Many people in the US do see this, but we can't effectively intervene (due to a lot of things, the discussion of which would get off-topic).

Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the East (4, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269045)

Because drones don't take any risk with themselves - no human pilot - but take BIG risks with the lives of people on the ground - collateral damage is very common in drone strikes - they are widely seen as a "Coward's Way of Fighting" in the countries in which they are used (Afghanistan, Pakistan et cetera). This in turn helps various "undesirable" organizations to recruit many new people, to fight the "Western Cowards killing our Countrymen with Aerial Toys". ----------> In short, drone strikes make the local population hate you, and help the enemy recruit new ground troops. That simply isn't a great formula to bet on over the long run...

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (4, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269087)

There's barely any collateral damage now that Obama has defined "militant" as being "military age male".

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ [salon.com]

A few infants here and there don't really bother democrats.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269219)

Well said, although in agreement with the list linked to, that War on Whistleblowers has been ramped up considerably to the max.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269557)

what makes you think George Bush or any republican was better?

Please, stop the in-fighting between citizens. We need to stand together against our government. The Tea Party pretends to do this, but they also want to continue funding wars...

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (2)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269095)

They are considered cowardly because it means that have no chance of winning. Killing a bunch of remote controlled robots just means there will be more robots in the next wave.

Fuck our enemies feelings about our weaponry.

Should we be forced to use stone clubs and IEDs because those apes do?

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269207)

We need selective weapons that minimize collateral damage only for high value targets not doable by less disruptive means. Imagine our policy if we paid damages for each noncombatant killed or injured also.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (3)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269237)

Fuck our enemies feelings about our weaponry.

Way to miss the point. "Enemy" is not a status assigned at birth. The world is full of people who really don't care about us one way or another, who in fact have never given a thought to the US in their lives ... until an American drone appears in the sky over their homes. Drones are fine tools for finding and killing the enemies we already have, but this isn't particularly useful if we also create more of them with every use.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (2)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269727)

Fuck our enemies feelings about our weaponry.

Including the (non-trivial) civilian casualties that they don't like? Who cares about that, right?

Should we be forced to use stone clubs and IEDs because those apes do?

Oh, my, you must be one of those people who aren't bothered by the collateral damage at all...
You know, they are people - even the actual terrorists and certainly the civilians (medics, funeral processions, etc) that are being killed. Dehumanizing people who are being bombed is a common strategy, but an evil one. And someone modded you up, too.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (4, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269103)

So it's cowardly to remotely fly a drone and fire on people, but it's not cowardly to dress as a civilian, snipe at the enemy clearly outfitted as non-civilians, then when the enemy comes after them, hide their weapon and claim to just be a regular civilian?

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269183)

but it's not cowardly to dress as a civilian, snipe at the enemy clearly outfitted as non-civilians, then when the enemy comes after them, hide their weapon and claim to just be a regular civilian?

Indeed. Those Colonists have no sense of honor, sir, none at all. We ought to hire more Hessians to go over there and burn them all out. That will surely bring this absurd rebellion of theirs to its knees.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269773)

So it's cowardly to remotely fly a drone and fire on people, but it's not cowardly to dress as a civilian, snipe at the enemy clearly outfitted as non-civilians

It is particularly cowardly to redefine "militant" as a "military age male" in an attempt to pretend that civilian casualties are in "single digits" (which they still aren't after this redefinition).
By that logic a lot of "militants" died in 9/11 attacks. Probably a couple hundred....

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (3, Interesting)

djl4570 (801529) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269125)

"Western Cowards killing our Countrymen with Aerial Toys".

Hypocritical whinging from zealots who hide in mosques, impose themselves on the homes of non combatants or hide in and attack from a civilian population. Veiled suicide bomber kills four French soldiers in Afghanistan [reuters.com]

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (1)

dark12222000 (1076451) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269509)

Sinking to the level of your enemies makes you just as bad as them. We are supposed to hold ourselves up as an example, as a nation which fights honorably. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck in the "Well they do it so we can do it too" mentality.

Also realize we're fighting multiple groups. It is not just "The enemy". It's the actual terrorists (who are pretty few and far inbetween), the freedom fighters who are upset we've invaded their country, the militia and rabble who have seen their mothers, sisters, brothers, and so on be killed and taken up arms to avenge them, and so on. Yes, at least one of these groups (the terrorists) are going to play dirty, hide in homes, dress as civilians, and so on. The other groups are not.

So, to say "Well, someone somewhere did something that wasn't kosher so we should just bomb the f$ck out of all of them and go home" is disingenuous, ignores the complexity of the issue, and is immoral and unethical.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269653)

You might notice that it was a suicide bomber. Blowing yourself is hardly a cowardly act.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269175)

Hmm you just perfectly described a cowardly IED.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269449)

Because drones don't take any risk with themselves - no human pilot - but take BIG risks with the lives of people on the ground - collateral damage is very common in drone strikes - they are widely seen as a "Coward's Way of Fighting" in the countries in which they are used (Afghanistan, Pakistan et cetera). This in turn helps various "undesirable" organizations to recruit many new people, to fight the "Western Cowards killing our Countrymen with Aerial Toys". ----------> In short, drone strikes make the local population hate you, and help the enemy recruit new ground troops. That simply isn't a great formula to bet on over the long run...

So they'd be happy if we went in with human-piloted planes and killed enemies that way? No, of course not. They'd hate it just as much, and when they managed to shoot down such a plane they'd parade the pilot or his mutilated body around in anti-American rallies.

Maybe they'd be happy if we sent in special operations forces to do the work on the ground? Nope, that pisses them off too, witness the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Then maybe they'd be happy if we just left them, and all our enemies that they're harboring, alone? Nope, that would show weakness, they'd gloat about their untouchability on Al Jazeera, and they'd step up their attacks.

Fact is, they're not going to be happy no matter what we do.

Re:Drone Strikes are "Cowardly Attacks" to the Eas (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269729)

First let me grant that any innocents who are bereaved or injured as so-called collateral damage certainly are entitled to accuse our joystick wielding soldiers of using cowardly or inappropriate war measures. With that out of the way, let me add that I couldn't care less what al Qaida operatives say about us. Not only are they extensively trained with psychologically effective propaganda lines, but they also are the ones who send their women and children (some of whom are either unaware of what's going on, or else horrendously lied to in order to psych them up for the operation, which amounts to the same thing) to be blown to smithereens along with their targets.

Convenient locally and hurts us in the long run? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269055)

Sounds consistent with established U.S. foreign policy to me.

Oh yeah, well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269061)

My drones don't blowback. They swallow.

Go ahead, throw the first stone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269077)

Hit me just once and I'll fight back. I got skinny arms, a pasty face, and a soft belly. I might live in my Mom's basement but I'm a super soldier when it comes to cyber warfare. Don't let anything but fear or common sense stop you. Just try it...

2008 mumbai attacks? bin laden's location? (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269097)

winning pakistanis approval might be the most noble goal, but so much of pakistan is so antagonistic to the usa's goals, nevermind the usa's methods, that earning scorn for our methods doesn't really amount to much, as we're already heavily scorned

i don't really understand an analysis of the usa's lack of moral loftiness when we are dealing with organizations within pakistan whose own methods make the usa's drones and cyberwarfare look like jaywalking. the goal is to defeat these organizations, not look like paragon of moral virtue

you might say that because we aren't acting as paragons of moral virtue we are losing public sympathy within pakistan. i am saying the public sympathy already was nonexistent and therefore disavowing something like drones and cyberwarfare wins us very little and loses us strategic abilities

i really don't understand an analysis of american actions that starts with the prerequisite that the usa always be morally lofty while engaged with enemies whose behavior is utterly amoral, within a populace that hates us no matter what we do while large sections of the society and body politic provide cover and cheer for the likes of lashkar-e-taiba

where is your analysis of their moral fibre?

i am not interested in hearing what the usa can do better to win over pakistanis. i am interested in hearing what pakistanis are willing to do to defeat the religious fanatics which will most certainly consume their country. if pakistanis cannot will themselves to see the usa is their ally in this struggle, then the let the chips fall where they may. there is no use wooing a society or a country where there is nothing to build upon in the first place. you cannot hide someone like bin laden in pakistan without tacit support within the establishment, and then jail the doctor for treason who revealed the mass murderer, and then expect to take seriously the idea that the usa's behavior is the problem here

you really have to wonder why pakistan is considered our ally when so much of their actions are that of an enemy. pakistan will be eaten alive form within by the likes of the religious fanatics, and pakistan currently seems to think that's not the most pressing problem. so i see no relationship to salvage. let the fake relationship fall, and i am not impressed by appeals to the lack of the usa's failure to be morally lofty. let us hear more of pakistan's failures, since that is the real story here

something the "war is hell" crowd doesn't get (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269135)

There's a school of thought that says "rules of war" are inherently stupid, that whenever we go to war we should kill as many people as possible by whatever means we have available, that prisoners should be treated harshly and civilians as disposable. When used in reference to our current wars, this usually goes along with some Internet Tough Guy posturing about how wimpy liberals don't understand that the world is full of bad guys who want to kill us, blah blah blah.

But the Iraqis who surrendered en masse in Desert Storm (you know, the Iraq war we actually won) did so in large part because they knew they'd be treated well when they did so. Yes, they were shell-shocked, but remember that the Iraqi army of the day was hardened by years of grueling WW1-style combat against Iran -- they could have kept fighting, and would have done so if they'd believed there was anything to be gained by doing so. I know; as a medic I had a good perspective on the guys on the other side (there were far more Iraqi wounded to treat than American or other Allied soldiers.) And in the more recent war, the insurgency picked up steam with every atrocity. A similar pattern was seen in Vietnam, and probably in every guerilla war in history. Big, technologically advanced occupying powers always think that they can use a steamroller to intimidate the populace into submission, and they're always wrong. Inevitably, they end up creating more enemies than they kill, until their only choice is either to go home or "make a desert and call it peace."

It's worth noting that Sherman, who popularized the phrase "war is hell" (and earlier made the more precise statement "war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it") and who is largely remembered today as the boogeyman who burned his way across the South, actually took care to minimize civilian casualties, made sure that displaced populations had the means to feed themselves, and was punctilious about the care of prisoners. Had the technology been available to him, I'm sure he would have been happy to use drones to find and destroy Johnston's army, but I'm equally sure he would have rejected out of hand the idea of using them against civilians. Smart guy, he was.

Re:something the "war is hell" crowd doesn't get (0)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269213)

How the fuck did we not win the second Iraq war?

I know there are crazy people on the Internet but fuck you are delusional.

Re:something the "war is hell" crowd doesn't get (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269257)

How the fuck did we not win the second Iraq war?

In the same way we didn't win Vietnam, and probably won't win Afghanistan. When you pull your force out of a territory where you've been fighting, and the people you were fighting are still active there, you can't reasonably call that a "win" by any except face-saving standards.

Re:something the "war is hell" crowd doesn't get (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269561)

We didn't conquer Iraq and attempt to make it a 51st state. We toppled a regime and replaced it with an elected government. We left on schedule from an agreement forged by the President that took us to the war.

The goals? Eliminate Saddam. Check--he's dead. Unseat the Baath party. Done. Set up an elected government. Done. Get rid of their WMD. Done (helps they were pretty much gone when we got there--oopsie). All covered. It's called a WIN.

I understand that defining your own goals is convenient to your argument, but it's pretty much just making shit up.

Re:something the "war is hell" crowd doesn't get (1)

barv (1382797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269685)

Because "Dubya" wasnt as smart as Daddy. Daddy booted them outa Kuwait, then left them to stew in their own juice.

Re:something the "war is hell" crowd doesn't get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269771)

Win condition: Eliminate Terrorism.
Win condition achieved? No.
Win condition possible? No.

Ergo, we did not win.

Re:something the "war is hell" crowd doesn't get (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269579)

I would bet that every single US military officer agrees with you. Hell, I'd bet every single modern military officer agrees with you. That's why modern military doctrine is no longer based on carpet bombing or genocide. These "war is hell" folks are as unthinking as the "peace at any cost" folks. Luckily they're few in numbers and always in the margins.

Re:something the "war is hell" crowd doesn't get (2)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269765)

*ahem* ... Sherman absolutely waged war against civilians. He confiscated or destroyed their lifestock, crops and supplies, and burned their houses and barns. Sure, he didn't go around shooting all the civilians in the head, and nobody's suggesting that he even wanted to. If he had, he would likely have been hanged for war crimes. So I'm not sure why you're trying to paint Sherman as some kind of saint exercising great self-restraint.

Carpet Bombing (2)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269143)

Better than carpet bombing from 20,000 feet.

Re:Carpet Bombing (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269377)

The drone campaign is sold to Americans as accurate and targeted, when it can never be any such thing.
I'd much rather the USA carpet bombed from 20,000 feet and had a public discussion about the consequences of its actions.

next.... (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269159)

A drone strike on a cybercafe or physical address with too many bots ?

I Doubt It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269167)

Treaties are fluff and nonsense. They are like that restraining order against the ex. If you have the restraining order handy your ex may use it to wipe the blood off of his knife. Matter of fact ask an American Indian about the value and reliability of treaties.
                          Paying people to range about signing treaties against cyber warfare is a good way to keep useless and overpaid people doing busy work.
                          On the other hand the louder some nations scream about the use of drones the more I am convinced that drones work really well. Pakistan is one heck of an example. They have been giving us a snow job for decades, collecting money from the US, all the while aiding our enemies every bit as much as they aid us. So they understand that drones can gather information and the information may well crush the ability to steal money from the US.

It's a no-win situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269239)

No matter what we do, good or bad, in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, the local population will always be our enemies.

Any treaty on cyberweapons is doomed to fail (4, Informative)

James McGuigan (852772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269261)

Any treaty on cyberweapons is doomed to fail.

This is information warfare, and in essence requires knowing more hidden features about your enemies computer systems than they do, and thanks to globalization we all pretty much use the same computer systems.

The best defense against cyber weapons is bug free code, finding all the security flaws within the software systems that are used and then fixing them. The best form of attack with cyber weapons is finding all the security flaws, before the other side does, not fixing them, and then attaching a payload to software that can exploit this. Ignorance is hell. So a treaty cannot ban computer security research, as its the only defense against cyberweapons, and this sort of research is not limited to state actors.

Creating a virus and then releasing it is almost undetectable. With both Flame and Stuxnet, we have narrowed the list of suspects to probably USA or Israel but this is based mostly on question "who gains"? Was it explicitly state sanctioned? Was it a rogue department with the CIA or Mossad? Was it Anonymous? Was it an Iranian traitor/defector with inside information? Was it a black flag operation? Its very easy for each of the state actors to deny responsibility for this, and almost impossible to prove.

The rules of course are firstly don't get caught, most attacks only work once, so use them wisely, and thirdly don't piss anybody off so badly that they will actually want to physically invade your country.

This is a perfect example of asymmetric gorilla warfare in the digital age. Having a large standing army and being dependent upon huge computer systems just makes you more vulnerable rather than less. Even

This is asymmetric warfare, so even MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is not going to help you here. Treatys are based on consequences, so what good is your treaty going to do here? The Hans Blix of the cyberweapons world will be looking for a bunch of smart people in a room full of computers, good luck with that!

Re:Any treaty on cyberweapons is doomed to fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269603)

>bug free code
>finding all the security flaws

How cute. If you understand nothing about software engineering, you might stop to consider whether you really have anything to contribute to the conversation.

>asymmetric gorilla warfare

Gorillas weigh 400-500 lbs, so saying that it's asymmetric is redundant to say the least. LOL

The future thanks to Bush-Obama (-1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269291)

In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, the Russians, Chinese and others, are pumping out flavors of Stuxnet like crazy now, truly filling up the Web to overflowing --- so all future problems can now, with a 97% probability, be blamed on Bush and Obama's Stuxnet adventures!

And my weekly rant:

The Charade

The great populist from Texas, Rep. Wright Patman **, was instrumental in pressuring President Roosevelt (FDR) to create the last study on the concentration of economic power in America, the TNEC study; the Temporary National Economic Committee study.

This committee study lasted from 1937 to 1939, and while invaluable data was uncovered, major portions of that study are still classified to this very day!

Years later, Rep. Patman would again be the motivating force on another study, Tax Exempt Foundations and Charitable Trusts: Their Impact on Our Economy (December 1962) 87th Congress, 2nd Session; exposing how the super-rich hid their wealth and ownership through foundations and trusts.

The super-rich and their cartels and multinationals have been so successful that today few Americans are even aware of the importance of knowing the ownership of any corporation or bank, and are routinely ignorant of the extraordinary concentration of power today!

Who owns ExxonMobil, BP, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citigroup, GE or AT&T?
Who owns the majority of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies today?

Nobody knows, and fewer appear to care!

Sadly, the way the situation has been rigged and manipulated, it would be impossible to find out unless one possessed unlimited resources, since much of that wealth and ownership is hidden within trusts, and multi-layered trusts of all types, and those trusts reside, technically speaking, offshore.

Those offshore trusts aren’t even required to be officially registered at those offshore sites --- there isn’t even a way to deduce how many trusts exist!

(Please understand that when Forbes publishes their list of the global richest, they include a disclaimer that it was compiled from public sources --- yet most data on the super-rich can only be gleaned from private sources --- and when there’s no discernible way to track such private sources, an accurate list on just who are the super-rich is impossible to compile!)

There is one interesting item, after many years of research, we have been able to ascertain.

That item concerns the oldest corporation, and continuously existing corporation, in the Western Hemisphere, the City of London Corporation.

While it is interesting to note that this ancient corporation appears to also own the oldest continuing financial fund, their City Cash, the really salient point is that it appears to be the nexus, or central point, of either the meeting or congregation place of various of the world’s major cartels.

Of course, this is much too obvious, to mundane and banal for most unaware, blithely ignorant people to take notice of, so please continue with your self-involved, self-absorbed and infantilized consumer existence --- after all, this is what they demand you do.

**Rep. Wright Patman was crucial to the passage of legislation finally awarding the promised bonuses to the World War I veterans. An excellent account of this is to be found in Marc Levinson’s book, The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America, pp. 152-153.

(I don’t agree with the author’s final conclusions, but his chapter on Wright Patman is highly recommended.)
Rep. Patman, at his own expense and financial loss, self-published two books in 1934:

Patman’s Appeal to Pay Veterans and

Bankerteering, Bonuseering, MelloneeringTrue classics in politicking for the people against the ruling 1%!

Proliferation, arrogance and idiocy (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269295)

In considering the notion 'you reap what you sow', it will not be long before the US will be droned.
Dumbasses.

Clean record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269299)

Didn't America also lead the nuclear disarmament efforts after being the only nation ever to use one?

Never heard of NSA or signals intelligence? (4, Interesting)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269315)

The U.S. has been engaged is what is now called "cyberwarfare" through "Active SIGINT" for decades, the only difference is people are catching on.

Re:Never heard of NSA or signals intelligence? (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269611)

SIGINT is as old as civilization.

related reading.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269337)

Related: Chalmers Johnson - "Blowback : The Costs and Consequences of American Empire" (http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Costs-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805062394)

Send more drones! (1)

sidevans (66118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269383)

There's nothing that make's your enemy happier than when you dump a bunch of technology in their area which they don't have yet, I say bring the drones and robots and viruses and automated tanks, the more the better! After the enemy come out of their caves and bunkers in the desert and get some technologies, we'll have the more awesome Robot Wars in history, they'll be poor kids gathering parts and trying to build their own personal T-800's, and, the top it all off, kids will finally have something cool to hack apart from boxes in server rooms or their mobile phone. Blendo eat your heart out.

If its robot vs robot then eventually many less people will day

BTW I'm in Melbourne Australia, so I'm more scared of getting shot by my local police than a terrorist attack, can you yanks send down some drones that won't shoot kids?

Submarines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269387)

When submarines were first brought to war, they were not well regarded either. There was talk of a similar treaty to ban submarines. Now they're taken for granted.

Outsourced, Downsized, Clouded and Socialized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269417)

So do I harden for a cyberwarfare world before or after implementing IPV6? Before or after dealing with Bills C11 and C30? Before or after deploying Windows 8, with or without metro. Before or after dealing with iPads, androids, BYOD, social networking and the corporate Facebook presence.

Outsource and cloud in cyberwarfare world? Or is risk now too great?

When yall there in management, government, industry and military decide on the agenda, the priorities and added a many more expensive and cryptic souinding line items to the budget, got the funding secured, (no you can't spend it on ipads) told the shareholders there will be no dividends for a few years, told everyone no bonuses, accepted that all the IT projects with an actual payback are on hold for two years, got a bg bunch hiring and overtime authorized, get back to me.

I will be hiding, somewhere, watching Game of Thrones, full stealth and cloaking modes deployed, fingers pre-pointed, excuses pre-written, the "no buck stop here" shield full on.

And the phonecalls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269477)

Oh ya, how bout all those phone calls when things stop working? All those people sitting around because the network is down? Or the IPV6 firewall fighting the anticyberwarefare stuff? Or something in the IPV6 stacks falls over in a heavy load. Or some body deleted the Keys because they thought they did not need them?

All those phone calls. All those whining users. All those managers and faux experts and wannabe hackers all phoning, phoning, phoning, all wanting their stuff fixed now. Looking for somebody to blame.

How bout Microsoft? Their 'signing keys' one way or the other were how the Flame got in. Maybe MIcrosoft ongoing lack of attention to quality, security and fixing zero days excludes them from playing in a cyberwarfare world. To be plain, in a world with cyberwarfare, nobody runs Microsoft.

Oh, wait. It is all a bad dream. That's right, I don't live in that jungle anymore.

Did he really just say that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269427)

'Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.'

Yeah, who cares about the future?? We can worry about it when we're old, or just let our kids and grandkids worry about it when we're gone.

I thank you for you,r time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269439)

If *BSD i5 To [goat.cx]

UN Cyberweapons Inspectors? (3, Funny)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269443)

How are you going to get weapons inspectors around a cyberweapons facility?
"Ma'am we need to ask your son to leave the premise for the next 12 hours and for you to grant us full access to your basement"

So it's like nuclear weapons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269461)

After the US has used them, it then wants to ban them for everybody.

Very much true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269463)

Drones remove the human vs human factor. Drone attack victim has no one in particular to blame or retaliate against other than the whole country.

Until now one could exonerate whole nations by specifically identifying the attackers. For example, one could identify perpetrators as Nazi (or SS) or German's of the past generation. In the drone attack one cannot personify the attack, having difficult time to assign the blame to particular people/group resentment will linger through out generations (through mothers milk, so to speak)

Who leaked these details? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269549)

With operational details leaked of drone attacks, how we found Osama, and that our country was involved in cyber attacks to give the impression that Obama is somehow a good leader, you have to wonder who leaked leaked these details.

Drones = Terror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269599)

Flying killer robots are a highly effective means of terrorizing a population. That my country willingly uses them against others forces me to give up some indignation that I feel over incidences such as 9/11 and other acts of terror committed against us. A terrorist could pass me on my way home from work, scream "This is for the drones!" and press a button that blew my home and family to smithereens, and aside from all the rage and pain I would feel about my loss, I would have no choice from an intellectual standpoint to accept that he had a point.

Using drones is essentially demanding that more acts of terror be committed against us. Drones are a tool of bullying cowards, and I think we can all agree on what they deserve.

Local populations? (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269785)

Include those right here at home.

The attitude that Americans have towards the deployment of such drones isn't all that much different from tribal areas in Afghanistan. People just don't like to be spied upon and treated like a bunch of peasants under the King's authority. The primary difference is that, in Afghanistan, its a foreign power, not local law enforcement. They didn't like it very much back when it was the British either.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?