Fear the Reaper: 'Humane' Drones Are the Most Brutal Weapons of All

[sysop]

The German military is considering the purchase of combat drones. But we should not allow ourselves to be seduced by the idea that an unmanned aircraft is a humane weapon. On the contrary, they expose the true nature of war in all its brutality.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...848851,00.html

[lucienmidnight]

you write:

"Nevertheless, the Bundeswehr could be taking the right step if it acquires armed drones. But they cannot be used to hunt down terrorists. Germany is a country based on the rule of law and one which does not have the death penalty. As such, it should not get involved in remote-controlled executions. Unmanned aircraft make sense as support for ground troops during combat operations. Apart from that, the future of security policy belongs to the robots, and it would be wrong to ignore this development."

You proceed to end your so-called 'essay' with a short stint on how war is about the destruction of human beings. This essay is really pathetic. It, in fact, says nothing of any importance, but by inference suggests that the United States is an immoral nation, and Germany is a moral nation. It is the easiest thing in the world to simply say that pacifism is the only path, and anything else is immoral. You say this in a dangerous world, where the strong wish to do harm to the weak. You write that nobody in Germany could care less about the mission of the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan. Why not? Is it because they are 'doing the same evil that the United States is doing', but in order to keep your faulty ideals as to how a 'moral' society should act, it is best to ignore the fact that the military of your country is stationed in Afghanistan? Let me remind you, you Germans are so fast to make such pacifistic arguments, while at the same time living under the security umbrella of the United States, while the efforts of the United States allowed for the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification. Not to mention the eradication of Communism from German soil. But, apparently the U.S. is 'not' a country based on the 'rule of law', and - what, just because the U.S. has the death penalty, this gives the U.S. justification to use drones? Where is the logic in that argument? I've lived in Germany for the last three years, and if there is anything that will make me want to return to the U.S., it is arguments like this one, which try to justifiy total non-action on the world stage (at least in part), while at the same time villifying the United States and identifying with the warriors and heroes of the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein, or whomever fires rockets at U.S. servicemen. You also imply that Americans don't care as much for their servicemen as Germans do, which again, is pathetic. The bottom line is, Germans were once Nazis bent on taking over the world, got their snout smacked, and now have lived in shame ever since. Where responsibility to defend (R2D) is concerned, the Germans' own self-pity always comes first in articles like this one (most of which are never translated into English). Germany, you are one of the most powerful countries in the world, and the world trusts you, the West trusts you, the United States trusts you. Waving the German flag at the 2006 Weltmeisterschaft was a good start.. it's time to really begin to take your place on the world stage, instead of everytime something like Libya comes along, make others do the dirty work for you under the auspices of 'we were once Nazis, we can't do anything.' The West wants you back.. and you can't come back if every other German male between the ages of 15-24 is highly socially anti-American, due to articles like this and the sentiments that they present. Of course, the subtle jabs at the U.S. is really what this article was about, not the brutality of war. Deutschland's soft propaganda machine is still alive and churning, I see. Schade

[mikey248]

The author cites drones producing a high rate of casualties.

The average estimate of civilian deaths produced by drones provided by the author is 23%.

However, the norm in war is 3 civilian deaths for every one combatant.

Therefore, without the author even realizing it, the author has proven that drones are approximately 12 times more humane than conventional warfare.

This also FAILS to take into account the FACT that combatant deaths produced by drones are FAR BETTER targeted in terms of being either HIGH VALUE TARGETS

[mikey248]

The author speaks of civilian casualties caused by drones.

However, the average rate of civilian deaths--23%--is under 1/10th of the normal rate of civilian deaths in war, which averages 3 civilian deaths for every one armed combatant.

Clearly, the author wouldn't know a humane war from an inhumane war.

Clearly, the author doesn't know basics about war.

Further, unlike regular battlefield combat, drone strikes kill better targeted combatants than on the battlefield.

They tend to be either higher value officers or tend to be in the process of initiating an attack, thereby preventing an escalation and educating the other side in the costs of starting up.

If there is one thing Germans fear more than war, it is proof that power can be used responsibly and humanely.

Germans will try to prevent the responsible exercise of power, to feel less guilty about their own history of inhumane exercise of power.

[DJones]

It's a convenient state of mind for the German people. Just don't remind them of their successful indigenous arms industry and the exports from that.

[OsirisNigmata]

Originally Posted by mikey248

"The author cites drones producing a high rate of casualties. The average estimate of civilian deaths produced by drones provided by the author is 23%."

This is not accurate because the author only reported the confirmed civilian deaths. President Obama's kill list has fewer than 300 names of suspected terrorists on it, yet over 2,500 individuals have been killed. A New York Times article on the topic says:

"In interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.
“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/wo...pagewanted=all


They are also not often "higher value officers or tend to be in the process of initiating an attack" as you say because many of the strikes are what are called signature strikes, which is described in an article in Salon as:

"Drone strikes that are carried out against targets whose names, ages, occupations and political sympathies are completely unknown but who are still killed based on the opinions of those observing from abroad as to whether they are connected to militant activity. Behavior that may arouse such suspicion includes a group of males meeting together in an area considered hostile, a car driving in an area where militants are believed to be operating and other highly speculative and unverifiable rationales. In the revelations about the Obama administration’s secret “kill lists,” it also came out what exactly the official definition of a “militant” is from the White House’s perspective: “All military-age males in a strike zone.” In other words: Every man killed by a drone is by official definition a militant according to the U.S. government and correspondingly the news organizations who release reports regularly citing “militant” deaths."

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/06/is_drone_war_moral/

So you see, it is not as precise or humane as the Obama Administration tells the public.

[symewinston]

Originally Posted by lucienmidnight

you write:

"Nevertheless, the Bundeswehr could be taking the right step if it acquires armed drones. But they cannot be used to hunt down terrorists. Germany is a country based on the rule of law and one which does not have the death penalty. As such, it should not get involved in remote-controlled executions. Unmanned aircraft make sense as support for ground troops during combat operations. Apart from that, the future of security policy belongs to the robots, and it would be wrong to ignore this development."

You proceed to end your so-called 'essay' with a short stint on how war is about the destruction of human beings. This essay is really pathetic. It, in fact, says nothing of any importance, but by inference suggests that the United States is an immoral nation, and Germany is a moral nation. It is the easiest thing in the world to simply say that pacifism is the only path, and anything else is immoral. You say this in a dangerous world, where the strong wish to do harm to the weak. You write that nobody in Germany could care less about the mission of the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan. Why not? Is it because they are 'doing the same evil that the United States is doing', but in order to keep your faulty ideals as to how a 'moral' society should act, it is best to ignore the fact that the military of your country is stationed in Afghanistan? Let me remind you, you Germans are so fast to make such pacifistic arguments, while at the same time living under the security umbrella of the United States, while the efforts of the United States allowed for the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification. Not to mention the eradication of Communism from German soil. But, apparently the U.S. is 'not' a country based on the 'rule of law', and - what, just because the U.S. has the death penalty, this gives the U.S. justification to use drones? Where is the logic in that argument? I've lived in Germany for the last three years, and if there is anything that will make me want to return to the U.S., it is arguments like this one, which try to justifiy total non-action on the world stage (at least in part), while at the same time villifying the United States and identifying with the warriors and heroes of the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein, or whomever fires rockets at U.S. servicemen. You also imply that Americans don't care as much for their servicemen as Germans do, which again, is pathetic. The bottom line is, Germans were once Nazis bent on taking over the world, got their snout smacked, and now have lived in shame ever since. Where responsibility to defend (R2D) is concerned, the Germans' own self-pity always comes first in articles like this one (most of which are never translated into English). Germany, you are one of the most powerful countries in the world, and the world trusts you, the West trusts you, the United States trusts you. Waving the German flag at the 2006 Weltmeisterschaft was a good start.. it's time to really begin to take your place on the world stage, instead of everytime something like Libya comes along, make others do the dirty work for you under the auspices of 'we were once Nazis, we can't do anything.' The West wants you back.. and you can't come back if every other German male between the ages of 15-24 is highly socially anti-American, due to articles like this and the sentiments that they present. Of course, the subtle jabs at the U.S. is really what this article was about, not the brutality of war. Deutschland's soft propaganda machine is still alive and churning, I see. Schade

Great! Before the Germans were accused of being blood thirsty warmongers now, because they don't kowtow to the the USA they are accused of being 'pacifists' and not 'taking their place in the world stage'; translation= following the American warmongers wherever they go.

Killing thousands directly and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq as consequence of an invasion under false pretences and lies (WOMDs) is not something to be proud of.
And let us not mention Vietnam or Afghanistan or .. the list long and bloody

[symewinston]

well, I suppose that to be killed by a drone sent by the Administration of a 'humane' President must be OK.
Maybe the 'males of military age' killed by drones were terrorists but they themselves weren't aware of it, or maybe they weren't then, but maybe later they might have become terrorists, and as you know, it is better to be safe than sorry. So if some women and children are also killed, by mistake I presume, then, same reasoning: every woman in a 'strike zone' is a probable terrorist, yes women also kill, or the mother of later to be terrorist; and what about children? every terrorist was once an innocent child.

It is so easy to rationalise evil and the Americans are masters of this technique.

The other tactic employed here (see luciennight and mikey's posts) is to point the finger away from the smoking gun in their hands to a cold gun such as Nazi Germany.